ControlBooth

Go Back   ControlBooth > CB Discussions > Sound

Notices

Sound A place to discuss sound reinforcement and design.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 03:04 PM

Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21

Default Wireless vs Redundant

Every year I run sound for a live show at my school, that includes many scene changes and daily rehearsals. After the weeks of rehearsals we find that we always run into the problem of dead/dying XLR or 1/4 inch instrument cables resulting in signal loss. Currently we use a 1/4 inch instrument cable (from an instrument lets say a guitar) to a passive direct box and then XLR to the snake back to our mixing board.

After having stressful moments trying to repair what isnt working and time praying that it will work for the show I have decided that I need to do something about it.

My first thought was everything wireless. Because if everything is wireless how can we have signal loss due to a broken cable. However, I have used wireless before and know that it presents its own problems with batteries and such.

So my next thought was to run a Redundant (copy) signal back to our mixing board. But im still not exactly sure how I am going to do that. My first thought is to use a 1/4 inch Y cable in the instrument and then run two of the systems that we normally use. So it would be 1/4 inch Y to two parallel 1/4 inch instrument cables into the passive direct box, to XLR, then into the snake fed to the mixing board.


If anyone could give me any suggestions or let me know if im on the right track or if I am forgeting something obvious and important. Thanks
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 05:05 PM

Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 149

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

Wireless is much much much much worse. Can I stress that enough?

Get good cables or fix your old ones. Nothing is more reliable than a hardwired connection. You just can't have crap cables. Fix 'em or replace 'em.

Guitar to DI to snake to console is almost error-proof. Mic to snake to console is almost error-proof.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 05:08 PM

Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 149

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

And by the way, in that redundant loop you're thinking about with the guitar, there's a major logical fallacy:

The most likely thing to fail is the guitar cable itself. Honestly, it is; it's the thing that gets the most abuse, and they're usually built like crap too, at least the cheap ones. And next after the guitar cable, the jack on the guitar itself. Nothing you do after that guitar cable will solve any problems that are introduced by either a bad guitar cable or bad guitar jack.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 05:20 PM
derekleffew's Avatar
Senior Team
CB Supporter 

Technical Director
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 3,178

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

I think you're ignoring the obvious, and trying to over-complicate things, Mullet1215.

First, use high-quality cables, from a reliable live sound manufacturer. If building them yourself, make sure you're following all correct solder techniques. Also be sure to use the highest quality cable and connectors you can afford. I'm not saying the connectors have to be gold-plated or that the cable has to be Monster, just that the parts shouldn't be coming from El Shacko de Radio.

Lastly, invest in a good cable tester, such as this, or this, and be sure to thoroughly wiggle, twist, and abuse the wires while testing. (Ya know, like a muzoid will .)

Stop by the New Member Board and start a thread introducing yourself. We like to know as much as possible about our members.
__________________
Academician, braggart, curmudgeon, & D-funk.
Free advice ain't cheap, and cheap advice ain't free. Ya gotta pay to play.
Better questions produce better answers!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 05:39 PM
Eboy87's Avatar

Technical Director
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO (Chicago for college)
Posts: 917

Send a message via AIM to Eboy87
Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

To echo the above statments (I'm good at that), a wired connection is much more reliable. I used to have a wireless rig for my guitar, but I had too many dropouts and switched back to wired. Personally, I'm starting to build all my cables myself. A) it's cheaper (as far as I'm concerned), and B) quality control begins and ends with me.

Definitly invest in a good cable tester, it'll solve many headaches down the line. The Qbox is a good one, but I'm waiting to purchase a rat sniffer/sender (which probably won't help you much because it's geared more towards XLR) linky.

I'd say to nix the wireless and redundant cable and invest/build quality 1/4" cable. THe problem you're running into, as wayne hoskins said, is that most instrument cables that musos use are poor quality, coupled with the fact that they're abused night after night, and they become the weak link in that signal chain. I've rarely had failures after the DI (once or twice, but those were from bad snake channels), but have plenty of stories of musos' cables crapping out on them. Just watch it lending out cables, rarely do the lent ones come back.
__________________
Ian Garrett
Columbia College Chicago, Audio Arts & Acoustics, Sound Reinforcement major

[B]Mike[/B]: Do you want to tell them before we start to step up to the mics when they sing?
[B][COLOR=white]Me[/COLOR][/B]: I've given them the same note for the past four years; it clearly doesn't help.
*Mike laughs*

Last edited by derekleffew; July 22nd, 2008 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 06:40 PM

Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 31

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

I just want to pop in and share a quote that I read somewhere. Unfortunately, i don't remember where I saw it, so I can't credit the source, but it goes something like this:

"The best multi-thousand dollar wireless system is almost as good as a $20 cable."
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old July 25th, 2008, 02:14 AM

Technical Director
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 512

Send a message via AIM to TimMiller
Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

Most musicians buy cheap cables, their "good cables" commonly come from radio shack. Funny how i have very rarely had problems with any of my rapco cables or monster cables. I have reciently started purchasing cables from CBI with very good results. I really wish people would quit trash talking wireless systems so much. Whenver there is a problem with a wireless system it is usually due to A)being cheap crap to begin with B)not properly setting frequencies C)tech who does not know how to properly setup a wireless system D)batteries

My shure wireless systems are now going on about 8-10 years old and they are still working great, and we usually have the recievers 50+ feet away from the transmitters. I have the U and UA series wireless. I also have had very little problem with my sennhizer wireless. I have had numerous audio guys quit and get fired due to lack of knowlege when using wireless microphones. We also do many dance shows where wired mics are NOT an option. If i had them a wired mic they will be looking for a new audio guy. Just some food for thought.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old August 9th, 2008, 11:30 PM

Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

Personally i find that musicians tend to beat the crap out of all of our equipment!... they need to learn that its not our equipment that screws up or sucks... it is their stuff........ definitely stick to a wired connection all of the way and like everyone else make sure you use quality cables... they will make a difference...

good luck

Last edited by nmccoart5; August 10th, 2008 at 12:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old August 10th, 2008, 07:00 AM

Technical Director
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 897

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

In most cases it is the 1/4 inch that is the problem, can be the cable or the jack. Inexperienced musicians tend to abuse these to the point of failure on a regular basis. A wireless typically will still have to use a 1/4 inch to connect to the guitar.

In general I try to only use wireless for a function that really needs wireless, usually for the mc, I agree a 20 dollar cable is better than a 1000 dollar wireless.
Sharyn
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old August 10th, 2008, 10:21 AM
CB Supporter 

Technical Director
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,366

Default Re: Wireless vs Redundant

And I'd agree that a $50 cable is better than a 5K wireless system. Consider that as Sharyn noted, you'll still need a cable to connect to the wireless and from experience, TA4F connectors don't take abuse too well and are a right pain in the rear to reterminate... You'll also be using thinner and thus generally more fragile cable because the boots on these sorts of cables is smaller than a standard 6.5mm jack.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
audio, direct boxes, passive direct boxes, redundant, reliability, sound, wireless

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is anyone else using wireless DMX? pacman Lighting 22 February 21st, 2008 05:27 AM
war of the wireless 6ftstudios Sound 2 May 5th, 2007 08:46 PM
Shure UHF-R Wireless fosstech Sound 1 October 17th, 2006 02:34 PM
Wireless? Sound 21 August 8th, 2006 12:26 AM


All times are UTC -4. The time now is 04:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Powered by NuWiki v1.3 RC1 Copyright ©2006-2007, NuHit, LLC
Advertisement System V2.2 By   Branden

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34