Wireless vs Cables

[Jalevinemd]

I am thinking of picking up a Shure GLX-D wireless system. I currently play using my FX-8 and a Fender Twin Reverb Reissue. My main guitar is a custom Alembic.

I have never used a wireless system before and was curious to know if those of you who do (or have) can tell any difference in your tone between these systems and traditional cables?


Regards,

Jonathan

 

[Sleestak]

This is an interesting topic, and has been debated here on the forum for some time. I think it's safe to say you'll notice a difference in the sound between various cables, so when we get into comparing wired / wireless sound, it's another facet of the discussion. I have good ears, and have spent a lot of time in recording studios (and on stages). All of my cables are hand-built by me, and I am very familiar with my tone. I use a Line6 G90 wireless on big stages, and for touring. I can tell a difference between this wireless and a direct wired signal, but it's very subtle, and in truth, I'm not sure one is "better" than the other. An Alembic is a very high fidelity tone source. I'm guessing you have spent a lot of time dialing in your sound. You'll notice a difference with the Shure GLX-D, but I bet you'll discover it's quite small.

 

[dpeterson]

Splitting hairs with a good wireless. IMHO.

 

[Jalevinemd]

Thanks guys...kinda supports what I was expecting (or at least hoping) to hear.

 

[Sleestak]

Thanks guys...kinda supports what I was expecting (or at least hoping) to hear.

I doubt the tonal difference will be an issue. Modern wireless gear has a MUCH better dynamic range, so there's no compansion, and the digital signal transmission is reliable. If you feel it's different, and if it bothers you, it's pretty easy to adjust the EQ block to compensate.

 

[s0c9]

Been using a G90 for a few yrs now.. both bass and guitar.. and I really can't tell the difference.

 

[Sonofiam]

I use the Line6 G50. It has a knob to emulate various cable lengths which actually does seem to work. It's not drastic but I can tell a difference. I enjoy not stepping on my cable and the freedom of movement onstage the wireless allows.

 

[Rick]

I enjoy not stepping on my cable and the freedom of movement onstage the wireless allows.

If there is any difference at all (and I'm sure there is) I would make the trade gladly for this alone. I have been using the Shure GLXD for the last several months and it sounds good and seems quite reliable. Follow the process for getting a clear channel... I found out the hard way it does matter! It will find a channel with minimal interference for you.

 

[jarabuandi]

I am thinking of picking up a Shure GLX-D wireless system. I currently play using my FX-8 and a Fender Twin Reverb Reissue. My main guitar is a custom Alembic.

I have never used a wireless system before and was curious to know if those of you who do (or have) can tell any difference in your tone between these systems and traditional cables?


Regards,

Jonathan

I was in the same boat…and just had enough of the cable on stage. I went for the Shure GLX-D and so far I'm very happy with it. There's maybe a difference but as @s0c9 said I can't hear it.

 

[TieDyedDevil]

There are a few things to be concerned about as regards wireless "tone". Most of them are just differences; "better" or "worse" is subjective (as it is for cables):

1. Pickup loading. The transmitter will almost certainly present a different impedance (resistance and capacitance) to the pickups. Not really an issue if you have active electronics in your guitar, but it does make a difference to passive guitar electronics. You should be able to compensate for most of this using EQ after the receiver, near the head of your signal chain.

2. Noise. The transmitter has its own active electronics. That's a noise source. A good wireless will have a really low noise floor, but even that can be noticeable if your gain is high enough.

3. Dynamics. Ideally, the wireless signal chain will follow the level of your signal perfectly all the way from the noise floor up to the clipping limit. In practice (at least IME), this is where most wireless units fall short. In the best case, the wireless will mute very low signals (mostly in an attempt to suppress the noise that I mentioned above). In the worst case, the levels can have weird discontinuities caused by the transmitter-side compressor and the receiver-side expander not tracking each other properly.

4. Level matching. This is a special case of 3, but worth mentioning separately because some receivers allow you to adjust output level and some transmitters allow you to adjust input level. You can, of course, compensate elsewhere in your signal chain. Really, though, you'd like to have the level be the same as if you used an instrument cable.

 

[Maxsys]

Just switched to Shure GLXD and I love it, I didn't notice a difference in tone, but then I wasn't looking for a difference, maybe there is maybe there isn't, still sounds awesome to me.

 

[Wallygatorr1976]

I am using GLXD for bass, no noticeable difference. At least not loosing low frequncies as lots of other devices - wireless for bass is little bit more difficult subject...

 

[vangrieg]

There are a few things to be concerned about as regards wireless "tone". Most of them are just differences; "better" or "worse" is subjective (as it is for cables):

1. Pickup loading. The transmitter will almost certainly present a different impedance (resistance and capacitance) to the pickups. Not really an issue if you have active electronics in your guitar, but it does make a difference to passive guitar electronics. You should be able to compensate for most of this using EQ after the receiver, near the head of your signal chain.

2. Noise. The transmitter has its own active electronics. That's a noise source. A good wireless will have a really low noise floor, but even that can be noticeable if your gain is high enough.

3. Dynamics. Ideally, the wireless signal chain will follow the level of your signal perfectly all the way from the noise floor up to the clipping limit. In practice (at least IME), this is where most wireless units fall short. In the best case, the wireless will mute very low signals (mostly in an attempt to suppress the noise that I mentioned above). In the worst case, the levels can have weird discontinuities caused by the transmitter-side compressor and the receiver-side expander not tracking each other properly.

4. Level matching. This is a special case of 3, but worth mentioning separately because some receivers allow you to adjust output level and some transmitters allow you to adjust input level. You can, of course, compensate elsewhere in your signal chain. Really, though, you'd like to have the level be the same as if you used an instrument cable.

That compressor/expander problem is irrelevant in the case of digital wireless systems, IMO.

The GLXD does have gain adjustment.

Ironically, I switched to wireless to have LESS noise, and successfully. It is true that the active circuitry will invariably introduce noise but it is much lower than electromagnetic interference you can catch with cable.

The impedance problem does exist. You will also not be able to utilize Axe FX's variable impedance circuit as the guitar pickups will always be loaded by the bodypack's input.

So there is a difference but it's really tiny. I actually compared frequency response by recording DI and using Izotope plugin. Using GLXD, there was lower level of sub-bass, and the highest treble, but higher level of some midrange frequencies. But the difference was, like I said, very small. You could get it using different cables or just picking in a different place on the string.

 

[TieDyedDevil]

That compressor/expander problem is irrelevant in the case of digital wireless systems, IMO.

The GLXD does have gain adjustment.

Ironically, I switched to wireless to have LESS noise, and successfully. It is true that the active circuitry will invariably introduce noise but it is much lower than electromagnetic interference you can catch with cable.

The impedance problem does exist. You will also not be able to utilize Axe FX's variable impedance circuit as the guitar pickups will always be loaded by the bodypack's input.

So there is a difference but it's really tiny. I actually compared frequency response by recording DI and using Izotope plugin. Using GLXD, there was lower level of sub-bass, and the highest treble, but higher level of some midrange frequencies. But the difference was, like I said, very small. You could get it using different cables or just picking in a different place on the string.

All good points. Thanks.

Not being a high-gain player, I never considered the benefit of not having a long unbalanced run to pick up noise.

The only point that I'll push back on, tentatively, is the one about lack of a compander in digital systems.

I had a Sennheiser 1092 digital wireless unit that exhibited a very noticeable "step" response during note decay. It was really odd (and annoying), as if there were four very distinct ranges of levels that the wireless could process; there was a noticeble and sudden change in level and timbre at specific times during the decay. I always assumed that they had some sort of analog gain-switching to mask limited resolution of an inexpensive set of A/D/A converters.

Of course, that's just my hypothesis. Keep in mind that the Sennheiser 1092 was the first digital unit to sell at a "reasonable" price. I paid $300 new for mine. So it seems plausible that they cut some corners to deliver an early (the only predecessor of which I'm aware was the X-Wire) digital system at an affordable price.

But, in general, I agree that a digital wireless shouldn't need a compander.

 

[vangrieg]

I always assumed that they had some sort of analog gain-switching to mask limited resolution of an inexpensive set of A/D/A converters.

This should be it, I think. I doubt that more modern systems have anything stellar in terms of A/D/A (especially with low voltage power bodypacks provide), but relatively good 24 bit converters are more or less affordable now. At least I've never encountered anything like you describe with the GLXD. I wouldn't record anything with my wireless though.

 

[jarabuandi]

I am thinking of picking up a Shure GLX-D wireless system. I currently play using my FX-8 and a Fender Twin Reverb Reissue. My main guitar is a custom Alembic.

I have never used a wireless system before and was curious to know if those of you who do (or have) can tell any difference in your tone between these systems and traditional cables?


Regards,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,
I've been using a Shure GLXD for a few month now…glad I bought one. In a live environment i don't think you 'd noticed any difference.

 

[plyall]

I also use a Shure GLX-D (the box version, not the pedal version). Very happy with it. Like everyone says, subtle differences. What I do now is build all patches using the wireless to ensure I'm getting it tweaked/peaked for live use.

 

[lqdsnddist]

In any situation where you'd want to be wireless, such as a live gig, its doubtful the sound system, or the audience for that matter, is going to be able to hear a difference.

Recording in the studio ? Use a good cable, but live ? No one is going to notice, and wireless freedom can be a nice thing to have

 

[craiguitar]

I'm looking into a wireless unit, just for convenience whilst playing live. I'm torn between the Shure GLXD and one of the line 6 units, either a G55 of G90.

From what I've read, all those units will do the job just fine, but there are pro's and cons to both:
The Shure unit has a transmitter which employs a rechargeable longer lasting lithium battery via USB (handy), whereas the Line 6 units need regular batteries.
However, the Line6 units are more easily rack mountable, the G55 has a special rack mount kit, and the G90 is a 1U anyway. The Shure would require a rack shelf of sorts, and to me that's not as tidy.

Of The Line 6 units, the G90 would add the most weight to my rack, so that's not as good.

I'm undecided at this point. Any advice from users of these units re. above?

 

[s0c9]

I'm looking into a wireless unit, just for convenience whilst playing live. I'm torn between the Shure GLXD and one of the line 6 units, either a G55 of G90.

From what I've read, all those units will do the job just fine, but there are pro's and cons to both:
The Shure unit has a transmitter which employs a rechargeable longer lasting lithium battery via USB (handy), whereas the Line 6 units need regular batteries.
However, the Line6 units are more easily rack mountable, the G55 has a special rack mount kit, and the G90 is a 1U anyway. The Shure would require a rack shelf of sorts, and to me that's not as tidy.

Of The Line 6 units, the G90 would add the most weight to my rack, so that's not as good.

I'm undecided at this point. Any advice from users of these units re. above?

Can't speak for the G55, but the G90 - which I've been using for guitar and bass for 5+ yrs - is not really going to add that much to rack weight at all.... I went with it back then because I wanted a rack-mount solution to marry to the AxeFx for gigs and BOTH have been fantastic. I have had nothing floor-mounted (except MFC) for years, so a pedal-board solution while using the Axe seemed counter-productive.

I can get up 8-hrs out of a set of AA batts in the G90 xmitter. Mine are rechargeable 2300 mAh Energizers.. paid $30 for a set of 16 almost 3 yrs ago and use/charge/rotate. I check levels before each set. I have some 2800 mAh EBL's but they are too tight a fit (slightly oversized) to go in the slide-in style battery compartments (needle-noose pliers required to remove them), but work fine in flip tops, so use them on my G3 IEM receiver. I get up to 14 hrs use per set.

NONE of the units you listed is a BAD choice IME, but if you want rack mount.. your choices ARE limited.