Wanted... Wireless effects loop.

Dargavel

I've seen a lot of easy enough to use wireless gear these days, and that's really kind of cool. Wireless signal quality and latency has super improved over the years, and it really shows. But what I've always wanted was a way to make my pedalboard fully wireless, give or take the power cables. I know some people hate effects loops in a live context (I know Dave is a huge detractor of them), but could you imagine if all you had for set-up live was a couple of dongles plugged in and it just worked? I have a few pedals, like an eventide timefactor that really like to be in the loop. 

The limiting factor on this wouldn't even need to be cost. These days you could get three sets of those wireless transceivers for less than a few hundred bucks. The limiting factor would probably interference. Most operate on the 2.4ghz spectrum, which is generally really good for range, but each dongle would need to operate on a different channel, all while operating in a frequency range that's taken up by last-gen wifi, which is still widely used because it has longer range the 5.0ghz. I'm just imagining a beefy one-stop pedal with decent sized antenna that could be used for both your general guitar output as well as i/o for the effects loop. that could massively simplify home and live setups. I'm legitimately surprised it doesn't exist.

Dinosaur David B

I'm not really a "huge detractor" of effects loops. My only issue with them is the same one you're explaining here. They're fine for the bedroom tone-lab noodler, or at the Aerosmith-rig level, but they're impractical for gigging at the bar-band level that I play at. So I've never cultivated a sound that demanded using them. 

Oddly enough now that I'm using the Amp1, running something through the loop would be trivial (because the amp is right there on the pedalboard), but the funny thing is that I'm so used to never using the loop, it has never occurred to me until this moment to even try that.  

The wireless dongle idea you mention is interesting.  I'm totally LOVING the Xvive U2s. I haven't used a guitar cable since getting them. Each pair has 4 channels, so theoretically one could go:

Guitar >wireless transmitter 1 > wireless receiver 1 at pedalboard > wireless transmitter 2 out of pedalboard > wireless receiver 2 at effect > cable into Amp FX IN > wireless transmitter 3 at Amp FX OUT > wireless receiver 3 back to pedalboard > wireless transmitter 4 out of board >  wireless receiver 4 into Amp input.

But something tells me this would be difficult to pull off in reality. 

Dargavel

Something tells me the solution I'm going to come up with is "buying the AMP-X when it's available .

eduardoritos

Dargavel said:

Something tells me the solution I'm going to come up with is "buying the AMP-X when it's available .

Thats exactly what I'm thinking. 

Andy G

Dargavel said:

The limiting factor would probably interference. 

The limiting factor would be latency. Using a single wireless transmitter/receiver is fine for most people - it'll add about 5ms of latency, which is no more than some expensive digital guitar processors (Kemper etc) add when they're using all their processor-intensive functions, and that's just under the limit of what is acceptable. YMMV but once you start getting between 6-10ms it's really too much, especially if you play anything quick. Two wireless systems would give you 10ms before you start - and any effects that are doing their own A/D conversion of your signal will have their own latency to add to that.

It's a great idea in theory though, but unfortunately the technology isn't there yet.

Dargavel

That's a good point I hadn't considered. A lot of wireless tech (mostly mouse/keyboards) are down to 1ms latency, but I guess maybe due to bandwidth wireless guitar hasn't progressed that far. Hopefully the tech progresses to make it happen, but you're right that 10ms and up is noticeable. And seeing as this would potentially be 4 runs, that lag could be brutal.

Duojett71

Dinosaur David B said:

Oddly enough now that I'm using the Amp1, running something through the loop would be trivial (because the amp is right there on the pedalboard) 

I am not sure I understand this statement. How does the loop become trivial because the amp is on the pedalboard? The whole point of the loop is because certain effects sound better and become more usable in the loop. For many people like myself, delays and reverbs are not usable in front of the preamp with overdrive.....the reverb and delays themselves distort. I can't deal with that...so I run my delay and reverb pedals through the loop. I understand that it does add to set up time....its two extra cables to plug in....that part I get. If anything, that fact that the Amp1 is on the pedal board would make it easier to use the loop. Am I missing something?

Dargavel

That's what Dave is saying. Setting things in the loop is trivial because all it takes is a patch cable. Not that the loop itself is trivial.

Duojett71

Dargavel said:

That's what Dave is saying. Setting things in the loop is trivial because all it takes is a patch cable. Not that the loop itself is trivial.

ok....I just took the word trivial to mean useless. 

eduardoritos

I have a cheap wireless Harley Benton system, and so good it is that I was thinking buying another pair to create a wireless fx loop. My dout it's if could be to much latency.