Hehe.. I see. Sounds very familiar
And btw, this forum is kinda obsolete. Where is the "likes" button? 
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Best digital wireless- Line 6, Sony, AT, ???
- Thread starter steve_rolfeca
- Start date
Hehe.. I see. Sounds very familiar
And btw, this forum is kinda obsolete. Where is the "likes" button? Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
The Line 6 Relay wireless is already top notch in many ways, and I am sure that Line 6 will release a new series of wireless units within the next few years that fully matches the current Shure wireless, and maybe even sweep the floors under it.
I just wish they could invent a digital wireless system anytime soon with 4 inputs and 4 outputs and individual transmitters. It should be fully possible in 2014. Something similar already exists for mics. That way you could have both the guitar and pedalboard completely wireless, including stereo effect loop (send/return) And the extra (fourth input/output) would be for the main amp's dummy load (in my case a Marshall SE-100) who sends a low line level signal to the stereo effects, which again is reamplified by other amps equally L/R. Sometimes I even add more 100w MKII Marshalls and cabs on both sides L/R if the stage allows it.
The challenge would probably be to avoid latency, which would be like 16 ms with the current Line 6 wireless. Also, they should already by now have used unique encrypted codes for each wireless system. Meaning, if 3 guys are using either a G30, 50 or 90 and all 3 uses channel 1, the receiver would only recognize the transmitter with the matching unique code and therefore, no other interference as well. Just like a car key only fits the car it was intended for.
The way the Line 6 wireless is working now is that whoever first turns on their transmitter on channel one, is the one who will be accepted by the receiver, if the receiver channel is set to channel one. With the new Shure system, at least this scenario will be dealt with automatically by the system itself.
My two cents.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
I just wish they could invent a digital wireless system anytime soon with 4 inputs and 4 outputs and individual transmitters. It should be fully possible in 2014. Something similar already exists for mics. That way you could have both the guitar and pedalboard completely wireless, including stereo effect loop (send/return) And the extra (fourth input/output) would be for the main amp's dummy load (in my case a Marshall SE-100) who sends a low line level signal to the stereo effects, which again is reamplified by other amps equally L/R. Sometimes I even add more 100w MKII Marshalls and cabs on both sides L/R if the stage allows it.
The challenge would probably be to avoid latency, which would be like 16 ms with the current Line 6 wireless. Also, they should already by now have used unique encrypted codes for each wireless system. Meaning, if 3 guys are using either a G30, 50 or 90 and all 3 uses channel 1, the receiver would only recognize the transmitter with the matching unique code and therefore, no other interference as well. Just like a car key only fits the car it was intended for.
The way the Line 6 wireless is working now is that whoever first turns on their transmitter on channel one, is the one who will be accepted by the receiver, if the receiver channel is set to channel one. With the new Shure system, at least this scenario will be dealt with automatically by the system itself.
My two cents.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
I'd like to see a combo instrument wireless and IEM some day...
One belt pack to rule them all. One set of batteries.
LOL.
One belt pack to rule them all. One set of batteries.
LOL.
That is a good point regarding the encryption. Something I've never had an issue with as we all run different brands of wireless, but its nice to know that a signal is locked to only my system. My singer is always messing with his high dollar wireless system to manually change settings. I like the plug and play option sure is offering. I do like the battery port the model 14 offers, that seems like the only option I wish the 16 had.
Agree about the model 14 vs. 16. That's what I like about it too.
On the other hand, one only needs one battery at the time and a separate dock charger costs like $24 and will probably be available on eBay shortly for less. I think Shure could have included that one with the GLXD16 since they already gives you the wall charger and the USB cable to plug it in. The extra SB902 battery also have to be bought separately ($29) regardless of the two models.
Invalid Link Removed
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
Agreed. Honestly I don't ever see the need for an extra battery given the quick charge rate and longevity of the current battery system. If the gremlins strike and you forget to charge before a show, a quick charge before the show or in between sets would get you through the night. In my original project we seldom play more than an hour, and in the cover band I work with a quick charge after soundcheck (at least an hour before show time) and supplemental charging between sets would get me through the night, and send the gremlins off in another direction to look for mayhem. Sure really did their homework on this centering on the needs of the gigging musician....
Yep, it's just 4ms for a single Relay wireless. But the guitar signal would not be 100 % synchronized with all the rest if 4 individual wireless had been used instead in the example above. But with a new designed 4 input/output version, they could probably figure out a workaround regarding the latency issue. But how do you compensate for the latency that might be present elsewhere in the chain, and between the amps input and the effects send (probably no latency there though) I don't use the effects loop anyway so it wouldn't matter, but this is the kind of questions they would have to figure out if they designed a 4 input/output system.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
That's what I am screaming too. This is a luxury problem. And even if you get a extra spare battery, you could charge it in beforehand and keep it as a backup. It won't be drained for a very very long time, if stored correctly.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
I'm not sure what you're getting at - before my current band, I spent over 5 years playing thru an XDR-95, with one guitarist using a G50, and the other using a Shure wireless(still in the 700mhz range)... There were never any issues regarding latency whatsoever - it really wasn't any different than if we were using cables, except we could cross the stage, and move freely without getting tangled with one another...
In my current band, I'm still using an XDR-95 or XDS-PLUS, and that guitarist is using a G50 - and we're still not having any latency issues...
- georgestrings
Some people see numbers on paper and assume that if an instrument can detect something, that their ear can detect it too, THD figures and in this case, latency.
I've got the same units you have, with on XDR-95, two XDS-Plus, and one G50 - they all work great and as near as my ear can tell, 4ms is the same as instantaneous. As a deficiency, it's a technical one.
There seems to be a huge misunderstanding here.
I am not saying that you are getting latency just because several different people are using their digital wireless simultaneously and at the same place. For that matter, you could even have 14 people using a Relay G90 and where each of them are playing trough their own chanel of the 14 available, and you would experience absolutely zero (noticeable) latency whatsoever. And the same thing if other digital wireless guitar systems were present as well.
However, the question is (was) whether one single person would experience noticeable latency (for his own part) if 4 separate digital wireless were used at the same time, given that the latency is 4ms in the first place. After all, no wireless system can react faster than the moment a input signal is present. I think we all can agree about that. And if you would like to go completely wireless, including both your guitar to pedalboard, pedalboard to amp input, FX send/return from pedalboard to amp and back again, these wireless units would get their signal in series one by one based on the first wireless. And that is/was the question, how a potential new 4 input/output digital wireless system would address this challenge, if possible. After all, there is hardly any latency within the chain itself, only between the different digital wireless units in this case who are solely depending on each other.
This is also discussed between others in this thread below, which is from may-okt. 2012.
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1566482
Quote 1: I don't think there is any danger of losing signal quality, but rather the latency in A/D and D/A conversion. While 1 unit may have very low latency (<3ms) each, to where it's not noticeable, stacking 3-4 (guitar to board, board to amp, Amp FX send to board, Board to FX return), I'm sure it would become noticeable enough.
Quote 2: From what I've seen most big artists use analogue wireless systems so there is no A/D/A conversion involved. The Line 6 ones are the only digital ones I know of. Running 4 of them would give you 16ms of latency which coupled with the distance you would be standing from your amp would probably become noticeable.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
Bad idea.
First, while the amount of sampling error with modern 24-bit converters is low, it is there. Counting 4 radios plus at least one digital pedal and possibly a digital console at FOH, you could be looking at anywhere from 5-8 full cycles of A-D and D-A conversion (plus the extra latency from those other devices).
Secondly ,wireless is always a crapshoot, even with digital. If each musician is running at least 4 channels of wireless just for his or her primary audio (more if we have wireless mics and IEM's), then the risk of dropouts, etc., rises exponentially.
Especially with radios that work on the wi-fi band, you're competing for a limited number of channels with a variety of other wi-fi gear in the venue.
I don't believe that any competent engineer would recommend wireless for any signal run other than the minimum required for any performers who need freedom of movement.
Last but not least, from your description of you amplification and the venues you're playing, relying on consumer-grade wireless systems of the type covered in this thread would be a very poor choice.
There are pro wireless systems available for two to four times the cost of the gear we've been talking about, that are far more suitable for a national touring act.
Simply put, if you've invested thousand$ in a truck full of Marshall stacks, what the heck are you doing putzing around with $300-500 wireless systems designed for weekend warriors?
First, while the amount of sampling error with modern 24-bit converters is low, it is there. Counting 4 radios plus at least one digital pedal and possibly a digital console at FOH, you could be looking at anywhere from 5-8 full cycles of A-D and D-A conversion (plus the extra latency from those other devices).
Secondly ,wireless is always a crapshoot, even with digital. If each musician is running at least 4 channels of wireless just for his or her primary audio (more if we have wireless mics and IEM's), then the risk of dropouts, etc., rises exponentially.
Especially with radios that work on the wi-fi band, you're competing for a limited number of channels with a variety of other wi-fi gear in the venue.
I don't believe that any competent engineer would recommend wireless for any signal run other than the minimum required for any performers who need freedom of movement.
Last but not least, from your description of you amplification and the venues you're playing, relying on consumer-grade wireless systems of the type covered in this thread would be a very poor choice.
There are pro wireless systems available for two to four times the cost of the gear we've been talking about, that are far more suitable for a national touring act.
Simply put, if you've invested thousand$ in a truck full of Marshall stacks, what the heck are you doing putzing around with $300-500 wireless systems designed for weekend warriors?
I don't consider this to be very realistic either. I only mentioned (initially) that it would be cool if something like that existed, and apparently other people are interested in it too. Not just me. Anyway, in order for something like that to work (latency or not) it would have to operate with 4 different freq. in the 2,4 GHz area, and in the same way as the new Shure GLXD16, but with the use of encryption in addition as there is not unlimited freq. available at all times. Especially not with several other wireless systems present. And besides, the option to use a wireless Midi board and put all the pedals in a true bypass loop instead, has been available for many years.
I haven't mentioned large venues. It doesn't take a very large stage to put two 1960AX cabs side by side and some amps on top of them. There are tons of people who have pretty much the same setup, and alot more than me. If not necessarily 3 YJM100s and one 1987x. Other than that, I do have some extra 100w MkII Marshalls and cabs in the basement if the stage allows it. Which all in all is not quite unreasonable considering that I am 47 year old and have been playing guitar since I was 12, and happens to be born and live in a country that the UN has rated countless times as the best country in the world in which to live, also economically speaking. Not that it matters, plus don't shoot the messenger etc.
Meaning, the new Shure GLXD16 with its 200 feet range and other new features, will be more than good enough for me. Just like (almost) everyone else.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
Yeah, I misunderstood you - I don't see anyone doing that, as it doesn't seem practical, and probably wouldn't work well at all... The guitarists I've all worked with have left the wireless receiver on their pedalboards, and had a snake between it and their amps...
- georgestrings
There was a misuderstanding, in that no one would have any reason to do a setup like that.
You're trying to come up with an arrangement that seems designed from the outset to be problematic.
Read Steve's quote below...
Bingo.
The only person who could even think of such an overly wrought system would be my last choice for someone to be on my team.
I know, and that's what I am doing and will continue doing.
I am doing perfectly fine on my own, thanks. I have already commented Steve's post above and have nothing to add to that, or my previous post regarding the obvious misunderstanding.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
The bottom line is that there is no benefit whatsoever to having multiple wireless system in tandem and the 4ms is about as much latency as should be seen in your system.
Everybody knows that, including me. But that is based on the current technology of today. And why is it "not" beneficial, given that the current obstacles (freq. and latency) could be solved with encryption and latency brought down to 4ms, just like a regular single unit? In fact, if here is no latency in the guitar chain itself to begin with, it should be possible. I leave that up to the engineers to figure out.
Of course there would be a huge benefit to avoid cables back and forth between the amp and pedalboard incl. FX loop and the guitar itself, by using a all-in-one wireless. Not so much because of the distance between the pedalboard and the amp itself, but due to the fact that most guitarists (worldwide) are using their pedalboard and amps pretty much the same way as far as connections goes. Which again means a huge worldwide market for it if the price is right. This would be like a "plug and play" thing instead of a thick 20 feet "dog leash" that you need to hook up in both ends before you are ready to go. It would only need power. And digital wireless nowadays is ironically enough better than any cable in the first place, since there are no resistance and no degradation of the tone. That's another very good reason right there.
Besides, at some point in the near future the digital wireless companies will be forced to use some sort of encryption as a natural part of their wireless systems anyway. Not just manually- or automatic switching between frequencies to avoid RF interference, like today. Imagine that you are playing at a concert with several other bands and musicians, and some smart dude (or 5) have left their transmitter turned on, which also happens to be ecactly the same wireless system/brand as you are using yourself. That reduces the available freq. significantly. Not to mention your own bandmates, who maybe are using two of the freq. in addition to yourself.
Mankind landed on the moon 45 years ago, and now it's 2014. Yep, this is within reach, literally speaking.
Not many years ago, most people had not even heard about eye laser surgery, internet, email, flat screen TV's, 4G Smartphones, HD movies etc. The list is endless. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is reading this post in maybe just 3-10 years from now and smiles. Hopefully not because of my predictions.
I rest my case on this particular subject from now on, as I think I've made my point.
Tiger
Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
Glad to hear you're going to let it rest, but don't suggest that any of us who see dubious benefit belong to a group of people with no imagination of the future.
What you're talking about is pie-in-the-sky and if it does come to be, will still be of dubious value, but will be more worthy of even spending any time thinking about at such a time.
This thread is mostly based on present reality and which systems currently available are best for working class musicians. Put those terms together and your dream system does not apply and with no brand name or pre-release data is nothing but a thread derail at this point.
