Talk:Shure

History and stuff

Added some info on the SM7 microphone JayroRockola 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Beefed up the article drastically in order to concisely explain that Shure is not just a purveyor of Microphones and Phono Cartridges, but also professional, high-end sound. Also, the company is named after an audiophile named Sidney Shure, who is succeeded by Rose Shure.

--Added information to the earphone section; inserted notes on the E1c, proper use, history, and sound quality rivalry with other companies.

Battle of the Sleeves

This post applies only to the sleeves that can be used for the E3, E4, and E5.

• Very soft flex sleeves (Grey): Moderate sound isolation/dampening, very powerful sound detail, excellent comfort
• Clear Soft Sleeves: Questionable Sound Detail, best sound isolation/dampening, somewhat uncomfortable to use
• Triple-Flange Sleeves: Most comfortable, not-so-good sound isolation/dampening, somewhat good sound detail
• Foam Sleeves: Beginner-friendly, high learning curve, good sound detail, very powerful sound isolation/dampening

— Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

E500 Clarification

Just now, I realized that some anon edited the article sticking to what Shure claimed on their Consumer Headphone page. I should point out that I had a discussion regarding about the diffrence between the E5 and E500 via E-Mail and here's a comment regarding about the diffrence between the E5 and E500:

The difference between the E5 and the new E500 is that the E5 is a dual driver, where as the E500 is a triple driver. This means, where the E5 has one driver for highs and one for lows, the E500 has one for highs, one for lows and one for mids.

Now here's ANOTHER discussion that you might be interested to hear that I brought up directly to Shure:

The E5 and E500 each have a unique sound. The E500 is warmer then the E5, it seems to have more presence in the midrange. The E5 seems to have a little more detail in the high end. Both earphones do a great job of accurately reproducing sound and it would be very difficult to say one sounds better then the other.

When determining which earphone is right for you it really depends on the application. If you are looking for a pair of in-ear monitors for performance or exercising then the E5 is your solution because it's built very well and very durable and will stay in your ear during physical activity. If you're looking for a pair of earphones to listen to good audio recordings when your traveling, at work or around your home then the E500 is your solution.

For technical differences click on this link:

Title: E500PTH vs. E5c

URL: https://personalaudio.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/personalaudio.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=3372&p_created=1147122529

Hope this alleviates the reasons why the Shure E500 actually has a tweeter armature, and two dedicated woofer armatures for diffrent note ranges (one woofer for mid-range notes, and one woofer for deep low notes). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

The claim is made that this is the standard microphone worldwide for live vocals, but I don't see that this is true (at least there are others, like the AKG Acoustics C1000S, that can hold claim to that title). Could we get a citation on this fact's source? Arkaaito 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The SM58 is the most common stage mic in the world by leaps and bounds... It is a basic, quality mic for a low price... Look at the sales. The SM58 is litteraly everywhere. It's also, however, one of the worst...

It has a very poor high frequency reproduction, and lousy sibilance, and to keep the feedback at bay, you need to cut damn near every frequency north of 12kHz, as well as 1 and 4 kHz. But it's also bullet proof, and it can be dropped and kicked around a million times and it never dies. It's popular cause most sound people and musicians don't know a damn thing (or want a mic that no one can break)

The C-1000, on the other hand, is a good quality mic with a good sound. It's not all that special, but it's good (I use these regularly). The BEST vocal mics (which you see major acts using in important concerts) would be Electro Voice (I use 767s, Co7s, and Co9s), Sennhieser, Audix, Audio Technica (I use some of theirs), Beyerdynamic, AKG(I use D-880s sometimes, but they lack some highs), Neumann, Sony, etc. The N/D 767s I've used before, and been able to set the EQ gain (Ashly 15 band) to +12 dB without feeding back. The same system, later, with (and set for) shure mics, fed back at +3 dB.

So I digress, industry standard is not the same as best. Shures ARE the industry standard, I'll give you that.ReignMan (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For a guy who just edited the article to rid it of POV, your Talk entry here is surprisingly full of your viewpoint.

It's my viewpoint (and experience) that feedback depends heavily on venue acoustics and monitor wedge characteristics as well as microphone characteristics such as pickup pattern and frequency response. Your experience with "shure mics" (what model?) isn't typical of what I've seen in my travels. There have been some paint-peeling monitor levels achieved with a Shure as the focus. Just like there've been similar successes with Audix OM-series etc. etc. The live sound mix engineer's style has to flex to highlight the strengths of the mic and the monitors.

You are saying this or that mic has good sound but for what purpose will the mic be used? I see each model of microphone as a spice to add to the stew. Each one has its own sound. Many times in a mix I might not want the high frequency extension of a condensor mic such as the C 1000. I might only want that on sources whose high frequency characteristics are going to be useful in my mix. And the C 1000 picks up too much of the stage around it to be very useful on loud stages.

I see rabid anti-Shure rants as sour grapes. The mics are what they are... You can use an Audix or Shure for two different results just like you can use black pepper or chili pepper in making your soup. Why shut your world off to one of the available spices? Use them both to create a mix that works.

For a surprisingly good mic for male rock vocals, try the Shure Beta57, an instrument mic.  ;^) Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just making sure the article has no POV statements. The talk area is the place to state your point of view. And, yes, Shure's have bad anti-feedback properties. I've used them over every monitor and in any venue you can think of, from JBL, to EV, to Mackie, to Community, to Dynacord, from $400 to $8,000 wedges, powered, and unpowered.

The mics I've used were mostly the Beta 58s, Beta 87s, SM58s, SM91s, and Beta 57s, but I like the SM57 the best of the whole group. It helps to point out that I'm an autistic savant, and my hearing is incredibly sensitive, I can hear the missing highs in the Shure mics, (as well as the AKG D-880s). This is the reason I dislike using them. The EV's +/-3 dB range is from 40 Hz to 22 kHz, the Shure Beta 58 is from 50 Hz to 15 kHz or so. The EV Co7 is a suprisingly good mic, and it costs only about $60. I like that personally, but it cannot be handled without alot of noise and it's not very durable. If I had to choose a mic to hold, I'd choose a Beta 58. The C-1000 isn't all that good of a mic, actually. I said I used them, but I didn't say it was by choice.ReignMan (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The SM58 has been out long enough for there to be a bunch of online mentions of its being considered "the industry standard" live vocal mic. None of these links qualify as strong enough for a good Wikipedia source, though. Here's what I found (helps if you search the page for the word "standard":

online sales site

another sales site

yet another online sales site

still another online sales site

Oops, this one is SM57, not SM58

What you get when you google "industry standard" and AKG C1000S is that people use it quite a lot for drum overheads and acoustic guitar. Live vocals? Not common at all. Definitely no comparison to the SM58 in terms of universal recognition as a standard vocal mic.

Don't mistake the phrase "industry standard" for "the best"... Binksternet 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

April 2011 Expansion

I expanded the company history to make it well, more historical, and to better include pertinent product categories and key people. Included references. Added awards (thanks for the help, Binksternet!) too. This article is not done, though. The product paragraphs and listing are still a mess. synthfiend (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're doing great work, 'fiend. Something that this article has paid scant attention to is Shure's domination of the small field recording mixer category. Another ignored category is digital signal processors (DSP) such as the the DFR series of automatic feedback reducers, and the P4800 drag-and-drop flexible processor with four inputs and eight outputs. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bink! Next I was going to go through the "Product" paragraphs, revising/expanding/cleaning up each as needed to note significant high points. I'll make sure these are included; hopefully I'm able to find good sources to cite without too much searching. As for the product list, I'm really not sure what to do with it. Someone obviously spent a lot of time putting it together, but it's something of a mess. synthfiend (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the product list is a mess, and does not help fill out the Shure story. Prose would be best for that. Also, the awards that Shure has won should be delivered in prose form, not a list. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that TEC Awards should stay in list form? synthfiend (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm not married to that format. I don't think the nominations are worth more detail in prose, but the winners are. What could be changed in the article is that an awards paragraph or two are written in prose, followed by a list. The list could have lesser awards not discussed in prose and it could include nominations not resulting in a win. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've taken this about as far as I can for now. There are a few places that I'd love to see a better reference used. It'd also be great if anyone could contribute a few more images. I did not include any information about Shure's work during the FCC white spaces issue (I had difficulty finding 3rd party references). All in all, I do feel that the article is much improved from what it was before, and that it gives a more well-rounded and complete view of the company's history and what the company represents today. I welcome further contributions to the article. synthfiend (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I've added Shure's move to Evanston, IL, in 1956. This I know, 'cause my dad built test equipment for Shure from 1956 to 1962. The move is also cited @the Shure website. BubbleDine (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

list of articles about Shure products

How about a list of articles about Shure products in the article? The only ones I know of are Shure SM57, Shure SM58, and Shure Beta 58A, but there may be more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too much in favor of a list here on this basic company page. How about we split all the lists off to a product page, called something like List of Shure products or whatever? Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of listing only products that have articles, and I only know of those three. But maybe that section of this article listing product lines could be split off and the links to individual articles could be there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

V15

There probably should be an article on the V15. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There could probably be a whole article about Shure phono cartridges. I'm planning on mentioning V15 in a paragraph about Shure cartridges in this article, but there's a lot worth mentioning in regard to Shure and phono cartridges. synthfiend (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Digging into more phono cartridge research, and I agree that the V-15 series would be a valid article of its own, though I'll be including more detail in my revision of the main Shure article. synthfiend (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

More product categories

I think that the Shure products used in field recording and field mixing are worthy of mention. As well, the conferencing and industrial installation products should have a presence.

Here's a possible format:

===Mixers and DSP===

• DFR22 Feedback reduction audio processor, 2-in, 2-out
• FP33 Portable 3-channel stereo field mixer
• SCM810 Automatic microphone mixer, 8-in, 1-out

Those are the current products I feel are the most popular or exemplary. I don't exactly know how to gauge past products such as the M67, M267 and M268 mixers, the FP42 field mixer, the FP11 and FP22 portable headphone amplifiers, and the DFR11EQ automatic feedback reducer. All of these were very popular at one time or another. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Shure, or Shure Incorporated?

This morning, Miracle Pen moved the Shure Incorporated article to Shure. IMO, the Shure Incorporated name was more correct. What is the proper etiquette for establishing consensus? synthfiend (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The move was performed with an edit summary referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). There the guideline says, in general, not to put Incorporated after the name of a company. However, to avoid confusion with other articles that have Shure in the name (such as Leonard Shure and Aaron Shure), the word Incorporated can be added for disambiguation. Examples of that include Mars, Incorporated, Saleen, Incorporated, Kids Incorporated, Sunkist Growers, Incorporated, Broadcast Music Incorporated, Saks Incorporated, Steam Incorporated, ESL Incorporated, Massive Incorporated, National Lampoon, Incorporated and Corning Incorporated.

Absent from Wikipedia (so far) is a disambiguation page describing all the articles that have Shure in the title. The page Sure wrongly assumes that such a page exists, listing Shure under See also. I think we can fix that. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Shure Incorporated website Retro Perspectives - Historical information about the Shure 55SH II microphone

   Official Shure Incorporated website
   Retro Perspectives - Historical information about the Shure 55SH II microphone

Both References (Hyperlinks) are commercial institutions and therefore biased and distorting hiostorical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.90.201 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)