NUX’s flagship wireless system, the B-8 - demo
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2024
- As Guitar World Tech Editor, Paul Riario, notes in this video demo: “NUX has hit it out of the park… considering its beautiful design, the simple and seamless pairing of the transmitter and receiver, its tuner and boost and the astonishing low latency and range… it’s a must-have. Definitely check it out.”
tinyurl.com/ms4skv8m
#NUX #Wireless 
Видеоклипы
Glad to see Paul's still making videos to this day. Last time I've seen him was in 2009 or so
same :D
I own Shure GLXD systems and have been happy with those. But I just recently purchased one of these NuX B8 pedals and am really happy with it. On the high stability (and thus higher latency) side of the signal config, I did not notice any latency. The other features such as boost, tuner, D/I, and effects loop fit perfectly into my needs for my smaller acoustic rig. The way the transmitter magnetically docks on the pedal for charging is very clever and well executed. Time will tell if this system will hold up under crowded airwave settings. But so far, this pedal has been excellent. I likely will sell my Shure gear.
You can still get to the tuner when in boost footswitch mode by holding down the footswitch.
My problem with NUX is that I have a pedal from them that bricked after plugging it to my PC and updating the software. Whatever position the knobs are in when the pedal is powered is the position they stay in on the circuit. Is this a common thing with their pedals?
Hey everyone. I have a question regarding where would be the best placement for a compressor in the signal chain, when using the NUX B-8. What I'm concerned about is the use of the boost function. Say I'm using the compressor to smooth out my dynamics, but then want to boost my output slightly for a section of the song. If I place the compressor after the NUX, won't the boost function be hindered by the compression? At the same time, I can't place the compressor before the NUX because I'd have to go through the NUX's input, which would defeat the purpose of the wireless system wouldn't it? Thanks for any tips you can provide.
Can you buy the cables for the transmitter separately? also are they available with a right angled jack?
Hey Paul I thought you were dead. Happy to see you again on screen.
This looks compelling. I only have a few real amplifiers. Most of the time I plug into an FM9 or Axe-FX iii modeler. Does the NUX B-8 work well with real amps and modelers? I’m guessing it would work just as well with either.
Looks interesting, but what is the use case for an FX loop on a pedal? The whole point of an FX loop is to bypass the preamp for those effects, essentially. if you loop "at the pedal" and then send the output into the the amp's main input anyway - what is the point?
Is it possible to connect more than one transmitter?
My Question would be if it is possible to integrate a SansAmp in the FX-Loop, route it back to the B-8 and then push it out the DI-Route directly into out In-Ear Rig.
I am searching for such a sollution so I can place a compressor behind my Sans-Amp and don't have to use a seperate DI-Box.
Basically it would be following Setup:
Bass → B-8 → Equalizer → SansAmp → Compressor → Back to the B-8 → DI-Out to In-Ear Rig.
Anyone opinions on this routing?
Great video! Amazon for $319 if interested.. Seems a bit pricey for what it does.
The Sure ones are quite a bit more and don't do half as much. However, I'd say the Sure is more durable and reliable. Just my 2 cents though. I'm still looking at the Sure, but the price in Canada where I am is like $700.0
@@charlesb7831 monkcustom.blogspot.com/2023/11/B-8wireless.html#Comparison
Check it out.
It reminds me of the Line 6 G70
I still waiting the wireless system can wireless to pedalboard and then wireless to the amplifier 🧐
Hi everyone. Just save your money and buy the Shure wireless system. It’s so good and after owning 5 other wireless systems, the shure is the only one that just doesn’t care about interference.
There’s a reason why it’s basically the industry standard wireless for pros.
Also, everything with it is metal. You could kill a man with the wireless pack and then continue your set.
monkcustom.blogspot.com/2023/11/B-8wireless.html#Comparison
Make sure you tested it and check the comparison.
RX = transmit TX = receive ?????
All the other manufacturers (not just guitar gear) of wireless units use RX = receive TX = transmit
Why did they reverse that?
Honest question. How is wireless able to "sound better than wired in" ? Where is that magical improvement in sound supposed to come from?
No clue exactly what they are referring to but my guess is cable length. Wireless should have the same tone with no treble roll off at any distance. The same can’t be said for going from a 10’ to a 100’ unbalanced guitar cable.
Cables reduce high frequencies and there is a latency on longer cables. A wireless system and not exclusive to this device don’t suck tone but there is a switch to simulate the tone suck because some people like the sound also you can adjust the latency to match you preferences. So unlike cables, all wireless systems give a clean and in effected signal but this using allows you to add the tone suck sound and the latency of longer cables.
@@marcelchaloupka thanks for the answer.
RX is receive
TX is transmit
They need to offer a separate cable with a 90⁰ jack!!
The NUX is all very nice but I bought two and both had in my estimation pre mature battery death. In short once your battery is exhaust its life you can not replace it so you are screwed. Both my NUX units were subjected in some locations of failing. They were both using 2.4 KHZ which is a cell phone spec which means billions of contaminated signals in this range. I know use a $42.00 USD M-Vave that uses the emergency/military spec of 9.5 KHz with never once a total drop out live. So far I have had it a year and a half. The NUX lasted only a year each. Get the M-Vave, trouble free and cheap enough to replace.
As for latency issues 99% of what is out there have any and have not for a decade. Great latency is a buzz word and only applies with budget modelers not ANY of the cheap wireless units. There is a video I found on RUclips proving what I am telling you and even that guy uses NUX but the guy knows his sh@t. To give you perspective. The sound from a wireless at worse is like listening to your amps speaker 10 feet away from the amp. I can not stand closer than 10 feet to my amp or my Strats single coils will hum, LOL.
Shure GLX pedalboard system rules.
Is that Marty McFly?
why why why choose 2.4 ghz.... known to cause problems. and old technology these days
Less path loss compared to higher frequencies
monkcustom.blogspot.com/2023/11/B-8wireless.html#Why2.4GHz
Here is the answer.
I’d take a Shure BLX14 ($299) over one like this every day. Just my 2 cents.🇺🇸👮🏻♂️🎸
Downside is it runs on 2.4Ghz guaranteed to fail in a crowded room.
The first and foremost factor to consider in the realm of wireless in live application. 2.4ghz will work beautifully until the gig begins and the nightmare ensues.
I’ve been using a Nux B5rc guitar wireless (2.4) and the Xvive u4 (wireless in ear also on 2.4) this last summer every Saturday 4 hours at a time with no issues. Not saying there couldn’t be an issue, but in my experience playing in crowded bars to street dances and rodeos with 1000 plus people, led walls, and other wireless systems in the same space, I’ve had a great experience.
My advice is to carefully evaluate a product only after you have a complete understanding of its operating mechanism. It is not wise to jump to conclusions based solely on the fact that it operates on 2.4GHz, especially if you have limited knowledge of wireless products and technology. It is important to note that 2.4GHz is a wide enough band that even with signal interference, it can be avoided by using higher-order frequency-hopping algorithms. Therefore, it is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the technology before making any judgments.
@@pavelpeng4137 sure, but have you tried these things in a real environment? I have, they all fail in a room full of people. There are not enough channels to find frequencies to hop to.
Spend the money and go to the sub GHz band. You can’t call the cheap 2.4 GHZ band professional. You clearly don’t understand the issues.
If you can get Angus Young to use this I'll buy one
2.4gHz is gonna pick up cordless phones and all kinds of other trash.
Ask me how I know...
so thats how you pronounce it
Funny I always thought the name was "nukes"
Spam World XD
seriously who thinks they need wireless on a ten - fifteen foot stage,,, lol
Anyone who has ever stepped on their cable and a)unplugged it from the axe b)pulled the jack out of the guitar (strats are singularly vulnerable) or plain just tripped over it. Smaller stages may be more of a reason to run wireless.
If you stand on your cable and pull it out then your an idiot . And should put down the guitar .
Too expensive for units that do the same thing cheaper
Never heard of NU>X. 5 minutes in, I realized this is a parody. What gave it away? The cable warmer button!?$^@*#))! Cool, cool, I needed a laugh.
2. No-Gos: Too Big, 3.5 Jack
Over $300 for 2.4 bandwidth? PASS...make a 5.8 version. Seriously.
Super disappointed with this!! Again no way to connect with headphones????!!!!🎧
Seems like a lot of unnecessary bells and whistles. Boost? DI out? Effect loop? I’m trying to think of how my fairly simple needs would benefit from any of that. I’d rather have 5ghz instead of 2.4 and none of that other jazz.
At 2.5 milliseconds, you can start hearing actual latency. Add that onto modeling and the feel is weird. Sorry. Cables are better.
Not if that 2.5 latency is from guitar pluck to amp sound. That’s quick.
@danielvelkovski3156 it's doubled that with modelling.
$319 🏳🏳🏳