Wireless pickup?

gobrowns19

Now I'm not really sure what these are called, but for the best mental image, think of Mike running around on stage. He has one of "those" things. [AKA no cords.] Now I'm not planning on running around an audience soloing to Alive like Mike does, but I am interested in getting one. But naturally, I'm clueless.

What is the average price range of one? Even just a cheap one, since that's what I'll most likely be purchasing, if any. Speaking of range, how is the range you can be away from your amp and still play? Also, how does it work? Is there a channel like on walkie talkies? Do you plug one part into your amp and the other to your guitar?

Thanks.

ianvomsaal

There are no wireless pickups, Mike uses a wireless guitar system - Basically you plug your guitar into a little wireless transmitter (that's typically worn on your strap). That little transmitter sends a signal to another box (receiver) that's plugged into your rack or pedalboard or amp (whichever).

There are two types VHF (very High Frequency - REAL SHIT), and UHF (Ultra High Frequency). I'll recommend that you get "UHF" NOT VHF, strictly because VHF systems really really suck. VHF has lots of interference, signal drop-outs, and signal loss (it's very old technology - it's a low band radio frequency - the old TV sets had VHF and UHF, and the VHF channels sucked most of the time).

Now remember, going wireless also means that you'll loose some tone. Mike McCready use to use a SONY WRR-840A wireless which is fairly expensive (I don't know what he's currently using), but there are much more affordable UHF wireless units on the market (between $300-$600). I'll recommend that you just stick with one of the industry leaders (either get a Shure or Sennheiser - DON'T get a Samson or Nady or cheap Audio Technica). There are many different models available, and all kinds of price ranges - choose one that fits your budget.

I have a Shure P6 unit for my wireless in-ear monitors ($1500), and it's matching wireless guitar setup (another $1500) that I used at Busch Gardens when I played in their music shows. It may seem like a lot of $$$, but it's actually only a medium priced pro system - there are much better systems on the market - Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

who's_pearljam?

It's a guitar wireless unit.

It basically takes the place of the cord from the guitar to the amp or effects.

It has a transmitter, which is the thing plugged into the guitar and attached to the strap or your belt. It sends the guitar signal to a receiver which is plugged into the effects chain or the amp.

If you get a cheap one, you'll be back to a cord in no time! They're ok, but you'll lose some tone, and they can pick up a lot of interference,,, and ,,, you'll be using a lot of 9 volt batteries. They last usually for a night of play.

A better unit can be GREAT on stage. Each less wire in my life makes me happier!!
They have true diversity, which means the receiving unit has two separate receivers and antennae so that the signal doesn't drop out. A good unit can actually have LESS tone drop off than with a really long cord. The longer the cord from the guitar to the amp, the more signal you lose. For the most part you'll lose a bit of tone, though.

If not playing on stage, then the greatest use for one is when I sit on my roof and looking out at the city and playing, and not hauling the amp up there.

Good for sitting on the porch, too!


http://www.musiciansfriend.com/home/navigation?N=100001+703120

if you want pro,, expect to pay 1500 bucks or twice that.

who's_pearljam?

Haha,,, Simultaneous posting and I guess we agree!


There is a Shure system that's pretty decent that is fine for home use, but all the cheaper ones are risky to use on stage, because you never know what interference you'll run into that'll static up your signal .


Haha,,, found it and actually it's on sale for a couple of hundred bucks.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Shure-TGD-The-Guitarist-Diversity-System-?sku=270157

The Waiting Trophy Man

this is some crazy shit.

gobrowns19

Cool, thanks for the help. I'm still interested in one, but again, the price would still be one of the most deciding factors. The Shure that who's_pearljam? showed would actually be the best deal for me, and I'll look more into it. Thanks for the help.

harrisonmerwin

although nady isnt the cat's ass, i suggest trying the UHF-3, or UHF-5, its affordable, and if you end up not liking it, it's not as insulting to yoru wallet. Maybe try renting a system from a shop to try it out...allways a good idea.

gobrowns19

That's a good idea, there are mixed reviews. I'm planning on renting one, or several. I find it very amusing that on musiciansfriends, it says customers who bought this item also bought 10 foot cables. Lol.

who's_pearljam?

gobrowns19 wrote:

That's a good idea, there are mixed reviews. I'm planning on renting one, or several. I find it very amusing that on musiciansfriends, it says customers who bought this item also bought 10 foot cables. Lol.

They suck up batteries, so maybe you should get a 9 volt DC adapter to plug into the wall and run power to your wireless transmitter!

ianvomsaal

Just a reminder . . .
Try to Stay Away From VHF units.
They really suck and are not worth the hassle - VHF is a RADIO Frequency, meaning lots of interference (all kinds of handheld radios, walkie talkies, CB's, etc). Just make sure you get a UHF unit - the cheapest UHF system is still better than the best VHF system. A diversity (2-antenna) UHF system is better than a single antenna system because you get less drop out and signal loss.
BTW- The signal loss and delay you get with long cables is called LATENCY.
Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

who's_pearljam?

ianvomsaal wrote:

Just a reminder . . .
Try to Stay Away From VHF units.
They really suck and are not worth the hassle - VHF is a RADIO Frequency, meaning lots of interference (all kinds of handheld radios, walkie talkies, CB's, etc). Just make sure you get a UHF unit - the cheapest UHF system is still better than the best VHF system. A diversity (2-antenna) UHF system is better than a single antenna system because you get less drop out and signal loss.
BTW- The signal loss you get with long cables is called LATENCY.
Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

Agreed!

Except for the latency part, I think.
I think latency is the time delay when you're putting your guitar signal directly into a computer. There's a slight delay,,,,,, I think,,,,, I'm not totally sure because I have not experienced latency yet,, because I still am too much of a damn DODO to GET my guitar into a computer!
It's slowly coming to me though. Old fashioned I guess!
I'm still a "guitar to TS-9 to amp" guy and let most of the boutique stuff by.

A long guitar cable to an amp loses some signal through capacitance. It bleeds off some of the highs, and some say boost the mids to some degree.
Hell, we used to have 30 foot long cables in the 70's, and Hendrix et al even longer, and they were by no means all the high end shielded lower loss cables out there now.
Maybe that's the missing link for everyone trying to get the Hendrix tone. Buy crappy cables!!

harrisonmerwin

who's_pearljam? wrote:

Agreed!

Except for the latency part, I think.
I think latency is the time delay when you're putting your guitar signal directly into a computer. There's a slight delay,,,,,, I think,,,,, I'm not totally sure because I have not experienced latency yet,, because I still am too much of a damn DODO to GET my guitar into a computer!
It's slowly coming to me though. Old fashioned I guess!
I'm still a "guitar to TS-9 to amp" guy and let most of the boutique stuff by.

A long guitar cable to an amp loses some signal through capacitance. It bleeds off some of the highs, and some say boost the mids to some degree.
Hell, we used to have 30 foot long cables in the 70's, and Hendrix et al even longer, and they were by no means all the high end shielded lower loss cables out there now.
Maybe that's the missing link for everyone trying to get the Hendrix tone. Buy crappy cables!!

you guys are both right...

Latency is a DELAY in the transfer of information, regardless of the medium. If you have a computer transfering data through cables and other means, it's going to be fraction, of a second off. Most up to date mixing software (ill use protools as an example) offer "low latency recording" which is just a buffer to make sure that everything "lines up" musically, and with the bits of data. Latency can also be the delay with mic cables/patch cords as well. It does take time to send an electrical pulse (almost as fast as light!) but as you can imagine, the longer the cable, the larger that "fraction of a second" becomes, and if you add digital effects in at all, it "dramatically" (in relative time you can hardley notice) increases the delay. So, you guys are both right, it just depends upon the medium your working. I like to think of latency in the computer sense though...because it does take time for the computer to take your acoustic energy, and process it into bits of data.

who's_pearljam?

^ Thanks Harrison :cool:

I took a lot of physics in college years ago, and it is amazing to me that now with digital recording, people can recognize the time difference in a few feet of guitar cord, for a signal that's travelling 700,000,000 miles per hour! Seven hundred million miles per hour!

I was happy just trying to keep in time with the drummer!

Haha,,, "Close enough for rock and roll!" was the motto for a long time!

harrisonmerwin

who's_pearljam? wrote:

^ Thanks Harrison :cool:

I took a lot of physics in college years ago, and it is amazing to me that now with digital recording, people can recognize the time difference in a few feet of guitar cord, for a signal that's travelling 700,000,000 miles per hour! Seven hundred million miles per hour!

I was happy just trying to keep in time with the drummer!

Haha,,, "Close enough for rock and roll!" was the motto for a long time!

it is much more noticable now with digital software, but most of them auto correct it. It can be around .11 seconds off i believe, so its quite a dramtic difference, about 1 beat on a 60 BPM tempo song. But then again most software auto-corrects this, but the lower latency recording, also takes up much more processing power, up to 95%, protools suggests that 85% is the max you use on your "a little over average" computer.