naturerecordists archive search

1. Re: Finding Shure 183 (score: 43)

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:10:25 -0600

I've been wondering if we should say "very high" sensitivty. The Shure WL-183 is spec'd at 40 dBV/Pa which is on par with the Sennheiser mkh 60 isn't it? ... but lower than any other lower-cost power

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-02/msg00134.html (10,673 bytes)

2. WL 183 v 93 PIP test (score: 40)

Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:37:11 +1000

Hi all Hope this isn't too long winded. A while back there was a short discussion on Shure WL 183 v 93. Recently I tried testing 2 of each 183 and 93 using PIP ( plug in power). The mics were suspend

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2006-07/msg00268.html (9,923 bytes)

3. Re: WL 183 v 93 PIP test (score: 40)

Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:37:11 +1000

Hi David-- re: http://tinyurl.com/hhlb7 Good to see your curiosity got the better of you. I agree with your observations with a quick ear analysis. I hear no differences that are likely to give eithe

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2006-07/msg00269.html (12,239 bytes)

4. Re: Finding Shure 183 (score: 40)

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:06:27 +0800

Thanks Walter I have been thinking of the MX 183 as phantom power is not a issue. I learn t very quickly that my minidisk is very hungry when it comes to running off batteries. I guickly started to r

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-02/msg00232.html (12,157 bytes)

5. Re: Shure 183 (score: 40)

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:45:38 -0800

Walt, I'm distressed by your email of December 23rd. The issue in this case is not just how good the Shure 183 is, but also the price/performance ratio. The Sennheiser MKH20 is at the pinnacle of per

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2004-12/msg00225.html (14,532 bytes)

6. Re: Shure 183 update (score: 40)

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:08:13 -0600

Dan-- Thanks for sharing your secret of using the Shure 183 capsules for MD recording. After studying Shure's wiring diagram, I decided to cut off the mini xlr's and solder the C122 cables directly t

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2004-12/msg00132.html (12,159 bytes)

7. RE: Shure 183 > Sony DAT, MD (score: 39)

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:46:44 -0500

I got the same "bottoming" effect running a pair of NT1A's into the Marantz 670. It cleared up with the low shelf enabled. Although it didn't seem to correlate with very soft air movement, I suspect

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-09/msg00412.html (13,818 bytes)

8. Re: Finding Shure 183 (score: 39)

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:17:57 -0500

The MX183 is the phantom powered version with balanced XLR connection. So both mics I was using were phantom powered. To my mind the phantom power has distinct advantages over pip. Pip is such low vo

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-02/msg00217.html (13,845 bytes)

9. Re: Finding Shure 183 (score: 39)

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:03:13 -0500

Dan Dugan got it all started a while back with his shoulder mounted ones. They have pretty good sensitivity, though fairly high self noise for nature recording. I believe most are using the WL's, and

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-02/msg00130.html (9,282 bytes)

10. Re: comparing Shure modules for 183 mics (score: 39)

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:07:30 -0600

Thanks much for these time-consuming/telling tests. I was holding onto hope, but it does make sense that a pro mic preamp wouldn't help a mic with ~21dBA self noise and high sensitivity like the 183

/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-01/msg00116.html (13,965 bytes)