EBS_freak

And now the cable has gone on my ACS. Wow. Surprise - not. Utter stinky poo design. Roll on postman. I need some decent ears delivering quick smart!

Eww. just kidding!!

Just out of interest... what gear were you using?

I reckon the isolated fit alone improves things from 10%-35% in terms of sound quality. Custom fit is boss!

The PSM300 is great so no worries there... but would suggest if everybody is hopping on board with wireless IEMs, stick with PSM300s. That way you can use their present frequencies without worry of intermodulation issues - this is more common and problematic when you start mixing brands and systems. You should be able to get 3 or 4 in the channel 70 space.

Problem with inears systems is that different radio frequencies and illegal in different countries (and states!)... and all that.

Yeah - I guess the investment all depends upon your experience. If 2.4Ghz is a problem at venues that you play, it's not going to get any better any time soon. There's always the option of going wired in that case. I guess the reason I have invested the way that I have is that I currently (I chop and change!) run 6 channels of IEMs and 6 channels of mics. So getting stability gig after gig is down to Ch38. If you are only running a few channels, you can get away with a lot more. Of course, I've always got the wired back up.

Looking great!

As an aside, 10ms seems to be the maximum for most people on IEMs. I know people that can't tolerate 5! (Or so they say - guitarists)

Yeah, I guess we must remember to take into account the price and form factor of the Smooth Hound before we get too harsh! But for anybody looking I get into IEMs, it would not be a prudent purchase. Anyway..... Ooh. Snap. Apparently I'm at the sameness stage with mine. Race! I've got a slight addition to my order to... will post when that arrives also!

I'm glad somebody else has experience of the Smooth Hound latency! As you say, I'm sure for straight in the amp types, the latency is not noticeable... but inears? Forget it. Yet numerous people have argued with me otherwise. Makes me facepalm when you see all these "no latency" comments... especially from so called pros. I think as an all rounder, the line 6 stuff is hard to beat. The Sony DWZ was really good - but sadly discontinued, presumably because they couldn't gain a big enough market share. It surprises me as Sony's knowledge with wireless audio, particularly in the broadcast world, is world class. Be wary of scan functionality on ch38 and ch70 kit - they will usually dump you into illegal frequencies. Also, doing a scan with a large number of wireless generally never works out. It's ok for say, two or three bits of wireless kit (and that's if it dumps you out frequencies that are legal)

Like everything... "it depends"... Budget being the main one. First up - whats my beef with Smooth Hound? It's latency comes in at circa 8ms. Top end latency that the average people can cope with is 10ms. I can feel latency in my ears at about 7ms. So if you have anything digital in your chain, like a modeller, a digital desk, digital pedals, the combined latency all adds up and becomes more noticeable. So that's why budget comes into play... historically, you'd pay a premium for low latency - but tech seems to have caught up... with pretty much all line6 stuff at 2 or 3ms for example. So pretty much shop bought digital wireless is going to be 2.4 Ghz (like the Smooth Hound... but thing typically Line 6, Shure GLXD, Sennheiser D1, new Boss wireless). The downside of this is that it's open to interference from routers, phones, baby monitors, garage door remotes etc etc. How this impacts you in reality depends upon the gigs that you are going. If you are playing venues near offices, or hotels with a lot of wifi etc, you can have issues. Also, if you are playing gigs with a lot of people all with phones searching for wifi, that can impact stability. I remember playing in a TV studio with a Sony DWZ system- absolutely no chance of getting anything working given the amount of rogue RF. My ULXD however was solid - but that's digital over channel 38. But it also comes with a considerable price tag and lots of cool features that for me, never get used. So that's your risk with 2.4Ghz. If you Smooth Hound has proven to solid enough in your gigs, then a 2.4Ghz system is probably good enough for you. Some manufactures allow you to drop the power on a transmitter, which helps keep RF interference between other devices less likely. Anyway, I digress slightly. Your other option in the Wifi band is Stageclix - if you can find one (I think Thomann still have the) - at 5 Ghz. So less chance of wifi interference (assuming transmission power stays fixed - which by Ofcom laws should be 10mW/30mW depending upon application)... but the tradeoff by going further up the spectrum is less range and less propagation (e.g. the ability for the radio waves to penetrate through walls, not be disturbed by fixed structures etc etc). Ideally, for bass, you want a digital system so you don't have to deal with companders (you get them in IEM systems as they are largely still analogue for latency reasons - I think Lectrosonic and their Dual is the only notable exception - I know Stageclix do an IEM system but it's a bit of a swizz as it's just their mono guitar system in reverse). Companders squish your signal - e.g. the bass and treble extremities - transmit it - and then try to reassemble on the other side. It works for guitar... but for bass, not so much... and of course, the quality of the compander varies widely between manufacturers and models. That's why until digital came along, bass players were most dissatisfied with wireless. Of course, with the Shure PSM300+ and Sennheiser EW300 - well, both of those have great companders in... and hence why you are paying the price and getting a higher quality transmission. So for casual users, there's digital over channel 38 - not aware of anything out there for channel 70. So for channel 38, off the top of my head, there's the ULXD, which I have - and also the QLXD, which is essentially a cut down ULXD without the extended options etc. I bought my ULXD before the release of QLXD - I would probably go for the QLXD now as I don't ever use the extended feature set of the ULX. Sennheiser I think have the 1.8Ghz covered - but it's analogue gear that area of the spectrum comes under the shared mic license. (historically they Ofcom released that band for the development of digital gear - but it would seem nobody bit!) So for 2.4, I'd probably go Line6, GLXD, Sennheiser D1, for 5, Stageclix, for channel 38, Shure ULXD, QLXD - and for 1.8, Sennheiser (but I wouldn't cos it's analogue).

crumbs - you aren't wrong. I can't remember the last time I saw VHF wireless. Mind you, if it works....? It's still legal at least! (173.7-175.1MHz)

Actually, just looked - the BLX24UK/B58 K3E appears to be channel 38 (606-614Mhz)... The T11 variant is the channel 70 version (863-865Mhz). This mic has preset frequencies, so this is the one you'll have to work around... this is why if you are running a bit of mixed wireless, the EW300 is the one to go for. The Smooth Hounds (must admit, not a fan for use with inears) should be far enough out of the way at 2.4Ghz to prevent intermodulation issues. They are going to be more bothered by neighbouring wifi and mixing desk routers.

Channel 70?

Which system is the 58 - thats the one that is going to give you an issue...

OK - what wireless exactly are you using? I hope that you have discrete tuning on all the systems, as things could get a bit nightmarish otherwise!

Yeah - looks like there's some market fixing at 839 inc VAT on the G4s. Probably worth mentioning that E band is license free, GB band is shared mic license (£75 per year, or £135 for two years - if either bought online... let me get you the link). https://www.ofcom.org.uk/manage-your-licence/radiocommunication-licences/pmse/apply-for-a-pmse-licence Of course, GB (ch 38 license) is better as there's less chance of getting interference from wedding DJs etc and their cheapo wireless mics. The Channel 70 license is generally OK to be fair - although can be a bit limiting if you want to run lots of wireless (only 3-4 pieces of kit - but generally 3 - in that piece of the spectrum) Worth mentioning also that the E band can tune down to 823-832 - which is also covered in the shared mic license. However, in true "typical" style, the spectrum round there is a bit dirty... but again, generally OK unless you are in an area with quite a lot of RF fallout.

Sennheiser - although just wanted to check that you do know the G4 is out now...? My Reasons? Build of the transmitter - I prefer the Sennheiser to the Shure, it seems a bit more pro in its appearance also. (funnily enough I prefer the Shure receiver and transmitter of the PSM900, which is I think of a closer competitor to the EW300). No fixed bands for RF tuning (e.g. you aren't limited to predetermined fixed frequencies) = better for when you have other wireless around you and you are trying to coordinate frequencies with a high count of channels. Balanced XLR/jack combo inputs. Better RF performance. The Sennheisers seem to cope better with more difficult RF environments than the Shure. Not that the Shures drop out as a rule.. but in my experience, they do tend to drop out a little more than the Sennheisers do. Sennheiser receiver is not as hungry on batteries. (Get some eneloops and a decent charger) In short, with the pro receiver in the Shure setup, both will see you well... but for the reasons above, between the two, the Sennheiser edges it. Where are you finding Sennheiser. You'll probably find some good deals on G3 now that G4 is appearing. Mercury have G4 - https://www.mercury-av.com/sales/Sennheiser-EW-IEM-G4-Series-Range-GB.html at £839 (Shared license version)

You know what, I'm not even going there.

Yup.

Triggers and no backline will sound significantly better in pubs. Less bleed into mics, better control of the volume... and if the modellers/preamps are good, with no discernable loss of tone (in fact, your tone may improve because the guitarists won't have to drive amps hard to get "their tone"). You'll have a more consistent sound across different venues also!

Im surprised that any FOH guy will be happy with you having your own access to mixes on your monitor wedges. IEM mixes can be altered without impacting FOH. The fact that monitors are not within FOH control and not be able to be notched or controlled in volume to prevent feedback, well, lets just say it surprises me anybody would let you do that. I would also disagree with the statement about concert/pro situations. If your band members take responsibility for their IEM mix and the sound on stage is reduced significantly as a result, front of house becomes a doddle.

I think I saw that on Facebook. Should be very apt!

Id be up for it. BC pie after too.