Las opiniones de los clientes, incluidas las calificaciones por estrellas de los productos, son útiles para que otros usuarios obtengan más información acerca del producto y decidan si es el adecuado para ellos.
Para calcular la calificación global por estrellas y el desglose porcentual por estrellas, no utilizamos un promedio simple. En cambio, nuestro sistema considera aspectos como la fecha de la reseña y si el autor compró el artículo en Amazon. También se analizaron las reseñas para verificar la fiabilidad.
This mic sounds amazing. It's warm, resonant, and even richer and fuller than my Sennheiser 935s, if such a thing is possible. By way of brief background, I got my 935s after testing them extensively against many Shures (including 58s and Beta 58As), as well as the awesome Sennheiser 835, which I'd been using for years, and I've been really happy with the 935s. The only reason I even thought to try the 945 was that I read some reviews saying that it was as good as the 935 if not a little better and, most saliently, that it was even less susceptible to feedback. I'm disappointed to say that my experience with respect to feedback has been the opposite. I've studied the diagrams of the polar patterns and the optimal monitor placement, and this thing seems to feed back all over the place. I perform in some venues where I can't control the precise placement of monitors, and in that kind of environment, I suspect this mic would be a disaster. Even just testing it in my living room using my Fishman Loudbox Artist as a monitor, I'm getting feedback from almost every angle, including the angles that are supposed to be outside the polar pattern. In an ideal controlled environment, the sound is a cut above the 935, and I'd love to see a way to make it work. In the real world, I think I'll probably just stick with the 935s, which I also love, and remember that the 945 and I will always have Paris.
I have not heard a better sounding handheld, dynamic microphone. I have heard several that may sound just as good, some of which are much less expensive, but I can't say I've heard a better sounding one.
The biggest drawback I see with this microphone is it seems to have a stronger tendency to feedback than any other I've tried. I evaluated both feedback from the side and back and made a subjective evaluation of this and the polar pattern, and my perception tells me the e945 has a fairly broad pattern for a supercardioid, about the same as what many cardioid mics like the SM58 have. Although the e945 has significantly more gain than a SM58, it still tended to be more likely to produce feedback from the side even when the additional gain was compensated for in comparison.
It could be a great microphone where feedback is not a concern, or very likely, such as for recording or when the mic and monitors are in fixed locations and all precaution has been taken to avoid feedback.
Comparing it to other dynamic vocal mics, I appreciate the e945 as quite possibly the best of them. I felt it was better than the Telefunken M80, the Beyerdynamic TG-V70D, and several Audix models, as well as the SM58. However, I am a lot more doubtful the e945 has anything worth the much greater price. Comparing careful recordings using studio-quality headphones, I could just barely perceive a difference in sound qualities compared to good microphones costing 1/3rd the price. I wasn't really able to identify anything that would convince me it is certainly worth three times as much money as an alternative. Many of the differences I did perceive could have been due to small changes in the gain, distance and proximity effect that I couldn't perfectly compensate for.
I have a lot of long-term experience with Sennheiser microphones, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them in general. You won't go wrong with this high-end microphone unless you have high stage volumes and feedback is a major concern, in which case you would be better off with a much tighter pattern.
Everything else I can think of is mostly subjective, and based on my testing, mostly in your head. I think people believe one mic sounds better than another simply because they heard it with more gain, or with the amount of their preference of proximity effect. I compared several mics without EQ or other processing, but when you add the EQ and compression that is typical in live sound environments, and consider that the PA and the room probably have anything but a flat response, the sound of a mic is going to be totally different. Ideally, you might compare them in the venue where they're to be used, but if that's constantly changing, then what really makes one mic better than another? Some are more dependable than others, but one certainly doesn't need to spend over two hundred dollars to get a reliable mic.
This e945 Mic feeds back. I've been using the e935 for 7 years with no problems. I decided to upgrade and am sorry I did. I went to a gig last week and the sound man couldn't or didn't have time to work with my new e945. I handed him the e935 and all was good. I Also am having trouble with it in my studio. I have 5 e935's All work great. Save your money!
Damn good microphone. Compared to the e935 and the SM58, this seems to be aimed primarily toward clarity and feedback rejection. I'm willing to bet that there is no other microphone in the price range that will beat it at either. But I prefer the e935 for the slight improvement in lower-frequency response and slightly less exaggerated "hissing" range, but then again the 935 might not have enough edge to cut through certain environments, so if that is your dilemma, then you should look towards this mic. If you are not having problems with clarity or feedback but are looking for a great reproduction of the voice singing into the dang thing, get the 935. Compared to the SM58, btw, both of these mice are definitely a hint cleaner through the mids and low-trebel.