EBS_freak

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.

Is this what everybody is buying? https://www.geekbuying.com/item/KZ-ZS10-HiFi-10-Drivers-Earphones-394070.html

And the UE reference monitors (which are sold as being as flat as you could realistically expect) Again, smooth until you get into the 2k and above region. This is where the crossovers are critical - and simply sticking drivers in a shell makes for an awful sounding earpiece. Funnily enough though - and as JH has often stated - flat is boring - but crucially it's what the earpiece is doing in the 1kJz+ range that makes or breaks the IEM.

I've uploaded the response of my Roxannes (bass in neutral position on the controller) - as you can see, the troublesome balanced armature 2k region is still present in these also. That's the nature of balanced armatures for you!

Ah sod it. I'll join in too. Off to geekbuy to have a closer look. 32 Ohm for starters... so they are harder to drive than your typical IEM. Interestingly enough, if that response graph is to be believed, these headphones will be proper mellow in the highs due to that steep roll off. Also, that peak between 2k and 5k is a little worrying - that is where the human ear is most sensitive (think baby's crying)... so they could sound quite harsh. The bass looks fairly encouraging - but that will be down to the imbalance between the dynamic and balanced armatures. In short, from that graph, far from flat. Could make for an interesting piece - just got to wait for it to arrive. "Shocking bass" would never be a marketing term I would use either!

They seem to be on uk ebay, shipped direct from china.

In terms of construction, not a great deal. It's the frequency response that matters. For hearing aids, they tend to be hyped around 2k and not very linear in terms of their response. They also tend to not go very low. Things have moved on though - there's dsp in hearing aids that can assist with compensating for an individual's frequency loss and also flattening out the frequency response of the balanced armature itself. For IEMs though, the devices are all passive, so like speaker manufacturer, the deficiencies have to be scienced out of the equation. It was Jerry H that realised that you could get the extended lows out of an IEM by using a pace maker balanced armature in conjunction with a traditional BA. By putting the drivers in phase (to some extent) by changing the bore and length of the connecting tubes and by dampening the air flow to reduce the peaks, you could get a pleasant sounding IEM, albeit far from flat. That is why for some time that his inears could do what everybody else's couldn't - getting the extended lows. Of course, by then specifying your own balanced armatures, you can have drivers that are designed for sub, low, mids and highs which work in conjunction with your own specific crossover design. Each of these BAs will each have their own peaks and that's where the tuning and crossover design comes in again. The more drivers you have, the higher the complexity and task of actually getting a nice sounding ear without the inherent peaks that you get from a balanced armature. Some manufacturers are better at this than others (remember that the final product is the sum of lots and lots of variables) and of course will result in a specific sound signature. That is why when people A/B brands, they'll tend to favour a particular brand because their sound signature is more to their liking. Additionally, by specifying the impedance, you have more control in controlling what the super highs are doing - which is why balanced armatures can reach super high frequencies - that give the feeling of "air" to the sound. Thats the high level version anyway :-p