What is replacing Shure UR?
- Thread starterFooter
- Start date
Axient is the flagship. Broadcast, A-level tour kind of product. Overkill for most applications.
ULX-D is the workhorse. Dante, high-density mode for complex RF environments, can get a quad RX in a 1U footprint. Sits at basically the same price point as UR. If you need a lot of channels, the antenna cascade also saves you a little rack space. If you do use these with Dante, some consoles allow you to monitor and control the wireless systems natively from your console.
QLX-D is one step below ULX-D. More cost-effective, no Dante but you can at least WWB it. No antenna cascade.
Below QLX-D, I try to avoid these products they serve their purpose when only a couple channels are needed and budgets are tight.
I spec'd a lot of ULX-D until QLX-D came out 5 or so years ago. Then it became hard to justify the ULX-D price tag unless Dante or the quad footprint were a necessity so most of what I do is QLX-D. The price difference between the two might become narrower for you if having Dante/AES67 would save you the cost of extra digital stage boxes.
ULX-D is the workhorse. Dante, high-density mode for complex RF environments, can get a quad RX in a 1U footprint. Sits at basically the same price point as UR. If you need a lot of channels, the antenna cascade also saves you a little rack space. If you do use these with Dante, some consoles allow you to monitor and control the wireless systems natively from your console.
QLX-D is one step below ULX-D. More cost-effective, no Dante but you can at least WWB it. No antenna cascade.
Below QLX-D, I try to avoid these products they serve their purpose when only a couple channels are needed and budgets are tight.
I spec'd a lot of ULX-D until QLX-D came out 5 or so years ago. Then it became hard to justify the ULX-D price tag unless Dante or the quad footprint were a necessity so most of what I do is QLX-D. The price difference between the two might become narrower for you if having Dante/AES67 would save you the cost of extra digital stage boxes.
Aaron Becker
Well-Known Member
I have to be honest on this one - while I stopped buying wireless for my personal rigs - I feel in love with Senny gear and stopped using Shure almost exclusively. It always seemed like they were a little behind the curve except for UR (and the super old U series) which were both workhorses.
But as Mike mentioned above, the Axient and ULX-D is probably the sidesteps in either direction I've seen most people go to. Even a lot of the shops I know that were running all UR finally stepped down and conceded to the ULX-D when they realized they didn't *need* the top of the line stuff.
But as Mike mentioned above, the Axient and ULX-D is probably the sidesteps in either direction I've seen most people go to. Even a lot of the shops I know that were running all UR finally stepped down and conceded to the ULX-D when they realized they didn't *need* the top of the line stuff.
Shure split up the product lines into digital and analog after the UR. Axient (analog) replaced the UR series.
Axient (digital) is the current flagship on the digital side. It is a different product that Axient (analog). ULX-D and QLX-D are "good enough" for most users.
QLX-D has the same audio performance as ULX-D but has less features (no Dante, no high density mode)
macsound
Well-Known Member
I had to stop buying Shure after dozens of QLX-Ds had various failures that usually ended up being software based. Thankfully we still still had stock of about 20 URs that were supposed to be retired. And then the transition to Sennheiser began.
Note that Shure recommends cascading no more than 2 ULX-D units together, I believe it is a passive-through so signal degradation occurs with each split. That said, with (x2) quad receivers cascaded, a single UA845 active splitter can feed up to 32 channels in 9 rack spaces(!)
https://www.shure.com/americas/support/find-an-answer/ulxd-antenna-cascade
