Let's talk wireless into effects...

[ducmike]

I just spent some time playing around with this. There is a really big difference from the X2 to a cable with my germanium London Fuzz. It has a brighter tone with more gain with the X2. The cable needs the fuzz all the way up to get the same gain as the X2 with the fuzz backed off to about 4:00. It cleans up much better and earlier with the cable too. It seems to behave more like a big muff than a FF with the X2.

I can't tell much difference with the other pedals. Or with the amps OD.

Bummer, because I really like the freedom of the x2, and not getting tangled and tripping on my cord after only 2 songs. Does the radial dragster really work?

[Zero]

That's what I'm wondering.

[randy morser]

i had to go back to cables to save the tone

[Tweeker]

Originally Posted by ducmike

... There is a really big difference from the X2 to a cable with my germanium London Fuzz....bummer, because I really like the freedom of the x2, and not getting tangled and tripping on my cord after only 2 songs. Does the radial dragster really work?

Originally Posted by Zero

That's what I'm wondering.

Originally Posted by Tweeker

The Dragster DOES NOT WORK when placed between the wireless receiver and pedals. It is designed to see the guitar pickup impedance. The wireless receiver has a buffered output which renders the Dragster useless...
The ONLY thing I have found to work is to insert ANOTHER preamp / buffer after the wireless receiver and turn the output very very low. This ends up lowering the overall signal making it look similar to a guitar load. It unfortunately changes the gain structure of everything, but it does allow the fuzz to be used with the wireless and active pickups..

I quoted my own post from this very thread, looks like you guys missed page 1.

The deal is that most fuzzes don't respond well to buffered signals. The workaround using a second buffer that I describe is the only way I know to use a "traditional" fuzz with the X2.
The only fuzz that I know of that's designed to be used with a buffered signal is the Subdecay Flying Tomato.

[GDking]

Originally Posted by buddaman71

100% agreed.

a) I have always hated wireless.

b) My new X2 is 99% as good as the best cable I have ever played.

c) The simplest solution is always the best. Just spend $ 300 on a new X2.

I agree with the above. X2 wireless is where its at, no difference with my fuzzface or mkIII pro analog.

[ducmike]

Originally Posted by Tweeker

I quoted my own post from this very thread, looks like you guys missed page 1.

The deal is that most fuzzes don't respond well to buffered signals. The workaround using a second buffer that I describe is the only way I know to use a "traditional" fuzz with the X2.
The only fuzz that I know of that's designed to be used with a buffered signal is the Subdecay Flying Tomato.

Thanks. I guess I did miss that.

I was just thinking about this today. I wonder if the foxrox buffer that goes in wahs to make them work with a fuzz could be rigged up for something like this?

My London fuzz still sounds good with the X2, but it sounds better with a cable. And, it will clean up with a cable, but really won't with the X2.

[Ronsonic]

The old Eddie Van Halen answer (back in the days when his rig sounded good) was to have a 100' cable spooled up connected from the wireless receiver to the pedal board.

[Connor0359]

I have been strugling with the wireless debate for much time now and so far I have come to only one reasonable solution. I use an A/B switcher and plug my wireless into the A and a wire into b (which I have created an area for under my pedalboard. I realized that for some situations (very many for me) I can use the wireless without hassle or regret (even though I use a very cheap $100 system that I bought for the hell of it) but when Im hitting problems or it just doesn't feel right I switch to my wire. I find this is the best solution that leaves many possibilites and I am always pleased and Im never left regretting leaving the cable or wireless at home.