Hello-
I've got a dilemma. I'm presently using a Sennheiser G2 Wireless
system. I really like it. It's dependable and rugged.
However, my sound guy is trying to talk me into a Shure Beta 58
because the Senn accentuates the high end of my voice, where I actually
need more bottom end. It's sounding a bit thin I guess.

I've had a ULXsBeta 87A which I didn't care for (the tone and the
wireless performance).

Does Sennheiser make a wireless version of a mic that is comparable to
the Beta 58?

Can I use the Shure with the Sennheiser wireless receiver (I doubt it).

Also, the sound guy, whom I trust, also suggested a tube compressor to
warm up my voice as well. I know NOTHING about them. Are they
expensive? Would sound guys with house systems even know what to do
with them? Do you have recommendations?

Thanks
BW

barrywomb wrote:
I've got a dilemma. I'm presently using a Sennheiser G2 Wireless
system. I really like it. It's dependable and rugged.
However, my sound guy is trying to talk me into a Shure Beta 58
because the Senn accentuates the high end of my voice, where I actually
need more bottom end. It's sounding a bit thin I guess.

So, get a butt-plug transmitter for the G2 and plug a Beta 58 on it.
You get to keep the wireless system that you like, and he gets to
use the mike that he likes. You can mix and match.

I think the SKP 500 G2 is the butt plug that works with those receivers.

Does Sennheiser make a wireless version of a mic that is comparable to
the Beta 58?

If he likes the Beta 58, he may also like the Sennheiser e855 as well,
which is tonally similar (though it does have a little more top end
than the Beta 58) and a lot more directional so it has less of a feedback
issue.

Can I use the Shure with the Sennheiser wireless receiver (I doubt it).

Yes, but not with an all-in-one handheld. You'll have to get a butt-plug
or a pack to connect up to a conventional wired Shure mike. This will
cost more money than an all-in-one.

Also, the sound guy, whom I trust, also suggested a tube compressor to
warm up my voice as well. I know NOTHING about them. Are they
expensive? Would sound guys with house systems even know what to do
with them? Do you have recommendations?

I am very suspicious of anyone who suggests tube gear to "warm up" sound
or who make the very vague generalization that all tube gear basically
sounds the same. If you need compression, get a compressor. If your
voice doesn't sound right, find what is making it sound wrong and fix it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

WHOA! Are you saying that with that "Butt Plug" I can buy a standard
Beta 58 and use that plug AND the system I have? That'd be too good to
be true!

On the tube compressor, I don't know enough about them to really
comment, but I would think that Eq'ing the board with more lo end would
definitely help...

Scott Dorsey wrote:

If he likes the Beta 58, he may also like the Sennheiser e855 as well,
which is tonally similar (though it does have a little more top end
than the Beta 58) and a lot more directional so it has less of a feedback
issue.

How does the 845 compare? I hope it's better than the 835...

I notice you can get G2 handhelds with the 845 or with the 865
(condenser), but not with the 855 (yet.)

barrywomb wrote:
Are you saying that with that "Butt Plug" I can buy a standard
Beta 58 and use that plug AND the system I have?

Yes.



That'd be too good to be true!

About $425 for the TX only.

barrywomb wrote:
WHOA! Are you saying that with that "Butt Plug" I can buy a standard
Beta 58 and use that plug AND the system I have? That'd be too good to
be true!

Sure. That's what everybody did before the all-in-one gadgets. Do note
that the things are going to be more expensive than a mike with a built-in
wireless transmitter, and you're still going to have to add the cost of
a handheld mike.

BUT, with a system like this, you can use the same mike for wired and
wireless applications... and if suddenly you decide you want to use some
other totally different mike, you can plug the existing transmitter into
it and go. It's pretty much the most flexible configuration, and they
charge money for that flexibility but it's money well spent.

On the tube compressor, I don't know enough about them to really
comment, but I would think that Eq'ing the board with more lo end would
definitely help...

If the problem is that there isn't enough low end. Also realize that
the board EQ on most consoles is sort of crude. But without listening,
I can't say anything.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If he likes the Beta 58, he may also like the Sennheiser e855 as well,
which is tonally similar (though it does have a little more top end
than the Beta 58) and a lot more directional so it has less of a feedback
issue.

How does the 845 compare? I hope it's better than the 835...

The 845 was better than the 835, but then the SM-57 was too. The 855
was really good. I really liked the 855 a lot more than any of the
other stuff in the line.

I notice you can get G2 handhelds with the 845 or with the 865
(condenser), but not with the 855 (yet.)

You know, I didn't really like the e865. The top end just didn't sound
natural to me, but it also didn't sound exaggerated in an interesting way
either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I actually had a Sennheiser guy tell me that if "you like the Beta 58,
you might want to try the SKM165G2 wireless mic".

I've never heard of that one. Anybody know about that?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

If he likes the Beta 58, he may also like the Sennheiser e855 as well,
which is tonally similar (though it does have a little more top end
than the Beta 58) and a lot more directional so it has less of a feedback
issue.


Gosh, the polar plots on both of their web sites contradict your
directionality statement. On the Sennheiser site, the polar plot of the e855
shows that the mic is approaching omni in the top end. Not so for the
Beta58's polar plot on the Shure site.

Are these plots that far off? Am I reading wrong plots?

Mike

barrywomb wrote:
I actually had a Sennheiser guy tell me that if "you like the Beta 58,
you might want to try the SKM165G2 wireless mic".

I've never heard of that one. Anybody know about that?

That's an e865 microphone with an integral wireless transmitter for the
low-end 100-series e2 receivers.

Try the e865 and see if you like it. It's definitely got more top than
the Beta 58, and it's more airy-sounding, but may have more gain before
feedback.

The butt-plug transmitter for those receivers is the SKP100 G2.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Michael Putrino wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

If he likes the Beta 58, he may also like the Sennheiser e855 as well,
which is tonally similar (though it does have a little more top end
than the Beta 58) and a lot more directional so it has less of a feedback
issue.

Gosh, the polar plots on both of their web sites contradict your
directionality statement. On the Sennheiser site, the polar plot of the e855
shows that the mic is approaching omni in the top end. Not so for the
Beta58's polar plot on the Shure site.

No, they should show that it approaches an omni on the bottom end. Because
all cardioid mikes do. By 100 Hz, you'll find pretty much everything is
an omni except maybe an RE-20 and that'll be almost an omni. But at
10 Khz, both the e855 and the Beta 58 should be very tight.

Are these plots that far off? Am I reading wrong plots?

Probably you're reading the wrong traces, which is sadly very easy to do
with a lot of these plots.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Try the e865 and see if you like it. It's definitely got more top
than
the Beta 58, and it's more airy-sounding, but may have more gain before

feedback. "

Hmm, more top than the Beta 58, sounds like what I don't want. I'd
rather have a mic than the plug deal, but maybe I'll end up doing that.
instead.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Michael Putrino wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

If he likes the Beta 58, he may also like the Sennheiser e855 as well,
which is tonally similar (though it does have a little more top end
than the Beta 58) and a lot more directional so it has less of a
feedback
issue.

Gosh, the polar plots on both of their web sites contradict your
directionality statement. On the Sennheiser site, the polar plot of the
e855
shows that the mic is approaching omni in the top end. Not so for the
Beta58's polar plot on the Shure site.

No, they should show that it approaches an omni on the bottom end.
Because
all cardioid mikes do. By 100 Hz, you'll find pretty much everything is
an omni except maybe an RE-20 and that'll be almost an omni. But at
10 Khz, both the e855 and the Beta 58 should be very tight.

Are these plots that far off? Am I reading wrong plots?

Probably you're reading the wrong traces, which is sadly very easy to do
with a lot of these plots.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You're right Scott...I was looking at the Sennheiser low-end plot and
reading it as the high-end. But I still think that the Beta58 polar plot
looks better (or similar) than the e855. I don't see how feedback rejection
would be better with the e855.

Have a look.
e855: http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser...sf/root/04517#
Beta58: http://www.shure.com/pdf/specsheets/...cs/beta58a.pdf

Mike

Michael Putrino wrote:

You're right Scott...I was looking at the Sennheiser low-end plot and
reading it as the high-end. But I still think that the Beta58 polar plot
looks better (or similar) than the e855. I don't see how feedback rejection
would be better with the e855.

Have a look.
e855: http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser...sf/root/04517#
Beta58: http://www.shure.com/pdf/specsheets/...cs/beta58a.pdf

To be honest, I wouldn't really believe either of these plots, but I
would believe the e855 one before I believed the Beta58 one. But the
real problem is that all of these plots are made in one plane, at a
limited number of frequencies. If you could see a real 3-D plot of the
response, believe me they look pretty awful on even the best mikes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...



I think the SKP 500 G2 is the butt plug that works with those receivers.

He he . I work with the AKG wireless syystems. Their versionof your
'butt-plug' is called Snap On. Which is amusing because I get to see the
ones that have snapped OFF !

geoff

It's what I would have also suggested (wait! I just did!) It's a
condenser element and sounds more clean, clear, and dare I say "warm"
than most dynamic mics.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I am very suspicious of anyone who suggests tube gear to "warm up" sound
or who make the very vague generalization that all tube gear basically
sounds the same. If you need compression, get a compressor. If your
voice doesn't sound right, find what is making it sound wrong and fix it.

Soeck ASC EQ might be a ticket to that warm voc ride.

--
ha

what are your thoughts on the 865. That's the one the Sennheiser guy is
recommending. How does that compare to the 855?

hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I am very suspicious of anyone who suggests tube gear to "warm up" sound
or who make the very vague generalization that all tube gear basically
sounds the same. If you need compression, get a compressor. If your
voice doesn't sound right, find what is making it sound wrong and fix it.

Speck ASC EQ might be a ticket to that warm voc ride.

That is an awfully powerful tool. It's a wonderful box, but it's not a
thing you want to put in the hands of the typical club PA guy.....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article .com,
barrywomb wrote:
what are your thoughts on the 865. That's the one the Sennheiser guy is
recommending. How does that compare to the 855?

I have never liked it as much, but try them both on your voice with a
wired mike and see how you like them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I am very suspicious of anyone who suggests tube gear to "warm up" sound
or who make the very vague generalization that all tube gear basically
sounds the same. If you need compression, get a compressor. If your
voice doesn't sound right, find what is making it sound wrong and fix it.

Speck ASC EQ might be a ticket to that warm voc ride.

That is an awfully powerful tool. It's a wonderful box, but it's not a
thing you want to put in the hands of the typical club PA guy...

Understood. I've have two approaches. In the first the PA human is
competent. My mic signal goes to them and they can have access to kit I
bring to help. In the second it's the "typical club PA guy" and he gets
a line out from that kit. He can adjust level. I scare him into not
touching the board EQ. (I'm ugly.) The pre, comp and my own EQ are
upstream.

--
ha

Hank-
I applogize but can you give me a bit more info on that? Are you saying
that you use this piece of processing gear on the vocals? What does it
do? Is it just a top of the line EQ?
Is it for your own voice? If so, how did you adjust it to where you
wanted it? Did you have someone do it or did you do it?
Sorry, I'm really new at this end of things. Apologies to the group.

what are your thoughts on the 865. That's the one the Sennheiser guy
is
recommending. How does that compare to the 855?

For some reason, only part of my post came through. It was the e865 I
was talking about and I think it sounds pretty good. I was never a fan
of the 855.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

barrywomb wrote:

Hank-
I applogize

You needn't. g

but can you give me a bit more info on that?

Su http://www.speck.com/asc/asc_2.shtml

Are you saying that you use this piece of processing gear on the vocals?

Yes, and in other situations on almost anything else, too.

What does it do?

It does what I tell it to do. G

Is it just a top of the line EQ?

It is a very good 4-band parametric EQ that offers extraordinary value
for money. It's just flat-out good. Different people have different
opinions about what is "top of the line".

Is it for your own voice?

In the context of my reply, yes.

If so, how did you adjust it to where you wanted it?

I put on headphones and monitor my adjustments via a Mackie 1202. I set
the EQ how I want it according to what I hear. Since my voice doesn't
change much and I'm very used to how it sounds, I am basicly adjusting
for the mic and room interaction. This changes according to venue. And
mind you, I don't always need it. I alway avoid putting into a signal
chain anything I can leave out. Less is better.

Did you have someone do it or did you do it?

Well, as I said, if someone else is working the board and I know they're
competent I am happy to let them make adjustments. But in such cases I
often don't need to provide them any kit. The console and their own
outboard may suffice nicely. Other times someone competent is drivng
suboptimal gear and is happy to be handed a fine EQ. Still other times I
have no confidence in the person running the system and in those cases I
take my mic, stand, cable(s), preamp, compressor and/or EQ, Mackie 1202
and headphones and set things so that I know a nicely gain-staged and
adjusted line level signal is headed for them. And again, sometimes I'd
not need the compressor or EQ.

In some situations working as a sidehuman, especially when playing an
acoustic instrument (i.e., sans pickup) I take all that plus an amp and
some stage monitors. I get a working mon mix and send the house
something reliable, from my own point of view.

Scott's point is a very good one though. One can get into heaps of
trouble messing with a powerful parametric EQ if one hasn't the
experience to set it appropriately.

My own point was that if I am looking for "warmth" I won't necessarily
reach first for a compressor, which is liable to exacerbate any "cold"
in the signal I'm feeding it. I am more likely to try to remove some of
that chill with an EQ.

Sorry, I'm really new at this end of things. Apologies to the group.

Not necessary. Appreciate the thought, but you're not being rude. I've
gotten a lot of help in this forum, and I've been messing with this
audio-musical stuff for decades. There is always more to learn and there
are plenty of folks here who can help me learn. Everybody smart remains
a beginner is spirit. That's where the learning is. Go for it. g

--
ha

barrywomb wrote:

Hank-
I applogize but can you give me a bit more info on that?

BTW, the Speck MicPre 5.0 in conjunction with the Speck ASC EQ is a
really fine little basic signal chain.

http://www.speck.com/mp50/mp50.shtml

http://www.speck.com/asc/asc_2.shtml


Vocal technique and mic technique are the big prerequisites for good
vox. Many folks overlook that and start buying compressors to to try to
fix things that shouldn't be broken in the first place.

--
ha

Ah! Cool, that makes sense.
I'm also looking into a Focusright VoiceMaster Pro. Any opinions?
Again, I'm looking for something to warm up the vocals a bit also to
compress them.