1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Behringer Powerplay16 - Connection questions - Wireless bridge to replace Cat5?

Discussion in 'Live Sound [BG]' started by Rocksolid, Dec 28, 2013.

  1. Looking at this as an option for bands that I play in. 80% of our gigs have the FOH engineer side of stage, which means we can take direct outs from from the desk with a 16channel TRS patch snake, straight into Powerplay16 input module, and then run Cat5 cables to everyone's individual controllers and IEM. No problems there.

    However - Sometimes the desk isn't, it could be at the back of the room 30metres (100feet) away.

    The options I see are:

    A Poormans splitter snake, so we can take everything to the input module that way and keep the input module on stage. A cost that I'd prefer not to have.

    A Cat5 multi core to get signal to the controllers from the input module at the back of the room.

    But what I am wondering, can you use something like a wireless bridge from the Cat5 out from the input module, into a wireless transmitter which sends it to a mated receiver, out of the receiver via Cat 5 into one of the distribution boxes that are available with the Powerplay16 set up?

    Would there be any latency issues, sound degradation? Is it even possible?

    Interested to hear if anyone has tried this.

  2. I wouldn't want to try wireless in that case, personally. I think a Cat5 multi core is a better way to go. Or get a P16-D, and send one cat5 to it from the P16-I.
  3. seamonkey


    Aug 6, 2004
    AES50 isn't compatible with WiFi routers.

    That being said, most if not all wifi routers are actually Linux PC's, and there's a lot of hackers doing amazing things with Linux. Someone may figure out how to mod a wifi router to work.
  4. After more looking Cat5 cable is really the most viable option. Thanks all.