• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

More cables, less wireless...

Do you prefer using cables or wireless?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
Cables are loads cheaper. Case closed.


Ummm, yeah - some of us actually make enough money playing that the expense of a good wireless is no big deal, and considered a cost of doing business...

I often play on good sized stages - with 2 guitarists and a frontman - besides me - it would be impossible for us all to move as freely as we do, without going wireless... Our audience expects us to move around alot, and change sides of the stage from time to time...


- georgestrings
 
Well, the poll is closed.

Thank you all for your input (pun intended). My initial intent was to have a better idea as why people still use cables these days.

I suspected technological restraints such as interferences, frequencies response or lack of headroom but I guess it is more a personal choice (cost, ease of setting up, ease of usage etc.).
 
Wireless = TWO more things to fail, plus huge extra cost and the potential of interference and dropouts. In addition, if there is a lot of wireless on stage (mics, etc.) the frequencies have to be coordinated so they don't step on each other.

Since we lost the 700 MHz band to digital TV, there is a lot less bandwidth. Using 2.4 GHz is asking for trouble, IMO - too many other things on the same band.

Bands are probably moving away from it for reliability reasons, especially if they are frequently changing venues.
 
Cables are cheaper, but I've had waaaaaay more cable failures(?n) than wireless failures (0).

Did a gig last week (as soundman) with a 42+ input patch with a 20+ rack of Wireless mikes and IEM.
There were , I don't know , maybe 100 XLR on the stage (zero failure) while there was a guy hired full time to change frequencies/change batteries/Install transmiters-receptors.

If you play in big cities finding the right frequencies in a big rack can become very nightmarish.

I'll have a cable , please.
 
There should be little to zero issues when using wireless setups, even more so using a 'good' unit. My band uses 4 wireless mics (Vocopro/new-remains to be seen)) + the sax player (Shure), guitarist (Shure) and myself (Audio Technica) all use wireless units. We have had zero issues. Only once, a venue had the same exact unit as I did programmed on the same exact frequency. I had my unit's receiver off and I could still hear my bass through the system that was permanently installed at the venue but thought it was our system! They needed their system on for announcements so I had to change the channel on mine.
 
Did a gig last week (as soundman) with a 42+ input patch with a 20+ rack of Wireless mikes and IEM.
There were , I don't know , maybe 100 XLR on the stage (zero failure) while there was a guy hired full time to change frequencies/change batteries/Install transmiters-receptors.

If you play in big cities finding the right frequencies in a big rack can become very nightmarish.

I'll have a cable , please.

I play in a small rock band that plays local gigs. We regularly bring 3 extra XLR cables because they fail at an alarming rate. What brand are you using? I want.
 
Wireless = TWO more things to fail, plus huge extra cost and the potential of interference and dropouts. In addition, if there is a lot of wireless on stage (mics, etc.) the frequencies have to be coordinated so they don't step on each other.

Since we lost the 700 MHz band to digital TV, there is a lot less bandwidth. Using 2.4 GHz is asking for trouble, IMO - too many other things on the same band.

Bands are probably moving away from it for reliability reasons, especially if they are frequently changing venues.

I don't know that bands are "moving away from it" - atleast not from what I'm seeing... The other issues you briught up have all been addressed - no need to beat that dead horse again...

To each their own, though - I've been running strictly wireless for the last 4 years, or so - and haven't had ANY of the troubles mentioned in this thread, over the course of atleast 300-400 gigs... Until I DO actually start to have some problems, I'm staying with my wireless - it's great *for me*...


- georgestrings