Wireless Sennheiser v Shure

LBCSeattle

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Location
Seattle area
I am helping my dad choose some basic wireless gear for his church. He has received a proposal for a Shure ULX-based system. I have more experience with the Sennheiser 100 G3 series which has always performed quite well for me and have some features I really like (frequency sync, metal housings, easily selectable output and gain settings, etc.). Any thoughts on overall comparative quality, durability, etc?

They are on a limited budget (not a mega-church), so please don't tell me they need the more expensive systems.

Second, any recommendations for companies in Western Massachusetts for them to work with getting quotes and help with installation? I'm in Seattle so I can only really do the research for them. Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RetiredBum

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
I do community theater with several groups that use either the ULX's or 100 G2's. (I personally have two 500 G3's.)

I don't think you'd go wrong with either, but I'd suggest your dad get the 100 G3's. The ULX transmitters use a 9V battery, whereas the 100 G3 uses two AA's. This gives you many more options for recharging, which can save a lot of money over time.

Best regards,

--Alan
 

fx120

Active Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Location
Portland
I am helping my dad choose some basic wireless gear for his church. He has received a proposal for a Shure ULX-based system. I have more experience with the Sennheiser 100 G3 series which has always performed quite well for me and have some features I really like (frequency sync, metal housings, easily selectable output and gain settings, etc.). Any thoughts on overall comparative quality, durability, etc?

They are on a limited budget (not a mega-church), so please don't tell me they need the more expensive systems.

Second, any recommendations for companies in Western Massachusetts for them to work with getting quotes and help with installation? I'm in Seattle so I can only really do the research for them. Thanks!
ULX is outdated and the only real winning feature they have over a comparable Sennheiser system is direct compatibility with Shure capsules on the HH, and a better connector on the bodypack.

If they're considering ULX, go with EW300G3, or EW100 if they'd like to save some mulah.
 

NickVon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Location
07003
I've used the SLX, and seen others use the ULX, but I perfer the overall Sennhieser EW100/300/500 experience over both. Right down to build quality, menu navigation, setup, and feature set. I think that the Sennheiser for the money will future proof you more as has been indicated earlier.

To tag on to RetiredBum. If you are not looking for recharging, AA, are still significantly cheaper. And from what i've seen 9v setups don't have as long battery run time as similarly priced AA systems.
 

tk2k

Active Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Location
Appleton, WI
I'm not a fan of Shure wireless until you get into the UR4 series (big bucks). Everything else I go with Sennheiser.
I have found sennheiser gear is extremely susceptible to rf interference from external source. Run a few atomic 3k strobes next to them and the whole 600 range goes fully static. Just my experiences though. I'll agree the uhfr is way ahead of anything else on the market for the high end though, and it does sound better than any of the lower end gear
 

avkid

Not a New User
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Location
Lakewood, NJ
Why do you have strobes anywhere near the wireless mics to begin with?
 

chausman

Chase
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Location
Spokane, WA
I'll put a vote for Sennheiser. I much prefer the bodypacks of the Sennheisers over the plastic Shures. Especially for a church. And, I don't think that Atomic strobes are going to be an issue, again, in a church.
 

Tex

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Location
DFW
The Shure UR1 transmitter body is made from magnesium.
I've always been a Senny fan too, but I'm getting 14 UR's in the new theatre and I've been doing some reading. These things look sweet!
 

BobHealey

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Location
Troy, NY
If you're going to be buying new wireless, try to have it land in the channels that are reserved for wireless mic use. The fun wild card of TV Band devices could make life interesting over next few years. Three of the venues I volunteer at are saving up for ULX-D due to its advertised number of recievers/6 MHz to try to cram it all into the safe zones.
 

dumaisaudio

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Location
Richmond, VA
Our company has over 50 channels of Sennheiser (G2, G3, 100's, 300's) and some Shure SLX and ULX. Overall, I'd choose Sennheiser. The SLX drive me crazy because the attenuation is a three way switch, so it's hard to dial in a specific level. The ULX has a nice knob for selecting gain, but they use 9V's which really don't get nearly the battery life of AA's. The SLX's do allow you to set the frequency manually on the receiver and then us the IR sync to get it the pack on that freq. I'm not sure if the ULX have that feature, as I didn't see it as I just browsed through the manual. With the Sennheiser's, none of those things are an issue. Select any frequency you like, or stick with the banks. Not sure about the G3 100 Series, but the G3 300's allow you to select gain on the pack in 3 dB increments (the G2 stuff is in 10 dB, so I'm not sure if the G3 100's are in 3 or 10 dB increments). The only gripe I have with the Sennheiser's is that the 1/8" locking connectors are crappy. I've got tons of B3's and 9 times out of 10, when they go it's the connector that failed. It's a PITA. The T4A connectors on the Shure's seem to hold up much better. Overall though, go with Sennheiser.
 

tk2k

Active Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Location
Appleton, WI
Remember ulx-d has 2.9ms of delay just on the mic processing vs the almos zero of normal fm wireless. If you are using IEMs that's an unacceptable delay
 

Chris15

CBMod
CB Mods
Premium Member
Departed Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Location
Sydney, Australia
Remember ulx-d has 2.9ms of delay just on the mic processing vs the almos zero of normal fm wireless. If you are using IEMs that's an unacceptable delay
You can't make a blanket statement like that.
The latency budget in IEM is 6ms, so sure, ULX-D takes up more than its fair share of that, but depending on a variety of factors, you actually could quite easily get away with it...
 

Chris Chapman

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Location
Greenville, Michigan, United States
With the whitespace imposed change over, I went from being a Shure fan to an Sennheiser fan. I'm currently running 12 G3 100's and they are great. I was running Shure UC before the changeout with one ULX. We still have the ULX inline as a backup mic. I prefer the cases on the Sennheisers for durability, and running as a High School/Community venue, that durability is a plus. Another plus (already mentioned) is the switch from 9volt to AA batteries. My battery costs went way way way down this year, and I was pleasantly surprised about the lifetime I could get out of a set (8 hours approximate) without having to change out. This was great for rehearsal purposes. (New cells for shows 100% of the time.)
 

TimmyP1955

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
Indianapolis
The latency caused by the distance from a wedge to a singer's ears is around 5ms to 7ms (or more), depending on where the person stands. As such, a person on a digital mic and digital IEMs would have the same latency as a person on a wired or FM mic and a wedge.
 

Users who are viewing this thread