Behringer Ultravoice 8500 vs Shure SM48

Creating a home studio for recording the classical guitar. Equipment, software and recording techniques. Amplification for live performance.
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:09 pm

Re: Behringer Ultravoice 8500 vs Shure SM48

Post by DanManGuitar » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:12 pm

Paul Janssen wrote:
DanManGuitar wrote: What about this?
That certainly doesn't sound muffled. Do you know how much they are and whether they fall within the OP's budget?

Edit - you are the OP (sorry). In which case, that doesn't sound too bad to me.
They're actually only $20!

Brian M

Re: Behringer Ultravoice 8500 vs Shure SM48

Post by Brian M » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:29 am

Andrew Fryer wrote:Perhaps you could stretch to an AKG P170 for $78 inc postage? (I've got a Shure PG81 which I love and which I think is similar.)
I'm using a Shure PG81 for live playing in a church, and it seems to get the job done quite well. It has internal battery power, so it's not dependent on phantom power (though I have noticed that it seems to work better with phantom power -- could that be real, or just my imagination, or maybe a fading battery, since replaced?)

User avatar
Andrew Fryer
Posts: 3235
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:13 pm
Location: London SE5

Re: Behringer Ultravoice 8500 vs Shure SM48

Post by Andrew Fryer » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:55 am

Brian M wrote:I'm using a Shure PG81...I have noticed that it seems to work better with phantom power
Ugh, I hope not! The leader of our uke group wants to buy a PA from the income from our uke gigs, so that we won't even get travelling expenses until it's paid for. Several of us think we sound better as an acoustic group and that it's a silly idea (apart from the problems of ownership and so on). One of his many reasons is that his and my PG81 were "designed to be used with phantom power". I don't find that credible as yet. Usually just a 1dB increase in volume will sound "better" to a lot of people.
1975 Calatayud y Gisbert, Yamaha CG131S.


Re: Behringer Ultravoice 8500 vs Shure SM48

Post by 2handband » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Sigghhh... I am a live sound engineer amongst my other failings. You know what I frequently see on contract riders? NO BEHRINGER EQUIPMENT. There is a reason. The stuff always is well designed, great feature pack, and sounds all right out of the box... but it is NOT reliable.

You simply can't get an acceptable microphone for the money you're talking. My suggestion is save your pennies. Sorry but that's just how it is. Besides, the SM48 is a vocal mic which is NOT the same thing as an instrument mic. Worse, it's a vocal mic that I wouldn't hand to a singer. Maybe for a speaker, but never a singer. Soundwise my favorite passive instrument mic is the Sennheiser 609, but I've had a couple of them fail on me so I don't use them. Save your money and get a Shure SM57 if you must use a passive microphone.

Honestly tho... I wouldn't put a passive on an acoustic instrument. A condenser is the way to go for this. For live pro sound I go for the Shure SM81, but that is probably too rich for your blood even if you save. Want a great deal? The AKG Peception 170 is a real sleeper for less than $100. Great bargain. It needs phantom power but if your console doesn't have that it wasn't worth buying in the first place.

@Andrew Fryer: holy hell, if you cant afford a small PA from your gigs you must not be getting much. And to be honest... nobody sounds better as an acoustic group. If you walked out front you'd probably get seriously depressed at how off-balance a lot of things are. A mixed sound coming out of PA speakers (assuming you buy good gear) is DEFINITELY going to sound better than what you're doing. And yes... your PG81 will sound MUCH BETTER with phantom.

Return to “Classical guitar recording and amplification”