• 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.

Wireless receiver for bass & IEM?

#21
Well, unless there is a critical need to be wireless it is, of course, much easier and cheaper to be wired.

I use a Rolls for my IEM. I have a headphone extension attached to my bass cable. That way I have one cable that brings my IEM mix to my buds and my bass signal to my Tuner/DI/Rolls - all on a little Nano board.
 
#22
Ukiah Bass said:
There are lots of valid reasons to use wireless. Elimination of stage clutter of cables and accidental tripping and pulling out cables is one. Another is the ability to go into the audience and hear the mix, which is crucial if you're self-mixing from the stage. Wireless is also useful if you tend to roam around the stage during a performance. I'm sure there are other reasons that are equally valid.
Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning validity in general. Just wondering if it was necessary for you in this case. If it is, that' great. I'm not saying wireless isn't valid. I have debated it myself but find I stand in pretty much one spot and don't need to go ut and listen or anything like that.

I think a single send/receive unit would be a huge hit.
 
#23
Ukiah Bass said:
I have heard about latency on wireless IEMs. I'm new to that world and am using a wired connection with a Rolls PMD351.
Click to expand...
no latency on regular wireless, just on digital. the D/A conversion stuff takes a little time.

regular wireless just compromises bandwidth and dynamic range a little; not such a huge deal for IEMs, since their purpose is for performing, not listening or recording.
 
#24
walterw said:
no latency on regular wireless, just on digital. the D/A conversion stuff takes a little time.

regular wireless just compromises bandwidth and dynamic range a little; not such a huge deal for IEMs, since their purpose is for performing, not listening or recording.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your note. This is getting way OT but it's my thread so there! By "regular wireless," do you mean older transmission systems that have been deemed "illegal" due to reassignment of bandwidth by the FCC? There don't appear to be very many vendors of wireless IEM systems. Sennheiser, Shure, Audio-Technica, Carvin, maybe one or two others. I presume what they're selling now are the "digital" variety you mention? I'm not very clued into the technicality of these systems. Just getting my feet wet.
 
#25
digital wireless is a specific, new thing; it's wifi essentially, same as your cell phones and ipads use.

otherwise, wireless is UHF or VHF or whatever, analog with no latency. different brands use different bands and channels, some of which are getting gobbled up and sold.
 
#26
Two IEM related items I've been searching for in vain are a combo send-instument/recieve-monitor signal device and a half-space brickwall limiter.

One of the problems with an all in one is that it's tough to have the transmitter and receiver in close proximity without inducing a lot of noise & interference.

A limiter is an absolute must for hearing protection using IEMs, IMO.

I can't believe the best option for this is a huge, out of print device like a Aphex Dominator or Symetrix 525...
 
#27
you don't have to wear two body packs. I have my line 6 g50 tx clipped to the guitar strap. I don't "wear" it, I don't even think about it.

this notion of a combo tx and rx pack came up in a thread a few months ago. time for a kickstarter campaign??
 
#29
I've heard the problem with a combo bodypack described as having two conversations at the same time
with one party ( instrument transmitter ) yelling past the ear of the other party ( IEM receiver ) that
is trying to listen to their own different conversation while their talker is whispering...

Hope that made sense...
 
#30
Geri O said:
I have my Lectrosonics transmitter on my bass strap and my IEM receiver pack on my belt on the left side (right-handed player). Never heard any interference.
Click to expand...
+1

i play guitar in the band that uses in-ears, and a couple of guitars at that; my shure ears pack sits on my belt over the left back pocket, the relay guitar pack on my belt over the right back pocket, with a long enough cable for me to quickly mute my pedalboard, unplug and switch guitars.

i could see an all-digital system that could do both, but probably not until the latency is way shorter than it is these days.
 
#31
I use a Sennheiser EW300 for my IEMs and a Line 6 G90/50 for my bass. I attach the body packs to my bass strap using neo tech pouches. I have no issues with latency, interference or transmitters falling off/cords coming out.

There is no "omni pack" right now (that I'm aware of) that does both guitar and IEM wireless; keep in mind that your guitar wireless is a transmitter, while your IEM wireless is a receiver. Even then, I don't think I'd necessarily buy it. I had a G90, but recently bought the G50 to put on my pedal board. Now, I just run one cable from my board to our IEM rack. Combining the rack-side receiver/transmitter would mean I'd need to run a cable from the IEM rack to my pedal board, then back again (which I originally did with the G90). As well, if I were to have a problem with one unit, it would not affect the other. However, for someone without a pedal board, I could see it being practical.

Both body packs are light and I don't notice them at all. So from a practical standpoint, it might be nice to have a single body pack, but in my experience with wearing both, I really don't have a desire to downsize.

I 100% recommend both of the brands I mentioned, and while not cheap, I have zero complaints with them.
 
#33
There are technical reasons why it's bad form to put an IEM transmitter and a wireless receiver in the same rack, if they are working in the same band. If you can spread out the aerials, so they are physically apart it's a bit better, but the other end of the link has the same issue. It's called receiver desensitisation - de-sense for short. The transmitter, being close to the operating channel of the receiver desensitises the receiver - effectively making out a bit deaf, reducing the range. If this happens at the other end, then the usual reasons people don't use wireless (range, interference, unreliability) get reinforced. I too use line 6 and Sennheiser - and because they work in different bands, they don't interfere with each other. Latency is a non-issue totally. As somebody has already pointed out, the kinds of latency delays we are getting are so small they really are less than you get walking away from your amp - and of course so many people are now using digital mixers for their PA. Latency just doesn't come into it, and is just hot air put out by the proponents of analogue. There is a little compression, but for bass, that usually sounds a bit better, I find. The technical issues mean that a combined item would be a poor seller, because they'd have to market it as a fully pro product so users would have the technical skills to split their aerial system and so on. Selling to the MI market, with a full refund policy would be a nightmare!

I'm also one of those who put the TX pack on the strap, IEM on my belt.
 
#35
paulears said:
There are technical reasons why it's bad form to put an IEM transmitter and a wireless receiver in the same rack, if they are working in the same band. If you can spread out the aerials, so they are physically apart it's a bit better, but the other end of the link has the same issue. It's called receiver desensitisation - de-sense for short. The transmitter, being close to the operating channel of the receiver desensitises the receiver - effectively making out a bit deaf, reducing the range. If this happens at the other end, then the usual reasons people don't use wireless (range, interference, unreliability) get reinforced. I too use line 6 and Sennheiser - and because they work in different bands, they don't interfere with each other. Latency is a non-issue totally. As somebody has already pointed out, the kinds of latency delays we are getting are so small they really are less than you get walking away from your amp - and of course so many people are now using digital mixers for their PA. Latency just doesn't come into it, and is just hot air put out by the proponents of analogue. There is a little compression, but for bass, that usually sounds a bit better, I find. The technical issues mean that a combined item would be a poor seller, because they'd have to market it as a fully pro product so users would have the technical skills to split their aerial system and so on. Selling to the MI market, with a full refund policy would be a nightmare!

I'm also one of those who put the TX pack on the strap, IEM on my belt.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. I ordered a neoprone holder for my Line 6 G55 transmitter - hopefully it will work on my bass strap. Haven't purchased a wireless IEM yet. Sennheiser isn't the only wireless IEM that works in different channels, is it? Seemed like there are other options. I'm kinda of holding off there as if the entire band goes in this direction, it might make sense to coordinate the wireless IEM purchase.

I can see how the cost of a combined receiver/transmitter-in-one-small-portable-unit might drive up the cost. It would also require some integration in the racked units, I suppose.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back