InEarGear.Com Mike Volkerding 513-751
Contents
1. going on there in the AT labs but it possible their industrial designers haven actually seen a wireless IEM in the last few decades Youd also notice the AT antenna design it really straight and stiff while the others flop around In practice l n not sure if this is a big deal didn notice much discomfort wearing any of them However it could be an issue for some So now that we e discovered the AT packs are positively huge let get on with the review Audio Technica M2 The M2 is ATG value line You can buy them for about 599 online which in the grand scheme of things isn too bad It about the same as a Shure PSM200 As we e established the pack is big It also made of plastic and doesn feel very solid or durable didn drop it on the floor but wasn anxious to do it either The transmitter comes with a front mounted fixed antenna For the price guess a BNC remote mounted one is out of the question On the face of the transmitter is a simple 6 LED meter 3 for left 3 for right eudiotechnica It s all about value engineering The meters are cleverly labeled 1 2 Peak In practice 1 csignal present o 2 q ood signal 03 doo much signal ONote to AT numbers that actually mean something are more helpful than those that don On the left side is a Power LED and Power Switch just to the right individual L 1 R 2 gain knobs The M2 can be put into a dual mono mode which can give the musician a simple More2. the ATs which hadn considered until this shootout Back in January if you had asked me which IEM was going to buy this summer would have said the G3 How does it stack up let take a look UW SENNHEISER STEREO RANGATIRA ie A very useable and informative display The front of the G3 transmitter is dominated by it display It packed with information and is easily seen under most lighting conditions One great feature is that the display background turns red when you hit it with too much signal nice touch They have included a simple built in EQ for some minor tone shaping and you can operate the unit in diversity mode That a bit of a gimmick however The headphones cable becomes the second antenna and for true diversity operation the two antennas need to be apart by a few feet at least guess this may save you from an antenna that snaps off on the pack but that about it C 0682 0 JP OUT 2 R f N rratu ax ETHENRET R48 e s Standard fare except for the network jack Out back we once again have XLR 1 4ncombo jacks for input and 1 4njacks for loop through The input level is adjustable through the menu Sennheiser provides a 1 4 wave stubby antenna which could be replace with a remote paddle or antenna combiner One thing significant at this price point is the inclusion of a network jack Plug this into your network and you have full access for set up and monitoring through Sennheis
3. Also like the G3 the 2000 series is networkable iral sannuns ssan The other side is exactly the same Keeping up the trend the 2000 has combo XLR 1 4njnput jacks and balanced loop outs The BNC antenna connections make it easy to use combiners or external paddles This is the only unit that is powered by a standard IEC power cord and the power supply is the only thing shared by the two transmitters Each transmitter in a dual model has it amp own Ethernet jack which could be good or a pain depending on your point of view Look familiar It s just like the G3 The bodypack is pretty much the same as the G3 at least outwardly The menu system is exactly the same as is the very useful and informative display Like the G3 the pack feels sturdy and solid certainly road ready The sound quality of the 2000 was excellent aside from the annoying hiss Range was significantly less than the G3 on par with the ATs Audio quality was higher than almost any other in this shootout with excellent stereo imaging clear crisp highs and solid lows It could play very loud and still sound good if it weren for that blasted hiss For me as well as others in attendance at the CTDRT the noise floor was a deal breaker The system does offer some great features switchable transmit power of 10 30 50 and 100 mW a wide 75 KHz tuning range a built in 5 band EQ and a simple IR channel sync feature making it easy to scan for open fr
4. InEarGear Com Mike Volkerding 513 751 0970 Wireless IEM Shootout Pt 1 Jul 5th 2010 by Mike Last week at the SoCal CTDRT meeting we had the opportunity to try out several IEMs The goal was to have products from Shure Sennheiser AT and AKG there ATG shipping department messed up and didn get us product until the day after the event And AKG well weGe not sure what happened to them Ive yet to see anything Listening to the units was instructive but felt it was time to do a little more thorough review So that what weGe going to do here As said AT finally got some product to me in the form of their relatively new M2 and M3 Wed hold off on the PSM900 and Sennheiser 2000 series until next time but wed include the G3 in this round As for AKG well they fcoulda been a contendah Ol think what I do here is put up the objective data pictures and audio for each unit then wrap up with some observations and conclusions Three postsi l e got another week covered Because forgot to take pictures of each individual receiver before packing them all up let start off with a comparison of each Two of these things are not like the others Right off the bat you can see a few subtle differences here And no Apple has not released an iPhone based IEM though that would be cool The M2 upper left and M3 lower right are significantly bigger than the Shure or Sennheiser products As in 1980Njbigger I n not sure what was
5. Meomix hence the 1 amp 2 designations used it in stereo On the right side are the aforementioned fixed antenna and group and channel selectors You can choose from 100 different channels and AT says you can use up to 10 systems at once Not too shabby really x DE ve More than you d expect back here The back is surprisingly professional for a value product XLR 1 4njombo inputs with 3 position attenuation switches get signal into the unit XLR loop through jacks get it back out The unit is powered by a wall wart but it amp small enough to fit into most rack power strips without blocking more than one outlet Kudos for that design AT Eik f E Apa Aas Peete t tee SOO p Piero Finally a wall wart that doesn t gobble up 2 outlets The receiver has just 2 LEDs on it for RF and Audio A dual concentric knob adjusts volume and panning The pack is not particularly heavy being made entirely of plastic Besides the size which is huge have mentioned that the battery compartment is very awkward had to really struggle to get batteries out nearly breaking a nail in the process As sound guys we know how important good looking nails are so this is unacceptable Physical design aside how does it work Surprisingly well had low expectations of this unit and was glad to say was wrong The overall sound quality is excellent Stereo separation was good there was a fair amount of detail in the sound perhap
6. act seem that the polarity of the original audio samples posted here were not correct After verifying each of the samples with a Goniometer a meter that measures stereo phase and sound field have re rendered the files The end result is that each of the IEMs fare better than previously and the Senn 2000 and PSM are nearly identical to the original sample and my original findings still stand The quality of all was raised equally and stand by my original conclusions have replaced all the samples so you can hear them in the best light possible Thanks to those who pointed this out BTW the reason didn really notice it is that was always listening through earbuds Westone UM s to be exact and that mode of listening minimizes phase errors There is a difference but it slight Anyway back to the article as written END UPDATE It the moment you e all been waiting for The results show In Part 1 we compared the features of the Sennheiser G3 along with the Audio Technica M2 and M3 In Part 2 we looked at the Sennheiser 2000 series and the Shure PSM900 Today wed listen to how they all sound Before we get to far into this want to say from the outset that this is an imperfect test used pre recorded music albeit some pretty great music Got the News from Steely Dan monumental album Aja and if you don own it go buy it now Wed wait and captured the output of the receivers through my Lexicon Omega audio in
7. equencies on the receiver and tune the transmitter with a single button push If the noise floor is just an anomaly of this unit would say it a solid system However looking at the pricing online coming in at close to 2 700 a channel couldn justify it Even if you could get them for significantly less which you surely could if you tried just a little for my money it just not worth it especially with since Shure introduced the PSM900 Shure PSM900 Id admit to being a little biased about these heard them at InfoComm a few weeks ago and was blown away On second thought maybe l n not that biased I e complained long and loud about the poor performance of the PSM600 and PSM700 and said on many occasions that Shure had ceded the wireless IEM market to Sennheiser and others a long time ago The introduction of the 900 changes everything however like the dedicated input level controls and the informative display A little background on this unit since Know it From an audio and RF standpoint they pulled out all the stops They used the same Audio Reference companding as in the UHF R series wireless mics They also played some cool tricks with the RF it almost impossible to overload the receiver even touching the antennas together and when the RF signal drops off it simply mutes the audio none of that crazy ppphhhhzzzzztttt sounds that weGe used to With performance that high you would expect to find other feat
8. erG free software ThatG a great feature that more companies need to adopt It 2010 folks It a networked world 7 SENNHEISER AIT 9 9 Vi o Switching Power Sur Sure it s universal universally annoying One of the things can stand about the entire G2 and G3 series line is the NT 2 3 power supply Sure you can swap out the plug in part for US European and other world plugs and it auto ranging It also eats up at least 2 if not 3 plugs on any power strip or Furman making powering a rack of G series wireless a real nightmare Lots of information in a small package The display on the bodypack is almost as complete as on the transmitter You can name it view frequency RF and audio level mute status and of course battery life The menu system also auto locks so musicians cand inadvertently re set their channel or group or break anything else As we saw from the first picture the pack is considerably smaller than the ATs In fact if you e used any of the Evolution G series wireless products over the years the pack will look and feel very familiar It made of sturdy metal and has a reassuring heft to it Batteries are easy to get in and out and all controls operate with German precision The G3 300 system receiver transmitter rack mount kit and ear buds retails online for around 1000 didn get to test the included ear buds so can comment on them did plug two different sets of phones into t
9. he pack for listening tests The first thing you notice about the G3 even before putting signal to itis the rather high noise floor There is a constant white noise hiss at any volume setting With program material it not quite as noticeable but you have this constant sense of noise even if it subconscious The sound quality is good better than our old PSM600 though perhaps not quite as detailed and spacious as the M3 The overall sound quality feels somewhat compressed and small it not terrible but having heard other options was less excited about it Range was nearly double than of the ATs and better than what I expect from a 1 4 wave stubby If you want real performance out of any wireless system however you really need to invest in paddle or other external antenna systems By the way should point out that when talking about RF systems the plural of antenna is antennas Antennae are found on various bugs A lot of people seem to confuse that Rant over We di call this a wrap for now Wednesday wedi look at the Sennheiser 2000 and Shure PSM900 Friday Id post audio samples recorded from the beltpacks and summarize my conclusions Wireless IEM Shootout Pt 2 Jul 6th 2010 by Mike Last time we looked at the Audio Technical M2 and M3 as well as the Sennheiser G3 300 IEMs This time around wed tackle the Sennheiser 2000 series and the Shure PSM9 Sennheiser 2000 we discovered that the had not included a US IEC p
10. io and RF sections This is clearly a product aimed at the professional level user Same as the M2 except for the antenna Whereas the M2 has a single level limiter the M3Njis selectable in 3 steps M3 users can select from over 1 300 channels and 16 units can be used at once A somewhat more useful display The display shows frequency and battery level and using the front buttons the user can select options such as mix mode Personal Mix Stereo or Mono limiter settings and other features Like the M2 a dual concentric knob controls volume and panning The M3 receiver also has an auxiliary 1 8njnput on the side of the receiver for an ambient mic or click track don know if this is the best spot for it a right angle plug would be pretty much necessary otherwise it would likely be sheared off Again the receiver is all plastic and shares the same poor battery compartment design as the M2 It also sounds really good In fact in practice really didn notice much difference in sound quality between the two which is either good for the M2 or bad for the M3 Either way they were both perfectly acceptable from a sound quality standpoint The M3 can be had online for about 799 Personally I say it worth the extra 200 Sennheiser G3 300 was really interested in the G3 because I e heard good things about it and until Shure released the PSM900 in March there was really no competition in this price point aside from
11. l the difference It has every bit as much clarity and stereo separation as the 2000 series albiet with a tad less low end without the annoying noise floor The range of the unit simply blew everything else away walked out my front door and headed down the street hit the dead end a good 800 feet from my dining room and still had signal it was just starting to break up Interestingly that was at 50 mW transmit poweri switched to 100 and it didn make a lot of difference should note that the PSM900 is switchable between 10 50 and 100 mW of transmit power Online pricing puts the PSM900 at around 1100 I e gotten better pricing by shopping around a bit So for less than half the cost of a 2000 series you have all the sound quality none of the noise and range that isn even in the same league About the only thing you give up is dual transmitter models and networking Since Id be installing this permanently can live without the networking The range and sound quality is so much better than the competition in it price range thereG really no contest Friday I post some audio samples recorded from the headphone jacks of the receivers Wireless IEM Shootout Pt 3 Jul 9th 2010 by Mike UPDATE 7 10 2010 It was pointed out on Twitter that there were some channel polarity issues with the audio samples Though Iam still trying to figure out exactly what happened and will test and figure it out on Monday it does in f
12. ntly to it exceptional range below AC ADAPTER Ps ws tt it At least it doesn t take up more than one plug Power is supplied either by the inline wart or an active antenna distro I rather have an IEC cord but l n sure they remote mounted the power supply to save space and this is better than a plug mounted wart The receiver is built like a tank The P9R receiver feels very solid in the hands and will surely survive several falls to the floor You get audio and RF level metering battery status and limiting indications as well as frequency The limiter is really a maximum volume control set it to 4 and you can turn the volume knob past 4 but it won get any louder This is a good feature to help prevent TTS Temporary Threshold Shift a phenomenon that happens when you play for a while and you have to keep turning it up to feel like it the same level as it was before Another feature shared by the 2000 series should point out is the ability to sync one receiver with multiple transmitters If you e a monitor engineer you don need to strap a pack on for every artist you e mixing for just sync your receiver with all the transmitters and you can jump between their signals very quickly It clear both the 900 and the Sennheiser 2000 were built for touring situations As for the sound quality it simply amazing If closed my eyes and someone switched between a wired signal and the 900 it would be hard to tel
13. ower cord After we tracked one down we discovered they only gave us a 1 4 wave stubby antenna UPDATE Upon further investigation e learned that what we had was the repG personal demo unit and was dropped off for our use at the CTDRT Meeting not shipped So in that case the packing is understandable The next time we do this I try to get brand new units and l n happy to re test another 2000 if Sennheiser would like to provide one End Update When we fired it up the first thing we noticed was an extremely high noise floor Without any signal there was significant white noise at any volume setting Even with signal it was still present and annoying Kevin Sanchez who has several units said this is not normal but couldn find a solution even in my testing afterward The display is nice The 2000 series are all full rack width and come in single and dual transmitter models The dual shown here is completely redundant Built like a tank ite clear this model was designed to survive the rigors of the road It really two complete transmitters with full controls and connectivity in a single box Everything is done through a menu which is a little slower than a few dedicated controls but it pretty intuitive and easy to get around The audio meters show very fine resolution and make it easy to set the right input gain Like the G3 the entire display turns red and reads fPEAKOif you overload the front end a nice touch
14. red dollars and sounds quite good The trade off is a huge plastic pack with a bad battery compartment design and very limited frequency selection plus a fixed antenna On the other end of the spectrum if you demand road ready rack mountable gear with full networking capability remote antennas and a ton of extra features the Sennheiser 2000 is your only pick The trade off there is cost It the most expensive by a lot And thereG that hiss In the middle it gets tougher For me it hard to chose the M3 over the G3 or PSM900 mainly because of the beltpack They sound great but trying to dig those batteries out each week would drive me mad and I n not sure how well the pack would hold up Plus my worship leader would not appreciate the size So if the M3 is out that leaves the G3 and the PSM900 For me this choice is easy the 900 wins The overall sound quality is better the range is superior out of the box and the noise floor is almost non existent The G3 does offer networking but that feature alone isn enough to sway me So guess that wraps it up At the end of the day l n putting my money OK my churches money where my mouth is just ordered a PSM900 Here are the complete tracks of each system if you want to hear longer samples
15. s a bit bright but not annoyingly so Overall it was very listenable As for range that was a bit of a letdown wasn surprised given the stubby 1 4 wave antenna To test range walked out my front door all tests were done at home in my dining room and walked down the street barely got 100 feet before the sound started breaking up Since the pack was on my back facing the transmitter turned around it dropped out almost completely So if you have a big room don put these at FOH while the musicians wear them on their back pocket Put them upstage and youd be fine Audio Technica M3 The M3 is the M2Njbig brother They obviously share similar components a 1 2 rack transmitter with included rack mount hardware on both models similar receiver and the both come with the same cheap ear buds they e rubbish buy some real ears Whereas the M2 has a front mounted 1 4 antenna the M3 uses a rear BNC mounted 1 4 wave This means the M3 can be fed from a larger paddle antenna or through an antenna combiner AT recently released one though another manufacturer amp would work as well as long as the frequencies match The M3 has a much more useful display As you can see the M3 has a much more useable display The multi segment level meter provides more than enough resolution for good level setting A front headphone jack is included for listening to the input There are far more extensive menu controls for adjusting the aud
16. sounded excellent overall and it not until you compare to the PSM900 that you notice the highs aren quite as crisp All the differences are subtle though think youd hear it in these two samples Sample 1 is a stair step of each system lined up the tracks in Reaper then ran each system for approximately 10 seconds You should be able to hear the change at each 9 or 10 second mark Here the order for this one Sennheiser 2000 gt Sennheiser G3 gt AT M2 gt AT M3 gt Shure PSM900 gt Original Track For the next track mixed the order up a little This time wanted to pit systems that would likely be compared against each other They are grouped roughly the way see them competing So it 2000 vs PSM900 and M3 vs G3 with the M2 thrown in at the end because in all honesty it sounds 99 as good as the M3 To make the contrast more noticeable threw the original track in the middle So here what we have Audio MP3 2000 gt PSM900 gt Original Track gt M3 gt G3 gt M2 It pretty clear when you jump to the original track that each of the IEMs is really only giving us about 80 of the full audio spectrum However they are all pretty useable And think in a live setting just about any of them would be sufficient So how do we determine a winner Well think it comes down to what you value If cost is the supreme determinant than the M2 is certainly a solid pick It the least expensive by a few hund
17. terface went straight from the 1 8njack to dual 1 4nj inputs without compensating for the impedance change know l n such a slacker Still there are some pretty clear differences And when compared the recordings to the receivers the recordings are accurate enough to make a judgement As said it not perfect but it gives you an idea of the sound quality of each unit without actually having to arrange to demo all five of them Note that there is no EQ or other processing done on any of the tracks All did in Reaper was line up the tracks and adjust the volume so each track was with in a few tenths of a dB With that said The thing that surprised me is how good they all sound In fact if the others weren around you could pick any of them and you probably be fine It only when you really get into comparing them next to each other that the differences start to emerge have a hard time picking a clear winner though itG a little easier to pick a loser and even then this one is not a terrible choice The Sennheiser G3 just didn quite hold up as well against the others Aside from the ever present noise which wasn as bad as the 2000 series remember the high end wasn quite as crisp and the overall sound field felt a bit more collapsed The ATs M2 amp M3 sounded surprisingly good especially in the mid to upper range They did lack a bit in bass response though the stereo field was quite good The Sennheiser 2000
18. ures such as dual unit full rack width models and networking And you be disappointed The 900 is designed to compete directly with the G3 though performance is on par or even surpasses the 2000 series To make that price point extra features were eliminated Thankfully they kept the good stuff would liken the transmitter to the ULX series of wireless mics it not quite as solid as the UHF R but if you took care of them you be OK on a tour In an install wouldn worry at all Looking at the front panel youd see dedicated input level controls which really like The Enter Exit Menu controls will be familiar to anyone who used a UHF R sereis mic as will the sync section It easy to use the receiver to scan for a clear frequency then sync the transmitter appropriately and the sync was crazy fast much faster than a UHF R There is also a headphone jack 1 8nj with volume knob and an interesting switch that allows you to turn the RF section off killing the output of the transmitter without powering down Id not sure can come up with a need for this but surely someone has thought of one Same as the others Out back we find the usual suspects combo input jacks balanced 1 4njoop outs a BNC antenna input and a power input Note the antenna on this one had a very loose hinge we needed to shore it up with gaff to keep it upright However notice that it is a loaded 1 2 wave version something that contributed significa
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search