Wireless. Digital or Analog?

BassistNyc192 · #1 10-09-2008, 06:47 AM

Hello everyone! first I want to say I'm new to this site and think it's great! tons of knowledge here!

Here is my first talkbass question

I'm thinking of going wireless and have been going back and fourth if I want a digital (X2 XDR95 rack mount) or analog.
While I hear the X2 is VERY good especially for bass but I'm wondering what will happen when all standard TV stations go digital. Will this interfere with the X2 more? Will that also mean that analog wirelesses will have less interference since there wont be as many analog signals being broadcast?

I have been looking at 3 units
1. X2 XDR95
2. Sennheiser EW 172 G2
3. Shure ULX

Anyone have any insight on this? Should I get a digital or just go analog? Part of me thinks that once all TV stations go digital in feb 2009 that all these digital systems are going to be worthless and will get much more interference then they are now and would think that since more analog feq will be available analog systems will get much less interference then before the Digital TV switch

I'd like to hear what y'all think!

Cheers

TheDarkReaver · #2 10-09-2008, 06:57 AM

As long as you don't use the same frequencies as tv signals it shouldn't affect the signal at all.

Sandvich Hero · #3 10-09-2008, 08:28 AM

Being analog or digital have nothing to do with the amount of interference you receive from other analog/digital signals.

Basically, like the other guy said, "as long as you don't use the same freq/channel" than any other signal (be it digital or analog), you'll be fine. In fact, any digital signal, once over the air, is some kind of analog airwave representing a digital signal ...

I have no experience with wireless xcvers for bass, so others can point you out on sound reproduction/quality (and maybe delay ...), but what I can tell you is that digital signals are generally a lot less vulnerable to small interferences (due to reproducibility and correction algorithms). The downside of that is that they require more bandwidth, but it doesn't matter here since the amount of "data" you transfer is always the same (one sampled audio signal ...).

So if a TV station transmit it's digital signal on your channel (and it will not, they have their reserved space ...), you will get as much crap on an analog signal than a digital one (except that the digital one will be able to eliminate a lot of that crap).

But in the end, don't worry about that part too much (instruments xcver are really low power and have their own channels), and get something that will not alter your sound (that isn't noticeable to you).

mimaz · #4 10-09-2008, 08:34 AM

I picked up an X2 XDS Plus this summer, and I'm well pleased. I haven't had (nor do I expect to have) any interference issuses at all. There are a couple of recent threads about the X2 unit, you may want to do some searching.......mostly good results, but a few folks have experienced "line of sight" issues..........again, that's never been a problem with my unit. Several folks have identified (as have I) the stock cable as a weak point, but considering the positives, I just got a "real" cable and moved on.

BassistNyc192 · #5 10-09-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimaz

I picked up an X2 XDS Plus this summer, and I'm well pleased. I haven't had (nor do I expect to have) any interference issuses at all. There are a couple of recent threads about the X2 unit, you may want to do some searching.......mostly good results, but a few folks have experienced "line of sight" issues..........again, that's never been a problem with my unit. Several folks have identified (as have I) the stock cable as a weak point, but considering the positives, I just got a "real" cable and moved on.

Yeah I have read that too. But when I try searching just "X2" or even "X2 Wireless" it tells me that X2 is too short of a search term

I also read if you get the X2 to get the premium cable.

SO over all is the digital wireless better than analog?
mimaz: Have you tried an analog and a digital to see the differences?

The ShureULX has some really good reviews but it seems like the x2 has better feq response for bass. I also read that the technology for the X2 is still new and they are still working out the kinks. Can anyone confirm this?

mimaz · #6 10-09-2008, 09:02 AM

Over the years, I've had at least 2 analog units that I can remember.....one was a Shure, one was a Nady. I don't remember the model #'s right now, but I can definately tell you that this is the best sounding wireless I have ever used, hands down.

bongomania · #7 10-09-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassistNyc192

But when I try searching just "X2" or even "X2 Wireless" it tells me that X2 is too short of a search term

Hot tip: when you click on 'search', use the Google Search TB function (sometimes under the 'advanced' link). It can do 2-letter searches.

GraffixNyc · #8 10-09-2008, 01:08 PM

I actually have a X2 XDR95 AND a Shure ULXS14. I JUST got my X2 and dont really want to sell my shure ULX until I KNOW 100% my x2 will be just as good(if not better) than my Shure. My gf told me I should sell the shure but after 2+ years of using it trouble free I don't want to part with it yet! Hey it's always good to have a back up right? besides I have an extra space in my rack so I can keep both in the rack.

Since I just got my X2 yesterday I have yet to do a side by side test. The true test will be when I gig with it and see the results.

Has anyone else tried out both the SHure and the X2? what were your findings? I cant wait until this weekend to do some side by side tests. I will let you know how it goes! Hey bassistnyc192 where in NYC are you? do you play in any local bands? send me your info and I'll come check you out one night if you're gigging in the city!
Patrick

rockitmarty · #9 10-10-2008, 04:56 PM

yeah you will be fine with digital or analog, either or will be fine. just get a uhf transmitter so it has no chance of interfering.

rbonner · #10 10-11-2008, 12:59 PM

I have been looking at the SHURE high end UHF-R system, its spendy. Maybe the ULX. But money isn't that much of a concern within reason. I want great sound beyond the cord and maybe less noise even. I amplify a lot of watts and need it clean.

For you guys who have used wireless before is it worth getting a two channel unit for a mic also or just stick to the BASS? I'm not much of a singer; more of a hostess with the mostess.

I am a radio guy so I understand all the technical BS and frequency band application issues, I wanna know the actual application stage wise stuff, horror stories, and opinions. BOB

GraffixNyc · #11 10-11-2008, 03:00 PM

ok, Here is what I found testing my Shure ULXs14, a cable (monster) and the X2 side by side.

THe X2 had less highs then both the cable and the Shure unit. The shure unit was closer to the cable sound. There wasn't a HUGE difference but I could notice the x2 had more low end and the highs weren't as crisp. The X2 didn't sound bad at all and if I wouldn't have tested all three at the same time I prob would have never noticed. When I used the X2 I just boosted the terble up a little on my amp(I usually keep all tones flat) and that seemed to help a bit

mrokern · #12 10-11-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraffixNyc

ok, Here is what I found testing my Shure ULXs14, a cable (monster) and the X2 side by side.

THe X2 had less highs then both the cable and the Shure unit. The shure unit was closer to the cable sound. There wasn't a HUGE difference but I could notice the x2 had more low end and the highs weren't as crisp. The X2 didn't sound bad at all and if I wouldn't have tested all three at the same time I prob would have never noticed. When I used the X2 I just boosted the terble up a little on my amp(I usually keep all tones flat) and that seemed to help a bit

Did you use a standard unbalanced connection, or did you take advantage of the TRS split? If you use the full-range signal, that should bring back your highs.

On another note...

I'm hearing a lot of worrying related to DTV stuff flying around here, much of it born out of confusion and misunderstanding. The company I work for is a professional video integrator...in other words, we build TV and cable studios and headends...so I'm right in the middle of this change.

Wireless systems are not going to suddenly stop working when everything goes digital. Here's what's going on:

(NOTE: The following applies to analog or digital wireless units. Digital, schmigital, you're still using RF transmission. Doesn't matter what TYPE of signal you're transmitting, these issues still apply.)

Old analog broadcast signals used a chunk of bandwidth 6MHz wide. Digital TV signals STILL use 6MHz wide chunks. The difference is that with analog signals there were restrictions as to how close together you could place channels due to intermodulation. Digital TV avoids that problem, and channels can be placed right up against each other.

What that means is that a large part of the UHF spectrum (from 698MHz to 806MHz) currently used for analog TV opened up, and was able to be auctioned off by the FCC.

Wireless mics will be affected in a couple of ways.

1) There will be less space between TV channels to find an open frequency below 698MHz, but it isn't like the entire spectrum will be packed wall-to-wall. We'll just have to spend a little more time looking for open frequencies. You WILL be able to find them, and it won't be hard.

2) If you own a wireless unit that operates on frequencies between 698MHz and 806MHz, you have a problem. You should get a new unit. Some manufacturers, such as Sennheiser, are rumored to be considering a buy-back program. No guarantees, though. Note that many manufacturers (again, such as Sennheiser) stopped selling wireless systems in that band years ago when rumors of the frequency auction started to be confirmed.

If you use a X2 unit (as I do), you're also in the clear. Those units work in the 900MHz realm, above the auctioned frequencies.

Now getting back to the original topic, I've used both the Sennheiser and the X2 units. Both are excellent choices. I think the X2 is cleaner, but you will need to get into a rack version to get the range of the Sennheiser (which has an AMAZINGLY long range). The battery life on the Sennheiser is also mind-blowing.

Either way, I think you'll be pleased.

-Mark

mimaz · #13 10-11-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrokern

Did you use a standard unbalanced connection, or did you take advantage of the TRS split? If you use the full-range signal, that should bring back your highs.

-Mark

+1 on the highs.......I got my cable from Bayou Cables, and I believe Butch told me that that's the only way he does the X2 cables. It definately sounds better using the X2 and the full range Bayou cable than the sound of no wireless, and just my monster cable.

mrokern · #14 10-12-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimaz

+1 on the highs.......I got my cable from Bayou Cables, and I believe Butch told me that that's the only way he does the X2 cables. It definately sounds better using the X2 and the full range Bayou cable than the sound of no wireless, and just my monster cable.

Ok, I've got to ask. I've seen mention of Butch's X2 cable all over the place here on TB (which I'm sure are very high quality, from what I've seen he does great work), but something is really confusing me.

Butch's site shows the X2 TRANSMITTER cables, and most folks here reference those. The TRS jack is the 1/4" jack in the receiver (the manual states it, and you can use a standard TRS -> TS/TS insert cable to test this). The transmitter cable has absolutely nothing to do with this. Am I missing something here?

-Mark