This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
This post applies only to the sleeves that can be used for the E3, E4, and E5.
— Mark Kim ( Reply/Start Talk) 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There probably should be an article on the V15. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
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===
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
This post applies only to the sleeves that can be used for the E3, E4, and E5.
— Mark Kim ( Reply/Start Talk) 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There probably should be an article on the V15. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
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===
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)
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)
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)