Going Wireless, Is It Worth It

[WalterBush]

My wireless went down briefly while I ordered a replacement cable...Shure's high end line sounds good, but the stupid proprietary cable they sell...anyway, I felt naked. It's been years I since used a cable for anything but practice at home.

I got used to walking out front and seeing what my band REALLY sounds like, not getting cables tangled with the singer when we're moving around, etc. Having a cable, brushing against my leg like a snake trying to crawl by, and worrying about whether a backup singer was going to step on it, or what, was pretty distracting, actually.

 

[RAM]

Cheapest X2 alleges response down to something like 20 Hz. As much love as I do have for my Line 6 X2 plus, I seldom use it as wire is less hassle 99% of the time I ever play.

The Line 6 website "alleges" the low-end frequency at 10 Hz for the "cheap" model, not 20 Hz. Using this myself, I'd have to say I believe it...it's got a phenomenal reproduction of my brass' tone. With an upgraded cable that has a TRS instead of the TS that comes with it, you can extend the treble up quite a bit which as very noticeable.

The only downside I've noticed of going wireless is that they're powered by batteries, which obviously need replacing when they wear out. I typically get between 7 and 8 hours per 9-volt battery. Some people have had great luck with rechargeables, but I have not. I talked with X2 about this (before they were taken over by Line 6) and they told me the wireless systems are NOT designed to be run with rechargeables. However, they wouldn't go so far as to say rechargeables would damage the unit...

 

[Pickebass]

One of the biggest reasons I got a wireless is to go out and hear the band. Since we typically don't have a soundman, we mix from the stage. This allows me to get a better feel for the mix.

I use a sennheiser digital wireless (x10000??) It's the same technology as the original x-wire systems I've been told. Sounds really good! There is a little difference between the cable and the wireless, but not too much

 

[BLDavis]

I still have an old Nady that I use when I'm un-lucky enough to be the designated FOH driver as well as playing bass. It works well enough to allow me to play and get a sound check at the same time. After that I switch over to a 20' cable and I'm good-to-go.
Otherwise, I'd never have need for a wireless.
B.

 

[JimmyM]

When I'm stuck in the back of the stage doing a backup gig, I don't bother with a wireless, but I have a really hard time playing without one when I'm fronting. For me it's totally worth it.

 

[keyboardguy]

Cheapest X2 alleges response down to something like 20 Hz. As much love as I do have for my Line 6 X2 plus, I seldom use it as wire is less hassle 99% of the time I ever play.

Check the specs with other brands' units; many only go down to 50hz, which isn't a problem for a guitar, but for us..............



Mike

 

[JimmyM]

Check the specs with other brands' units; many only go down to 50hz, which isn't a problem for a guitar, but for us..............

Still not a problem. We hear those notes through harmonics anyway, so it's not necessary for it to have response any lower.

 

[Sahm]

I don't buy into the argument that you have to be on an arena stage in order to use a wireless. In fact I'd say the wireless helps more on a small stage, where everyone's tripping over each other to find space. If I have have a huge stage, I can run around with a cable and never trip anyone.

That being said, a wireless does mean more "things" to deal with. You need fresh batteries, you need to take care of the transmitter- don't crush it or let it drop, you have to plug in the receiver, etc. This was huge change for me as someone who used cables for years and didn't have any pedals to plug in.

Plus, so far, I've had the cable on my XDT4 bend, and the transmitter went out, all in 3 months of getting it!

 

[rbonner]

Still not a problem. We hear those notes through harmonics anyway, so it's not necessary for it to have response any lower.

I don't agree with this comment Jimmy. We may hear the low notes through harmonics, but we have to provide the fundamental SOMETIME to have harmonics.

If you send the AMP a 30.87 Hz B0 and all the amp gets is the second harmonic a 61.74 Hz B1 all you will have coming out of your speakers is a goofy sounding B1.

While second, third and forth harmonics are necessary to form the character of the note (TONE), somewhere in there there MUST be SOME fundamental to make it a B0.

Charlie's work proved that the fundamental can be way way down and the second harmonic was even louder, but it was still there to form the note and we heard the B0.

But I'm afraid when we completely eliminate the fundamental we lose much of the character of the actual note.

What even allows us to tell the difference in our head I suspect is the B0 is Fundamental 30.87, second of 61.74, third of 92.61 and a forth of 123.48Hz

The B1 is a fundamantal of 61.74, second of 123.48, third of 185.22, and forth of 246.96 Hz. Note the simalarities and differences. Unfortuately the brain isn't a calculator, the ears pick up vibrations and the brain processes and we hear.

What the We dont need a fundamental crowd states is the differences between the B0's thrid harmonic of 92.61 and the B1's harmonics makes us hear the B0. What I state and some others on here, we need some fundamental and then the harmonics help out.

IMO we have to pass whatever the basses electronics has to pass, the amplifier MUST AMPLIFY that signal..

Where many of us separate is I say the speakers need to reproduce the fundamental fully to maintain the honesty of the note, and others say its OK for the speakers to not fully reproduce the fundamental and its up to our ears and brain to make up the notes we hear.

It's obvious my CURRENT speakers attenuate much of the B note's fundamental, but its still there rattling the cabinet and zooming the cones. It might be down 12 DB but there's enough to let our brains figure it all out. My subs when done will give me strong fundamentals, lets see what happens then.

The worst thing to do would be to place a high pass filter AT THE BASS, and that's what you are suggesting with an RF unit that doesn't pass some or all of the fundamental. What I am saying is let the limiting factor be the CABINETS not the signal chain. Does that make any sense?

BOB

 

[Pilgrim]

I use an AKG wireless I bought on Ebay and I really like it. No cord means there's a whole issue I don't have to deal with. I also can walk out into the audience area during setup and help with setting levels, and I can check my own level as well. So far, I haven't had an RF interference problem or any other technical issues.

I've been in radio and TV for 30 years, so batteries and setup for a wireless are trivial things to manage. It's the way to go as far as I'm concerned. If I ever run into RF problems, I still have plenty of cables in my bag so I can go wired in moments.

 

[bhubb3rd]

I have the X2 Plus and think it's great. I think it sounds as good or better than a good cable and I have never had a problem with it. I don't use it to rehearse, but always use it on a gig. Small stage, big stage, doesn't matter, I just like not tripping over the cable and having to worry about someone stepping on it. I use Duracells and have a firm rule, I always put in a fresh battery before I leave for the gig. One recommendation - get a hold of Butch @ Bayou Cables and get a replacement cable. The cable supplied with the unit is not that good. Just be prepared to wait, Butch does great work, but he is slow and doesn't do a good job estimating when you will get your cable. I wouldn't be without mine.

 

[SteveC]

I used to have one. Now I don't. I debated getting one again, but I just don't see the benefit - for me. I do move, and maybe enough to justify a wireless, but not enough - in my mind - to have to deal with the batteries and one more thing to bring to a gig.

So IMHO, no, it's not worth it for your average Joe.

 

[agreatheight]

I used to have one. Now I don't. I debated getting one again, but I just don't see the benefit - for me. I do move, and maybe enough to justify a wireless, but not enough - in my mind - to have to deal with the batteries and one more thing to bring to a gig.

So IMHO, no, it's not worth it for your average Joe.

+1.

 

[MX21]

I have the X2 XDR95 rack version. Works great. I use 2 iPower 9V 500 mAh rechargeable lithiums. About 7 hours per charge. I got it since I also run the sound, so I can get out in front and listen.

 

[Akito]

I used to have an old nady wireless a long time ago, and frankly, it sucked! Then I had a senheiser freeport which was pretty good, but it still seemed to lose too much oomph compared to a cable. Recently I tried the line 6 x2, and I really did like it. I experienced two problems that made me decide to return it. One- the range wasn't very good with the one I had. I would experience dropouts at 30 feet away, sometimes less. Two- the receiver kept shutting itself off at random. I don't believe this was a battery problem. This happened twice during a gig, and I was pretty much done with the unit. I still want to try the next model up, because it does sound pretty true to my bass signal.
BTW, one of my guitar players uses the same model and has no problems.
Also, since this has been a thread about the x2, there are a couple of other things I'll mention that I didn't care for. The clip on the transmitter was crap. It popped out of the transmitter literally like 5 seconds into its first use. The battery compartment on the receiver is screwed on. To change the battery you had better have a micro philips head around. I guess this is more durable than a battery compartment door that snaps in and out, but it's a pain.

 

[wideload]

I like not having an electrical connection between me and my amp. It just takes one zinger from a poorly grounded PA to get my attention, or one sprinkler system at an outdoor gig that someone forgot to turn off (seen them both).

 

[JimiLL]

Go X2 and dont ever, ever look back.

I have an XDR 95 and, believe me, it lives up to the hype in every way. From my jaded ears, there was NO difference in sound. None.

Now as far as going to wire less.......

you never step on a cord, pull it out of the socket, damage the cord, which makes you feel like a blundering idiot

You never have the isuue of old cables "breaking up"

Sound checks are SOOOO easy with wireless. Just go out and stand where the people will. problem solved.

Moving around stage is infinitely easier, no need to worry about crossing cables and making rats nests.

Lets you go take a leak without taking your bass off. ok, maybe thats just me......

 

[seamonkey]

Good article on new wireless units
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Some of the old frequencies are illegal now, but there's a bunch new available due to the DTV move.

I won't get into the missing fundamental issue, it's a "red hearring"
New wireless systems are going more digital and have wider frequency response anyhow. Buy from a place that lets you try the unit for a good month so you can see how it works out for you in real life.

 

[JimmyM]

I don't agree with this comment Jimmy. We may hear the low notes through harmonics, but we have to provide the fundamental SOMETIME to have harmonics.

If you send the AMP a 30.87 Hz B0 and all the amp gets is the second harmonic a 61.74 Hz B1 all you will have coming out of your speakers is a goofy sounding B1.

While second, third and forth harmonics are necessary to form the character of the note (TONE), somewhere in there there MUST be SOME fundamental to make it a B0.

Charlie's work proved that the fundamental can be way way down and the second harmonic was even louder, but it was still there to form the note and we heard the B0.

But I'm afraid when we completely eliminate the fundamental we lose much of the character of the actual note.

What even allows us to tell the difference in our head I suspect is the B0 is Fundamental 30.87, second of 61.74, third of 92.61 and a forth of 123.48Hz

The B1 is a fundamantal of 61.74, second of 123.48, third of 185.22, and forth of 246.96 Hz. Note the simalarities and differences. Unfortuately the brain isn't a calculator, the ears pick up vibrations and the brain processes and we hear.

What the We dont need a fundamental crowd states is the differences between the B0's thrid harmonic of 92.61 and the B1's harmonics makes us hear the B0. What I state and some others on here, we need some fundamental and then the harmonics help out.

IMO we have to pass whatever the basses electronics has to pass, the amplifier MUST AMPLIFY that signal..

Where many of us separate is I say the speakers need to reproduce the fundamental fully to maintain the honesty of the note, and others say its OK for the speakers to not fully reproduce the fundamental and its up to our ears and brain to make up the notes we hear.

It's obvious my CURRENT speakers attenuate much of the B note's fundamental, but its still there rattling the cabinet and zooming the cones. It might be down 12 DB but there's enough to let our brains figure it all out. My subs when done will give me strong fundamentals, lets see what happens then.

The worst thing to do would be to place a high pass filter AT THE BASS, and that's what you are suggesting with an RF unit that doesn't pass some or all of the fundamental. What I am saying is let the limiting factor be the CABINETS not the signal chain. Does that make any sense?

Yeah, it does make sense Bob, but OTOH, I can't say I've ever suffered for a wireless that's only rated for 50 hz. But OTOH again, when you can get an X2 that does 20 hz, I see no reason to get the 50 hz wirelesses anymore

 

[SteveC]

I have an XDR 95 and, believe me, it lives up to the hype in every way. From my jaded ears, there was NO difference in sound. None.

you never step on a cord, pull it out of the socket, damage the cord, which makes you feel like a blundering idiot

I don't think it's a question of quality any more. The X2 is very good. I thought it sounded better than a cable.

I have never done that. Loop your cord through the strap - done.