Jack

Definitely good advice. I usually went line array as it was a wider surface to put the rack on, but it didn't really matter. One upside down looked silly. Horns weren't worth rotating as I nearly always used them singly and dispersion and detail didn't matter as it was only ever just for me. For me this kind of stuff is like the 'never have two subs on opposite side of the stage' thing. I get why, but there are other considerations than just acoustics.

My Barefaced FR800s had feet on the bottom, but then when you stacked two it went horn>woofer>horn>woofer which I never really liked. I preferred to stack them sideways so you had a column of horns and a column of woofers next to each other, but they didn't have feet on the sides. Anyway, I bought a 4 pack of black hockey pucks for next to nothing online and they worked a treat. Tough, lights, black, rubber so a little vibration-absorbing, great. EDIT - It's been bothering me that I would have needed 8 pucks for 2 cabs so I dug through some old photos and they did have feet on the sides, it's just that they weren't tall enough to clear the handle on the below cabinet.

Enjoy the rig, looks awesome.

We had a 905ii for ages with either 932s or 910s and it was a hell of a rig.

Ground loop? Wouldn't explain the lack of output though.

I mix our gigs with a tablet. A tablet that uses 5.8. There's some truth to that. There are more non-overlapping channels in the space, meaning that it should be easier to carve out 'your' space in the range. However, support for simultaneous devices is again one of those things that's great for wifi generally but of no use to us in this application. A wireless guitar kit might have two transmitters at the very most. I think the record for my mixer was 4, one tablet/phone per band member on IEMs. It's not that one doesn't have to think about this stuff, it's just that it's more complicated than "four legs good, two legs bad" that is spoken in these parts a lot. FWIW I have a few strategies that have always helped. Firstly, have a backup. When I play the kind of venue that's likely to be problematic from a wifi point of view I will always take my laptop. Hotel ballrooms, that kind of place. The laptop can be plugged into the router with an ethernet cable and I can mix a show either way. Fortunately, and not coincidentally, the kinds of places that have problematic wifi environments also tend to be the higher paying gigs. Continuity is more important and the justification for lugging backup stuff is easier. In the same way I always take a cable to use if my bass wireless fails. I have used this twice. Once was in a venue where my Line 6 G55 just would not work for some reason and once was when, 2 minutes before downbeat, I could not turn my wireless on. I used a cable and at the set break realised that the power cable had been knocked loose, if not entirely out. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, I use a nice router. My mixer rack has a Mikrotik hap ac2 that has about 5-10 times the broadcast power of a typical home router like you get for free from your ISP. If I have to enter a wifi arms race I will win. Scan with my phone, pick the least busy channel and set the router to that. Not that it matters, it's always 7 anyway. Once that has been turned on then the instrument wireless systems will work around that.

It's the TS range that I have gigging experience with. 2 1x15" tops and two 1x18" subs. I briefly owned a pair of the TX110 cabs but they never saw gigging action.

The first iphone with 5GHz wifi was released in 2012, there's plenty of interference up there as well these days. Your 2.4 and 5.8 systems, were they the same apart from the wifi bands or was one just objectively better than the other? I for one have never had a single dropout with either of my Shure GLXD systems, they continue to perform literally without fault despite being 2.4GHz only. Whether it's wireless guitar systems or networking using digital mixers there's a groupthink on this board that 5.8 is great and 2.4 is bad. It's just not the case. EDIT - any more. The main reason to invent more modern wifi was greater speed, something entirely irrelevant for either application that bassists care about.

Ian is American isn't he?

Yes. It would be best to remove the low end from the tops somehow, especially as they are on the budget end.

Better range and less liable to fall out if the line of sight is blocked.

I doubt that the thru output will be processed, it'll just be straight. I've used Alto stuff, it's good budget gear. What are the tops?

They've mentioned before that they get stick for not mentioning Warwick as well. I guess they mention what they want and what they like, it's probably not a diss.

Sorry for the derail: is that the series 2? Am I right in thinking that the gain control is cut only? Or can you boost the volume level as well?

I've got QSC, been in bands with RCF and Alto, used Yamaha at my last school. Two decent 12s or (even 10s) with a 15" or an 18" sub is the sweet spot ime.