Why don't pros use wireless?
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Joined
·
591 Posts
I think it falls under the "eliminate any and all possibilities for malfunctions while playing live" department.
As good as wireless technology has come, there are still issues with interference and loss of signal. With a good cable, you know it's going to work, unless you trip over it and pull the plug.
As good as wireless technology has come, there are still issues with interference and loss of signal. With a good cable, you know it's going to work, unless you trip over it and pull the plug.
Its not really worth it unless youve got MAD cash to spend on a REALLY GOOD system.
Even then, they still can have a few of the problems mentioned above.
Most of the time, I believe, its the sheer simplicity of the cable that makes it preferred to a wireless unit. Some people (Like me) dont really want to mess with it, and get along just fine (gracefully!!!) with a standard cable.
Even then, they still can have a few of the problems mentioned above.
Most of the time, I believe, its the sheer simplicity of the cable that makes it preferred to a wireless unit. Some people (Like me) dont really want to mess with it, and get along just fine (gracefully!!!) with a standard cable.
Joined
·
323 Posts
Yea is a radio what u r using and mantaining it to conserve high fidelity end keep EMI off is a hugeeee problem. A cable is easier to shield. Unless of course you go digital but then....
Joined
·
1,724 Posts
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.
Sure it may impact sound, but as it's live it doesn't matter that much to be honest, and as the performance itsself is a large part of the live show, standing still just doesn't cut it.
Also with wireless systems it becomes way easier to switch guitars.
As far as range goes, I've never had any problems and that's been on some pretty big stages.
Also, I've had a wireless go bad on me, and I have to say it was HORRIBLE playing with a cable for the remaining shows.
Sure it may impact sound, but as it's live it doesn't matter that much to be honest, and as the performance itsself is a large part of the live show, standing still just doesn't cut it.
Also with wireless systems it becomes way easier to switch guitars.
As far as range goes, I've never had any problems and that's been on some pretty big stages.
Also, I've had a wireless go bad on me, and I have to say it was HORRIBLE playing with a cable for the remaining shows.
Joined
·
2,561 Posts
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:
Do they make digital wireless boxs now? I would personally love to use it for round the house.
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 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:
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.
Joined
·
310 Posts
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:
As always, lots of opinions about tone. 
IMO, it depends on how much you want to move and how good the wireless is. If you want to move a lot, IMO a longer cable isn't the answer for everyone. After all, long cables affect tone, too. But don't get some cheapo $100 Nady or Samson thingy. Pony up a few hundred for a decent frequency agile diversity UHF system from Shure, Sennheiser, or similar and have at it.
IMO, it depends on how much you want to move and how good the wireless is. If you want to move a lot, IMO a longer cable isn't the answer for everyone. After all, long cables affect tone, too. But don't get some cheapo $100 Nady or Samson thingy. Pony up a few hundred for a decent frequency agile diversity UHF system from Shure, Sennheiser, or similar and have at it.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:
I found it totally changed the sound of my amp. It was like a completely different amp - like running an effect in the mix or something...
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Join the discussion
