• 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.

Combined wireless for bass and iem?

#3
Hi.

While attending an AKG (IIRC) seminar back in the late 90's I asked about that from one of the speakers who handled the wireless portion of the seminar, and he at least had very convincing reasons why it wasn't practical to house them in the same unit.

The price of the unit would be too high for the little bit of benefit it'd give.

Granted, the popularity of IEM's wasn't what it is now, and IIRC the digital was just getting (semi-)affordable, but the constantly changing available bands and diminshing bandwidth made them at least very vary at putting all their eggs into the same basket so to speak.

Like You said, it's a nifty idea, but two packs seems to be the norm.
Or the instrument transmitter being inbuilt inside the instrument.

Regards
Sam
 
#4
When I have a gig that requires IEM's I like my bass transmitter on the strap, and my IEM pack on my belt or in my pocket. This way I can run my earbud cable under my shirt, gaff taped to my collar (with some slack to turn my head) and the cable doesn't pull on the buds. In addition, my bass wireless goes on my pedalboard, while the IEM transmitter needs to be at FOH or Monitor World, depending on the gig.
 
#5
lowfreq33 said:
When I have a gig that requires IEM's I like my bass transmitter on the strap, and my IEM pack on my belt or in my pocket. This way I can run my earbud cable under my shirt, gaff taped to my collar (with some slack to turn my head) and the cable doesn't pull on the buds. In addition, my bass wireless goes on my pedalboard, while the IEM transmitter needs to be at FOH or Monitor World, depending on the gig.
Click to expand...

U could still do that with a combo unit. Plus I am thinking out loud now but it makes more sense for huge outdoor arena spaces to have the IEM transmitter to be where the now non-existent monitor or rather where the pedal board would be.

I think at huge arenas/stadiums u have a monitor mix desk by or close to the stage side so it would make sense for the transmitter to be there to keep it close! But by the pedal board side hooked up via the snake like a traditional wedge would make sense too if there is no separate monitor mix desk I guess..
 
#8
morgansterne said:
http://www.talkbass.com/threads/wireless-receiver-for-bass-iem.1067715/

more on this topic.
I use a line 6 g50 for bass (or guitar) and carvin EM900 IEM system. I can't place these right next to each other or I get a loud hum.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If a combo unit exists, its design will take care of the fact that all channels will need to run together at the same time etc!
Will need to make sure the iem and bass channel work without interfering each other. Will need to make it light and better to use than carrying two of them packs!
 
#9
We all run digital Wireless (mainly) these days. IEM is still analogue, and likely to stay that way for a while due to latency issues from what I understand. While latency isn't an issue with guitar/bass wireless, as we play to adjust for the minimal latency that digital creates, this isn't possible for digital IEM, we can't adjust and listen earlier!
 
#10
Rocksolid said:
We all run digital Wireless (mainly) these days. IEM is still analogue, and likely to stay that way for a while due to latency issues from what I understand. While latency isn't an issue with guitar/bass wireless, as we play to adjust for the minimal latency that digital creates, this isn't possible for digital IEM, we can't adjust and listen earlier!
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I didn't know there was a latency issue with wireless units. Gee that kinda really sucks!!
 
#11
Nifty but technically a challenge. There's an RF phenomena called receiver desensitisation that means receivers get less sensitive (deaf) in the presence of another RF signal close to the operating frequency. You could make it work in two ways. Special filters that can suck out the strong RF from the transmit circuit, but they are physically quite big, or you use a transmit frequency in one band and the receive in another. Here in the UK we could do it with receive in say ch70 and transmit in ch39. For the manufacturer it's difficult to make kit country happy.

Latency isn't a performance issue. At least not at the levels it's current at. We have latency at each conversion point, and it's small enough to equate to moving a few feet, and standing on stage and hearing a monitor from the other side of the stage is worse than many a/d d/a latency examples. I've been using line 6 RF systems for a while and can't say I've notice any time difference from my Sennheisers. Using two spaced packs works fine with proper planning, but in band duplex is a real technical pain. Price precludes it being a common feature.

Digital RF, digital mixer, digital analogue connected outboard, now digital links to speaker systems - latency is here to stay, but rarely causes much grief. Studios have had latency to a small degree for years and is rarely bad enough to cause monitor problems with timing.
 
Last edited:
#12
Rocksolid said:
We all run digital Wireless (mainly) these days. IEM is still analogue, and likely to stay that way for a while due to latency issues from what I understand. While latency isn't an issue with guitar/bass wireless, as we play to adjust for the minimal latency that digital creates, this isn't possible for digital IEM, we can't adjust and listen earlier!
Click to expand...
Latency for digital wireless systems is 2-3 ms. Sound travels at slightly more than 1 foot per ms. So there is more of a delay standing ten feet from your amp than you would ever hear using wireless in-ears, digital or analog. I don't know why we haven't started to see digital IEM's hit the mass market yet, but I suspect it's because it would be too expensive for the consumer market.


Sent from my iPad using TalkBass
 
#13
I have a wii audiolink IEM/wireless unit I used to use. The sound quality kicks butt, it sounds better than the carvin em900, but the latency is at least 20 ms. It's very noticeable. So I think the better your conversion is, the more latency you have.
 
#15
morgansterne said:
I have a wii audiolink IEM/wireless unit I used to use. The sound quality kicks butt, it sounds better than the carvin em900, but the latency is at least 20 ms. It's very noticeable. So I think the better your conversion is, the more latency you have.
Click to expand...

Anything over 10 ms of latency can start to be audible. 20 ms is workable but high. The lowest latency links are about 1/10 that. It doesn't really look like the Wi stuff is competitive with even Line 6 for either accuracy or latency.
 
Last edited:
#18
The biggest problem with combining the two units is you have a receiver for IEM and transmitter for the bass, and putting them in close proximity can cause interference if they are close to either the same frequencies or multiples of the same frequency. Much better to separate the units from each other from a performance standpoint. Otherwise you'd need to provide shielding/filtering to keep them from stepping on each other's signals.

The advantage would be you would be guaranteed of each unit using compatible frequencies, the company would make sure of that, now that task falls on you to verify.

Randy
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back