EBS_freak

Indeed! More dsp in a box!

Everybody's gear is their gear and if it works for them, so be it. I'm always interested in what other people are doing as it may inspire me to do something different. RCF demolish a Barefaced? Well, I guess that depends on which RCF, which Barefaced... and whether you want the colouration of a bass cab, or the FRFR of a PA cab. My smack all others into the ground wasn't directed at Barefaced or any particular manufacturer to be honest - I wasn't even thinking about Pete's comments either than I wrote it. The reason I wrote it, performance, weight and price wise, there is simply not a competing product offered from any other manufacturer whether they be predominantly PA manufacturers or bass cab manufacturers or crossover (like Barefaced?). To some extent though, the Hulk Hogan comparison actually hangs true. The components in those particular two models outclass those from cabs even more than double the price. That pretty hulk in my book. In regard to BF and your passive speaker cabs - they probably are comparable... but I'm very wary of passive cabs being branded as FRFR for reasons I've mentioned earlier. I just don't think it's possible to engineer a flat response cab anywhere near that of a cab with DSP. Sure, you could add DSP pre the amp that drives the passive speaker... but again, more shizzle to carry around. As opposed to brands being mentioned in threads - it's natural - thats what makes the stuff we write about more real world. People like stuff. People don't like stuff. Some people can justify why they rate stuff... others just rate it because they own it and very protective if what they have bought is then brought into question on a forum. I think that's a fair observation isn't it?

We don't play with backing tracks. We do play with a click when required. When is it required? When we have the synth player playing synth patches with arpeggios or samples being triggered that are beat dependent. It's not cheating - as unlike backing tracks, we can go round verses, choruses, bridges until the cows come home. We are not limited by the playback of a backing track. At one point, I was syncing MIDI across the stage for patch changes and being able to trigger different tempos (so we are still not bound by a song structure) - but ultimately, it was overkill, extra complication and another thing to go wrong. It also depends on the drummer... a great drummer can groove to a click and push and pull the tempo around that click. Hell, I use three drummers regularly and they all share a common pad with all the notation (they are all theatre show drummers) - makes learning new songs really easy for them... they just turn up and read.

The tone of the thread can be pretty much dictated by the title. I don't quite know what you would be expecting! The modelling thing has only really been nailed in the last few years... and the software in the current modellers are still being improved month by month to incorporate better fx and more models etc. The Line 6 modelling bass is now old technology... and carrying around a few basses is certainly different to carrying around a few backline rigs, both in terms of size and weight.

As flat as any passive PA - maybe - but certainly not as flat as any cab that is given a helping hand with DSP to control the actual resulting response. It's a bit of a cheat really - you could actually manufacturer a pretty poor cab and fix most of the problems with DSP. I don't think anybody is running anybody's systems down. They are just different approaches to the same problem. Some people will want FRFR, some people may not. As I stated above, what it does enable you do is to get that studio processed sound into your live rig. I think you are confusing the real thing behind FRFR in your statement, "I'm actively going out of my way to stop the system as a whole providing FRFR, because it sounds and feels more appropriate in context." The point is, if your rig is exactly like you like it, if I miced it up and profiled it with my Kemper, it would sound exactly the same as your rig miced up. The reason? My FRFR cab is not changing the sound coming out of the Kemper. If you put the Kemper back into your Barefaced cab, you would get the sound signature of that Barefaced cab changing the sound. FRFR doesnt mean your bass sounds flat or sterile... it just means that it has no impact on the sound that is being fed into it. You not using FRFR to get your sound from your rig is fine... but my model of your rig requires FRFR to not colour that modelled sound of your rig. Put it like this, if you were to put a Trace through your Barefaced speaker, it would sound like a Trace through a Barefaced speaker. If you were then to put an Ampeg through your Barefaced speaker it would then sound like an Ampeg through Barefaced speaker. You may actually prefer the sound of a Trace through a Barefaced speaker but prefer the Ampeg through an Ampeg speaker... so you'll have to cart that around too. I can model all that with my Kemper and a FRFR cab... and not have to carry the Barefaced or two amps around.... in fact, I could take as many virtual amps and cabs as I need... and the resultant sound through the PA would be exactly the same. Whats not to like about that? Your RCF monitor comment seems to have no context to the rest of your post?

Anyway, it's probably best that we get this thread back on track - if anybody wants to talk wireless in depth, I'm sure you could set up a thread in accessories and misc and we can continue conversation on such things there and let the Smooth Hound discussions resume.

Just to be a pedant... micing up the a Barefaced rig would give you a "studio"-esque take on the sound that comes from a Barefaced rig. You have the inherent sound of the mic and the fact that it is taking just one point of the cab and the sound that is produced rather than the sound of a cab as a whole. But yeah, would agree with the rest.

Just to clarify, there shouldn't be any RCF worship here - the word RCF could be replaced with any competitor brand... Yamaha, QSC, EV whatever... HOWEVER when it comes to the RCF 735 and 745... they are stand out cabs because of these things - VC size and resultant performance of the drivers and the horns that they are used are not used in any other ABS cabs - they are only usually found in wooden cabs. VC size and resultant performance of the drivers and the horns that they use are not found in any other cabs at this price point. VC size and resultant performance of the drivers and the horns that they use are not found in any other cabs of this weight. Smaart shows the DSP to be a true FRFR with a pink noise test - and these cabs will actually handle so much lows that a lot of users could (and do) use them without a sub. So those two cabs in particular are cabs that should not exist - and therefore are worthy of mention because for the reasons above, they smack all others (comparable but ultimately non comparable) into the ground. Are RCF the cabs the best in the PA world? No. Far from it. Are the 735 and 745 the best compared to their non-existent competition? I'd say so. If that makes them flavour of the month, I'd say given the reasons above, it's fully justifiable.

^This. Trying to get over 10 systems working in tandem within a small slice of the spectrum is hard enough. When you are talking about the distribution of high channel count wireless, you are looking at far more than plug and play. Sennheiser and Shure have invested heavily in computerised systems to calculate the frequency and powers that are appropriate at the venues and enable the configuration to pushed out to the devices over ethernet to try and reduce the headache. There's incredible indepth analysis showing interference, dropped packets, induced latency... and a lot of these systems are encrypted so that the transmission streams cannot be intercepted, distribution can happen over Dante etc - that's the reason why I am saying Smooth Hound is not in the professional camp. It's not a slur on Smooth Hound - it's just a statement of the reality of the situation with regard to the other gear that is out there. Lets not forget that one channel of Smooth Hound is just over a hundred quid... one channel of ULXD say, is over a thousand pounds. Oh ... and regard to co-ordination, it doesn't mean it's doesn't all change after soundcheck when the audience come in with all their phones! The radio guy's job is sometimes the easiest job on the crew... but sometimes, it's without doubt the most stressful. No radio, no show!

PS don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for this product - if the latency was sub 3ms, I'd buy one today at this price point - and I'd be super interested if there was a XLR mic version.

Nice pics - but also not situations where a lot of wireless has been deployed. No radio mics, no IEMs, no metal staging... so not really a testing environment for a 2.4ghz deployment.

Shh. Now let Chad have his monopoly.

It depends on what you are having to amplify. For example... If I was playing with a reggae tone, the larger voice coil would (all other factors remaining the same) be a better shout. What you have to remember is this, dedicated bass guitar cabs rarely sport the same quality of drivers found in the comparable prices PA cabs - so you are onto a winner on a performance point. Whether you want the flat response of a PA cab vs say the colouring of a bass cab, well, that's a different thing - but that's where your modelling comes in.

Been watching the politics of Chad on the line 6 fb group. Pfft.

Nice compact setup that. Good work that man!

The scanning technology is fine for most who want to run up to say four channels - but anything more than that you are going to need some considered radio planning. For example, I run 14 wireless devices and two wireless access points with my band - there's no way that the scan function would get those running intermodulation free - but appreciate that my setup is not typical. I'm guessing the Smooth Hound is very much in the consumer camp - or maybe the prosumer camp at a push but is unlikely to find itself on bigger stages with lots of wireless due to the inability to tune specific frequencies. This is also true of most of 2.4/5ghz stuff - so is not really a shortfall of the Smooth Hound - Line 6 is all fixed frequency also. Again, although used in some professional environments, you are more likely to see the likes of Lectrosonics, Sennheisers and Shures in play. I think sometimes you just have to accept when you are using the free for all wifi channels, there may be instances where you can't go wireless. It's how you are prepped for that situation that counts! The ability to control rf output is critical though. People think more is better when in reality you can get a lot more stable connections if you aren't boiling up a melting pot of RF. You only have to look at how much Shure ULXD and Axient you can get into such a small section of the rf spectrum - but they are reliant on working at 1mW as opposed to 10mW+.

I think I get the concept of what you are saying... I'm just not aware of any other product where this is a necessity?

It's clearly better than sticking some tape on a G30 battery door!

Can you detail your wireless gear? Is it all running on 2.4Ghz? Unless you are running the same brand, you are likely to be running into intermod issues very quickly (brands tend to have fixed channels that can be used together intermod free (for info, theres only 3 channels that are truly intermod free - but you sneak some extra stuff in there a la line 6). I'm not sure whether the Smooth Hound works on fixed channels and switches between them... or actually allows for discrete tuning depending whats already been detected as being in use. You can improve the situation if you can decrease the transmission power for starters - I know you can do it on the Line6 stuff but not sure if you can on the Smooth Hound stuff. What mics are you running? Ch 38, 70 or 2.4ghz/5ghz? For the desk, ensure you are running a router in 5Ghz only. I tend to stay away from the 2.4/5 Ghz stuff for particularly this reason - with venues with many wireless access points (e.g. conference rooms/hotels) can be a nightmare for these types of systems. Of course, the big nightmare is that on big gigs where the audience turn up with their phones with wifi turned on, things can soon become congested in the airwaves... particularly if they are trying to connect to the router on your desk in a desperate attempt to try and get some free internet access. Hide the SSID for starters - although any savvy tech heads will be able see the hidden SSIDs if they want to, it's will detract the opportunists though.

I doubt I have the receipt!

I have one SM58 which has always been awful - I kinda knew that it was a duff mic from the word go but didn't think it would actually be duff given that it was from a "reputable dealer" doing a show special. Box, case and cable ties all present... all looked to be spot on. Anyway, in the height of boredom I stripped down this mic to see why this mic has never been as good as my other 58s (not that I tend to use 58s now, I favour 935s and 945s, Audix and Heil). All of it checked out to the letter. After looking at all the fake sites etc on how to spot them, it came down to one thing that my mic is missing - the rubbish bin imprinted in the xlr connector at the end of the mic. So yeah, finally confirmed after ten+ years. Fake - and that would explain why it sounds even worse than a standard 58 and has a tendency to feedback at any opportunity! Guess I now know why the show special was 50% off! The fakes back then seem to be better than the fakes now!

In the interest of keeping the balance, the Smooth Hound even comes with tape to stick it to your guitar. All solutions have pros and cons.

And in the interest of keeping the balance, particularly if you are an IEM user, the 8ms latency from the Smooth Hound is awful. A consideration that you should take into account if you have anything digital in the chain - e.g. digital pedals, digital mixers... all of which will add their own latency. For a comparison, G30 as mentioned above, <4ms. Smooth Hound 8ms.

Analogue yes - due to the companders. Only the very best systems will give you the sense of a wired system. The lows and highs are generally impacted. Generally the more expensive you go, the better the compander. With digital, there is no perceivable loss at all - although there will be a slight (but in reality unnoticeable) delay as the signal goes through the analogue to digital (and back) conversion.

Sounding great.