Talk:Shure

message: Added some info on the SM7 microphone JayroRockola 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History and stuff

message: 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)
thread_title:  Battle of the Sleeves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  E500 Clarification 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  April 2011 Expansion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  list of articles about Shure products 

message: There probably should be an article on the V15.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  V15 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More product categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Official Shure Incorporated website     Retro Perspectives - Historical information about the Shure 55SH II microphone