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.
Bluetooth fitted basses and amps
- Thread starter John Conte
- Start date
I don't think bluetooth is there yet. And even if the technology comes along, I'd rather have a dongle that plugs into an output jack than on-board.
I remember when J.B. Player used to manufacture guitars with built-in wireless transmitters in the early 90's. Those are all obsolete now because of their tech. But the standard passive P-bass V-T circuit is still relevant.
I remember when J.B. Player used to manufacture guitars with built-in wireless transmitters in the early 90's. Those are all obsolete now because of their tech. But the standard passive P-bass V-T circuit is still relevant.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Even still that spec brings it up to a 'blazing' 2mbps. Compare that to wifi which has up to 1000mbps bandwidth on the high end. Even your crappiest of crappy wifi systems have 5mpbs.
I forgot a part of the problem with wifi and bluetooth is converting the signals down to transmission packets, then unpacking them. That's another 2 steps that will add latency. REDNET and DANTE use cat5 cables, but they don't send packets in the same way internet data does. they use their own protocol
Another issue that I've run across in my experiences has been that when working with an audio stream, Bluetooth will stutter the audio stream rather than dropping out like a traditional wireless. I ran across this when installing a Bluetooth receiver, that they insisted on having, with an audio system for a dance studio. When then instructor wandered out of range the audio would stutter, losing the rhythm of the track. Not so good for dancing and not so good for live instruments, I would imagine. A drop out would momentarily lose audio, but the song would continue to play. Maybe they've improved Bluetooth since I last played with it.
That's why it's not near baked for audio, but could be great for other things.
Like a strip of knobs on your mic stand that uses BT to connect to your amp. So you could change any setting mid-song without having to walk back there.
Think outside the audio stream, people.
That's what the aluminum hats are for. You don't have one?
Roland GR 88
Commercial User
I see it as a solution in search of a problem. Nothing will ever beat a solid electrical connection.
However, if the mp3 is now the new standard for audio quality then it's inevitable.
However, if the mp3 is now the new standard for audio quality then it's inevitable.
It would be cool when the technology gets there. However, we've had wireless for a long time and you still have a decent chunk of folks who use cables (around here, at least). I'm sure A-Lister bands could afford fancy BT units in the future, but I assume most folks (and the old purists who are A-Listers) will stick to an old fashioned cable.
I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't dream of performing on a system with anything more than 4ms of latency or so. And even then, only if I had to. Which I don't because cables are cheap. You will lose all sense of connection with your instrument and the sound you are making. No way to lock in when what your body is doing doesn't match what you're hearing.
There's the same problem as for wireless instruments; BT is not suitable for really low latency analog audio.
Did anyone mention 802.11/WiFi interference? I think with all the wireless LAN
stuff going on around most stages these days - and in the audiences ( think 500 hot-spots ) trusting BT might be problematic ( in addition to the many good points made above ). YMMV
stuff going on around most stages these days - and in the audiences ( think 500 hot-spots ) trusting BT might be problematic ( in addition to the many good points made above ). YMMV
+1
bluetooth to transmit like MIDI and control-type information could be neat, DMX light controlling and other stuff where it's not the actual audio stream going through it.
no it wouldn't, that's the point.
1ft = 1ms latency
If there's 4ft between you cabinet and your ear that would be 4ms of latency
Go to the hardware store and pick up an empty garden hose of say 100ft. Put one end in your ear and talk into the other end. 100ft = 100ms latency. You'll hear it. Get down to shorter lengths like 10ft and you may not.
Listen just for the delay and not the frequency response changes - frequency response is not part of the delay, it's an artifact of the hose.
Either way with a little practice your brain can compensate for some latency. Some latency you may just have to live with in the modern age. 20ms (20ft) isn't bad at all for me.
If there's 4ft between you cabinet and your ear that would be 4ms of latency
Go to the hardware store and pick up an empty garden hose of say 100ft. Put one end in your ear and talk into the other end. 100ft = 100ms latency. You'll hear it. Get down to shorter lengths like 10ft and you may not.
Listen just for the delay and not the frequency response changes - frequency response is not part of the delay, it's an artifact of the hose.
Either way with a little practice your brain can compensate for some latency. Some latency you may just have to live with in the modern age. 20ms (20ft) isn't bad at all for me.
DMX over some form of wireless communication is available and not too expensive, although I don't know what the underlying transmission media is. Ditto MIDI. Last time I was using DMX over XLR, over around 100ft of cable there was some sort of ground loop to my laptop it kept resetting the DMX interface. Wireless might have been handy as long as taxis didn't accidentally change the lights
Thanks to Bluetooth Smart/LE (Low Energy) there will be a lot of small and inexpensive controllers like that. Perfect where latency is not crucial.
