well just tried a wireless for a show..

[adamcbest]

I have alway been skeptical about wireless stuff because of everyhting bad that people have said about them. I used a AKG WMS400 (true diversity,frequency agile) at the Hard Rock cafe 2 nights ago, and i was pleasantly surprised. while it did alter my sound some with some compression, it didn't kill it. It supressed some of the high end, but i fixed that by turning up the highs slightly on my EQ. I had no dropouts at all. What it didn't do that, kinda thought it would, was add a lot of noise and grittiness to my sound. I thought i'd share some first hand experience with everyone. I think i have changed my mind on disliking the wireless units. If you get a decent one, they really work pretty well.

[red5]

Wireless is good for live but I do find they add a lot of harshness especially in the mids so I try to avoid it as much as possible. However sometimes you have that gig where you have plenty of room to run around....

[adamcbest]

i would definitely never ever record with it, but yeah.. for live it doesn't alter the tone enough to not use it. unless if you maybe get a bad one

[kooshball]

you play at the HRC at station square?

[adamcbest]

Originally Posted by kooshball

you play at the HRC at station square?

yeah i did, last thursday night. we were the second band, "fiction on fire". were you there??

[lyconxero]

I played with a local band recently who all used Nady wireless stuff for their guitars, basses, and vocals. It all seems like a really cool idea live because you can walk around a lot easier but that stuff is REALLY expensive.

[red5]

Originally Posted by adamcbest

i would definitely never ever record with it, but yeah.. for live it doesn't alter the tone enough to not use it. unless if you maybe get a bad one

I think it depends on your amp. I have tried good ones with my Major and would never use them even for practicing it destroyed the tone of the amp. It was overly harsh etc. With a high gain amp it's less noticable, but clean forget it. Of course a bad sounding venue will have the same effect...

[adamcbest]

i used my mark iv with the wireless, and it really didn't change it too much, even the clean tones. Although I do run a ISP Decimator Rack and a G major in the loop, which i'm sure alters the tone some in the first place. Overall i thought it sounded really good. Just needed some good EQ. I'm not sure what a Major is, but it sounds like a greatly expensive boutique amp, which i would think would have a tone that would be altered by a wireless. Whats a Major amp??

[frankfalbo]

It's going to sound good with any MK amp, because they can handle a little more juice in the mids on the front end. It's almost like hybriding your guitar with an EMG style preamp, and Mesas do well with EMG's too.

I know what you mean about being pleasantly surprised. I don't mind using one for larger gigs. It gives you an active signal to all your pedals, so that can actually IMPROVE your tone to the amp if you're currently experiencing lots of loss from cable length and non-true bypass pedals. In other words, I'd venture to say it's better than running 25ft of unbuffered cable to a pedalboard that is going to suck tone anyway. But it's all about the feel. If someone doesn't like the way the dynamics feel with the wireless, then the game is over. That little bit of companding can ruin someone's playing experience if they can't get past it. So for a lot of guys a wireless (even a good one) is too much. And yes, nothing is worse than a lousy one. I'd rather run through 50ft of cable than a crappy wireless. You don't need a $2k one, but the entry level stuff is pretty bad.

[adamcbest]

yeha, when i was looking for one, the guy was trying to sell my ones that were in the 199 range - maybe 250. they were lacking true diversity and agiel frequencies. the one i bought was right around 400 before tax. it's very good. and i am considering a higher end model in the future. and using the AKG in my backup rig.