When I gig, the audience and other band members want me to stand still, and preferably not play the guitar at all. This is perfectly normal and nothing to worry about.7 Dying Trees said:standing still just doesn't cut it.
Yes, it is good live. There's no room over here to run around anyway. Maybe if I get famous and get a big stage someday I will get a stage that I can run around on, and then I may start to use a wireless unit live.7 Dying Trees said:I dunno, but a lot of people use wireless, in fact, I think it's pretty much a must if you want to be able to run around as other band members don't always look where they're going.
LOL. . .they make any amp sound like a thin JCM 800. . . .which isnt good.red5 said:Yes, it is good live. There's no room over here to run around anyway. Maybe if I get famous and get a big stage someday I will get a stage that I can run around on, and then I may start to use a wireless unit live.
I would still never use one in the studio though.... ever!
My friend had bought a real good wireless unit and brought it over and it made my 1969 Marshall sound more like a thin JCM 800. That's a good testament to how much the sound changes. He sold it a week later.
Are you serious? It would make a Fender or a Mesa sound like a thin JCM 800?Gex said:LOL. . .they make any amp sound like a thin JCM 800. . . .which isnt good.
Well my Shure wireless which i got off my guitar teacher has no noticable change in tone. I can notice ANY differnce in tone at all. Also, i used it on my last gig (months ago) and before the gig i stood 200 metres away and there was no loss of signal at all, and no loss of tone. I also had little if any interferance and no noticable noise. It performed perfectly for the gig and the sound was really good. The dual diversity (two recivers in one box) is the thing that gives great range. and the fact that it is tuned to 200 MHz is why it has great range, little interferance and dosnt have to be line-of-sight. the newer 2.4 GHz models have trouble with the line-of sight thing. I agree completely that a cable is better in the studio, but the differnce on stage is UNNOTICIBLE. and just because its expensive, dosnt mean its good. Buy brands like shure, they work so much better.red5 said:Are you serious? It would make a Fender or a Mesa sound like a thin JCM 800?
Actually it didn't sound thin per say, more like overly bright. It sounds like your typical loudness switch on your home receiver - boost the highs and the lows and rolls off the mids.
it affects the sound a lot. I've used countless wireless systems and they just destory your tone. Use a cable... if you want to run around... use a longer cable...Rotti said:How much does it effect the sound? Is it really THAT noticeable?
The one I am talking about was Shure's top of the line. It was aweful. The line of sight was not that bad. It was like here is your range, just don't go out of it or else you won't be heard. It gave me enough room.ibanez.shredder said:Well my Shure wireless which i got off my guitar teacher has no noticable change in tone. I can notice ANY differnce in tone at all. Also, i used it on my last gig (months ago) and before the gig i stood 200 metres away and there was no loss of signal at all, and no loss of tone. I also had little if any interferance and no noticable noise. It performed perfectly for the gig and the sound was really good. The dual diversity (two recivers in one box) is the thing that gives great range. and the fact that it is tuned to 200 MHz is why it has great range, little interferance and dosnt have to be line-of-sight. the newer 2.4 GHz models have trouble with the line-of sight thing. I agree completely that a cable is better in the studio, but the differnce on stage is UNNOTICIBLE. and just because its expensive, dosnt mean its good. Buy brands like shure, they work so much better.