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.
Cables are loads cheaper. Case closed.
Cables are cheaper, but I've had waaaaaay more cable failures(?n) than wireless failures (0).
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.
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.
Never liked the compression you get w/wireless units.Cable,thank you.