Line 6 XD-V70 Digital Wireless Mic - Now with Conclusions!

[abzurd]

I have the SM58, Beta 58A and Sennheiser 835, but have not A/B'd. It takes motivation to unload the trailer Mon - Tues after a weekend of gigging. By the time Weds comes I'm usually getting ready for the next show. A lot of what we do involve much planning (weddings, corporate stuff). Plus there's always other band work to do it seems.

 

I too prefer the Line 6 sound for the clarity it brings. It just seems to need less EQ'ing to sound good live. I find I can get away with less volume in the monitor due to the improved hard consonant resolution. It sounds good without being piercing, or ending up with the other instruments piercing just to get the a vocal sound I like.

[Anderton]

I definitely feel I know the XD-V70 well enough to come to some conclusions, so here they are. Remember, this doesn't necessarily mean the Pro Review itself has come to an end; you're welcome to ask additional questions, post info about your own experiences, and basically, continue to use this thread as a place to discuss the XD-V70.

First things first: It works. And if it doesn't work (e.g., you get out of range), it simply doesn't work. Yes, it's digital wireless - on or off. You do have a nice range to play with, though; the signal carries hundreds of feet.

It also sounds good. The lack of compansion is a big improvement over typical analog systems, and the A/D/A conversion is clean. As mentioned eariier in the review, although the XD-V70 is intended as a live performance mic, I've used it for recording narration to get away from fan/hard drive noise and it sounded great.

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me has been the build quality. This is a substantial piece of gear (I should also note the mic's barrel has a somewhat larger diameter than an SM58, but I don't find it uncomfortable to hold). The receiver is solidly built, and the mic case is very well done. Obviously with some of their products Line 6 has designed to price point, but I feel that was less of an issue here - there's a very "pro" feeling about the package.

As to the modeling, my previous post pretty much presented my conclusions. It's useful, but I wouldn't consider it the "killer" feature - I see it as a nice bonus.

The bottom line is this: I always shied away from wireless because of concerns about sound quality and reliability, but no more. I would have no problem packing this in my bag to take to a seminar, or using it in live performance, and I would not be apprehensive about turning it on. Wireless may be one of Line 6's new product lines - but they did their homework, and did it right.

[ggm1960]

Those spectrum charts explain why the difference in mics is too subtle for me to hear. Nice work on the analysis!

[abzurd]

Those spectrum charts explain why the difference in mics is too subtle for me to hear. Nice work on the analysis!

 

 

Actually, despite the lack of visual difference, I find the differences fairly dramatic, especially between the SM58 and other models. The SM58 lacks the high end of some of the other models. The white noise doesn't really do it justice for what you'll hear with vocals.

[ggm1960]

I had to go back and refresh my tech/physics knowledge a little. I knew that white noise was all frequencies at equal power which, of course, provides the indisputable "forensic evidence", if you will, about the frequency response of audio gear but I'd forgotten about the logarithmic properties of the human ear and thus the purpose of pink noise.

You've examined the various mic models of the Line 6 wireless unit but have not compared them to the real counterparts? I would be surprised if any two mics actually had the exact same frequency response but then again with such high precision manufacturing equipment available today it's probably quite possible for them to be very close.

The only other aspect that comes to mind would be the speed that a mic can accurately track transients. Like slew rate of an amp the ability to follow a signal's positive and negative peaks with minimum delay is key.

I apologize if that's already been covered I only glanced over the posts due to a current overall lack of interest in the product.

[ggm1960]

Actually, despite the lack of visual difference, I find the differences fairly dramatic, especially between the SM58 and other models. The SM58 lacks the high end of some of the other models. The white noise doesn't really do it justice for what you'll hear with vocals.

I can never argue with people trusting their ears, after all, that's what it's all about. I've always been pretty happy with most mics I've tried. I have an SM58 and a couple of AKGs that I really like but overall I don't know if I've ever met a live mic I didn't like. I don't hesitate to get right up to them and start belting out a song!

[Anderton]

I did the pink noise tests as well as white noise, it seems to give a more realistic idea. The problem with voice, in my case, is that my voice is relatively low and doesn't have a lot of high-frequency - where the differences tend to be more dramatic.

 

However, if you compare the graphs of the 58 and 767, look closely and you'll see definite differences that correlate with what you hear. I put them up as two tabs in Firefox, then click alternately between the tabs. It makes it easier to see the difference.

[abzurd]

So I ran through the models during my line check yesterday. Something I've not really done up until now. No matter how similar the white noise charts appear, I can assure you there are significant differences between the presets.

 

I've also found a benefit to modeling that, while fairly specific, is something I'd not considered previously. The modeling is essentially a pre-mixer EQ. Normally that doesn't mean anything, BUT when you have a harmonizer in the chain between the microphone and the mixer, the harmonizer is getting it's feed directly off the microphone. The EQ on the mixer does nothing for the harmonizer. The significance is that harmonizers can be finicky. They harmonize to the input coming in. Sometimes that means they get confused if there is extraneous input, from stage bleed for instance.

 

After running through the models I decided to use the OM5 preset. This microphone is engineered to have a low cut that naturally backs down the the "power frequencies", around 100-500 Hz. It's a smoother sound that is more like a recording. A side effect, but a good one, is that it also attenuates those frequencies hitting the harmonizer. So the harmonizer is seeing less mid bass/low mids. This makes the harmonizer happier as it's no longer getting confused by those frequencies and getting a stronger vocal signal and less stage rumble stuff.

[Anderton]

So I ran through the models during my line check yesterday. Something I've not really done up until now. No matter how similar the white noise charts appear, I can assure you there are significant differences between the presets. I've also found a benefit to modeling that, while fairly specific, is something I'd not considered previously. The modeling is essentially a pre-mixer EQ. Normally that doesn't mean anything, BUT when you have a harmonizer in the chain between the microphone and the mixer, the harmonizer is getting it's feed directly off the microphone. The EQ on the mixer does nothing for the harmonizer. The significance is that harmonizers can be finicky. They harmonize to the input coming in. Sometimes that means they get confused if there is extraneous input, from stage bleed for instance. After running through the models I decided to use the OM5 preset. This microphone is engineered to have a low cut that naturally backs down the the "power frequencies", around 100-500 Hz. It's a smoother sound that is more like a recording. A side effect, but a good one, is that it also attenuates those frequencies hitting the harmonizer. So the harmonizer is seeing less mid bass/low mids. This makes the harmonizer happier as it's no longer getting confused by those frequencies and getting a stronger vocal signal and less stage rumble stuff.

 

 

Thanks for the additional info. I think I mentioned earlier that the easiest way I've found to compare the frequency response graphs (and I think the pink noise one is more telling) is to open up separate tabs in a browser, and click between them. If you applied one of those curves while mastering to a song and then applied the other curve, the overall sound would be quite different. A dB here, a half dB there...it adds up!

[dboomer]

So remember measuring with noise (and you should use pink noise) is a static test, not a dynamic one. One of the parameters modeled is proximity effect which is very dynamic in nature so in a noise test it's gonna only end up in one place. It really helps when you can test the models next to the physical mic it represents. The best way to hear the differences is to say start with a 58 and a 58 model then switch to another model and compare it back to the physical 58. It's pretty easy to hear this way.

Model accuracy is based on the consistency of the physical mics and the tolerance of the mic capsules. Mics being mostly mechanical in nature have a much broader swing than electronics. We tested and measured a bunch of physical mics and we had to average them together and say this is what an "X" mic sounds like. Trust me, if you get a box of anything there is a fair range between a single model. The other thing to factor in is are you comparing your old whatever that has been dropped a bunch of times and spit on and has a crusty grille (there's a picture 'eh?)


This is what I hear when I switch models (or physical mics) ... YMMV. So starting with the 58 (somewhat a reference standard), switching to the b58 will get you more top end, more level and more proximity effect. Switching to the 835 the level drops a tiny bit and the proximity effect is somewhat tamed. The 41 model is more aggressive in the upper mids, the 767 a little different top and less lows and the OM5 the smoothest, the lowest output and a very manageable proximity effect. The one to pick will depend on the singer that's using it and the system that is it run through. I don't think one size will fit all. It least you now have some choices in your own system with your own singer.

The L6 model most resembles the frequency response of a b58 but with the extreme top extended by about 2k. Also the proximity effect is more similar to the 835.

[abzurd]

How do you impact proximity effect with modeling? Isn't that primarily a physical attribute of the microphone capsule? All you can do with modeling is adjust the low end EQ, correct? I'd think the lows would be boosted regardless of how far away you are from the microphone.

[j3yps]

care to share your setup/settings using this mic with VL2 live?

[abzurd]

 

care to share your setup/settings using this mic with VL2 live?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I have 30 some patches I use, most of which are similar effects, but different keys. I use a bit of de-essing (maybe 25%) but too much and your sibilance suffers. I don't use the auto EQ as I find it's a bit to "scooped" for my taste with overly hyped high end. For the microphone I prefer the OM5 setting as it has a cut around 120 Hz or so and it more natural overall.

[j3yps]

uhm does it pickup the band behind you let's say you're infront of the drummer facing the audience, can you still use harmony, auto-tune(HARD) and stuff?

[abzurd]

 

uhm does it pickup the band behind you let's say you're infront of the drummer facing the audience, can you still use harmony, auto-tune(HARD) and stuff?

 

 

It does a decent job. Better than a condenser mic, but does not isolate as well as something like an Audix OM5 or OM7. For exceptionally loud stages it could trigger false harmonies, but then again, anything but a VERY aggressive microphone with a high amount of isolation is going to do that. Any harmonizer is going to harmonize with what it hears.

[j3yps]

It does a decent job. Better than a condenser mic, but does not isolate as well as something like an Audix OM5 or OM7. For exceptionally loud stages it could trigger false harmonies, but then again, anything but a VERY aggressive microphone with a high amount of isolation is going to do that. Any harmonizer is going to harmonize with what it hears.

 

 

So like if i really really want to use those features hardcore i should get a new capsule then?

[abzurd]

 

So like if i really really want to use those features hardcore i should get a new capsule then?

 

 

Maybe, but I don't know what you'd get. A Beta 58A, which I've tried, doesn't sound as good IMO and provides only marginally better isolation. I've used an SM86, which is an condenser. As expected, it's a far worse isolating mic.

 

I would LOVE to use my Audix OM5 capsule, which was the primary reason for purchasing the Line 6 microphone. When it was first released it was supposedly compatible with Audix. I bought the mic the first week it was available and apparently was the first to test that claim. Compatibility was dependent on using a 3rd party adapter ring, which I had already and used on my Shure SLX system. It failed to work on the Line 6. It didn't screw on very easily to the Shure or Line 6 and I was able to exchange it for another, which did screw on easier. It too didn't work. Long story short, Line 6 followed up with Rat Sound, the makers of the adapters and confirmed it would not work. They claim the design of the adapter was changed, which I never understood. It worked on a Shure mic and Shure mics work on the Line 6 so it would be logical to assume the adapter would work on the Line 6. Anyway, they've since removed all mention of compatibility with Audix capsules. I have no experience with Heil mics, which supposedly work as well.