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, we?ll tackle the Sennheiser 2000 series and the Shure PSM9.
Sennheiser 2000
we discovered that the had not included a US IEC power cord.. After we tracked one down, we discovered they only gave us a 1/4 wave stubby antenna. UPDATE: Upon further investigation, I?ve learned that what we had was the rep?s 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?ll try to get brand new units, and I?m 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 I couldn?t 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, it?s clear this model was designed to survive the rigors of the road. It?s 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?s 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 ?PEAK? if you overload the front end, a nice touch. Also like the G3, the 2000 series is networkable.
The other side is exactly the same.
Keeping up the trend, the 2000 has combo XLR / 1/4? input 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?s 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?t 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 frequencies on the receiver, and tune the transmitter with a single button push. If the noise floor is just an anomaly of this unit, I would say it?s a solid system. However, looking at the pricing online coming in at close to $2,700 a channel, I couldn?t 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?s just not worth it. especially with since Shure introduced the PSM900?
Shure PSM900
I?ll admit to being a little biased about these. I heard them at InfoComm a few weeks ago, and was blown away. On second thought, maybe I?m not that biased. I?ve 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.
I like the dedicated input level controls and the informative display.
A little background on this unit (since I 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?s 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 we?re used to. With performance that high, you would expect to find other features such as dual-unit full rack width models and networking. And you?d 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. I would liken the transmitter to the ULX series of wireless mics; it?s not quite as solid as the UHF-R, but if you took care of them, you?d be OK on a tour. In an install, I wouldn?t worry at all.
Looking at the front panel, you?ll see dedicated input level controls, which I really like. The Enter/Exit/Menu controls will be familiar to anyone who?s used a UHF-R sereis mic, as will the sync section. It?s 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 (1/8?) 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. I?m not sure I 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 1/4? loop 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 significantly to it?s exceptional range (below).
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?d rather have an IEC cord, but I?m 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?t 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?s the same level as it was before.
Another feature (shared by the 2000 series, I should point out) is the ability to sync one receiver with multiple transmitters. If you?re a monitor engineer, you don?t need to strap a pack on for every artist you?re mixing for; just sync your receiver with all the transmitters and you can jump between their signals very quickly. It?s clear both the 900 and the Sennheiser 2000 were built for touring situations.
As for the sound quality, it?s simply amazing. If I closed my eyes and someone switched between a wired signal and the 900, it would be hard to tell 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. I walked out my front door, and headed down the street. I 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 power?I switched to 100 and it didn?t make a lot of difference. I 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?ve 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?t even in the same league. About the only thing you give up is dual transmitter models and networking. Since I?ll be installing this permanently, I can live without the networking. The range and sound quality is so much better than the competition in it?s price range, there?s really no contest.
Friday, I?ll 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 I?m still trying to figure out exactly what happened (and I will test and figure it out on Monday), it does in fact 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), I 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 I stand by my original conclusions. I 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 I didn?t really notice it is that I was always listening through earbuds (Westone UM1s to be exact) and that mode of listening minimizes phase errors. There is a difference, but it?s slight. Anyway, back to the article as written. END UPDATE
It?s the moment you?ve 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, we?ll listen to how they all sound.
Before we get to far into this, I want to say from the outset that this is an imperfect test. I used pre-recorded music (albeit some pretty great music, I Got the News from Steely Dan?s monumental album Aja?and if you don?t own it, go buy it now. We?ll wait.), and captured the output of the receivers through my Lexicon Omega audio interface. I went straight from the 1/8? jack to dual 1/4? inputs, without compensating for the impedance change. I know?I?m such a slacker. Still, there are some pretty clear differences. And when I compared the recordings to the receivers, the recordings are accurate enough to make a judgement. As I said, it?s 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 I 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?t around, you could pick any of them and you?d probably be fine. It?s only when you really get into comparing them next to each other that the differences start to emerge. I have a hard time picking a clear winner, though it?s a little easier to pick a loser (and even then, this one is not a terrible choice). The Sennheiser G3 just didn?t quite hold up as well against the others. Aside from the ever present noise (which wasn?t as bad as the 2000 series, remember), the high end wasn?t quite as crisp, and the overall sound field felt a bit more collapsed. The ATs (M2 & 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 sounded excellent overall, and it?s not until you compare to the PSM900 that you notice the highs aren?t quite as crisp. All the differences are subtle, though I think you?ll hear it in these two samples.
Sample 1 is a stair step of each system. I 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?s the order for this one:
Sennheiser 2000 -> Sennheiser G3 -> AT M2 -> AT M3 -> Shure PSM900 -> Original Track
For the next track, I mixed the order up a little. This time, I wanted to pit systems that would likely be compared against each other. They are grouped roughly the way I see them competing. So it?s 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, I threw the original track in the middle. So here?s what we have:
Audio MP3
2000 -> PSM900 -> Original Track -> M3 -> G3 -> M2
It?s 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 I think in a live setting, just about any of them would be sufficient.
So how do we determine a winner? Well, I think it comes down to what you value. If cost is the supreme determinant, than the M2 is certainly a solid pick. It?s the least expensive by a few hundred 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?s the most expensive by a lot. And there?s that hiss?
In the middle, it gets tougher. For me it?s 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?m 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?t enough to sway me.
So I guess that wraps it up. At the end of the day, I?m putting my money (OK, my churches money) where my mouth is. I just ordered a PSM900. Here are the complete tracks of each system if you want to hear longer samples.
