Bluetooth® vs. Wireless

Bluetooth® wireless was conceived of in the 1990s, but became ubiquitous during thelate 2000s and into the 2010s with the advent of the smartphone. From there, it has spread into a whole host of different smart devices, and become the way a lot of people stream music to their headphones, speakers, or media systems due to its convenience. However, it’s only become relevant in the pro audio space relatively recently, and even then in fairly specific use cases such as PAs and mixers.

Wireless audio for performers hasn’t changed much, with UHF analog being the usual entry point in the modern era, and digital wireless being a much more specific protocol that doesn’t allow for Bluetooth integration. We haven’t seen Bluetooth microphones in the pro audio space yet, despite them existing as headsets in the consumer space.

So what is the difference between Bluetooth and more “traditional” forms of wireless audio, and what are the pros and cons of each?

Bluetooth: Pros and Cons

The first major con to Bluetooth, and the reason it has only begun showing up recently in the pro audio sphere, can be showcased by asking a common question for most people new to the field: why aren’t pro-grade Bluetooth wireless mics a thing?

Well, to start, Bluetooth is an inherently digital protocol, and digital audio is a lot more data than most would think. Even traditional digital wireless systems usually have significantly more latency than their analog counterparts, but Bluetooth in particular being built off of small-packet transmission has latency times sometimes measured in seconds unless the audio data is significantly compressed, making it either too far out of sync or too low quality to use for real-time audio transmission.

But this asks the new counter-question: why is it showing up in the pro-audio space at all, then?

Well, for starters, Bluetooth works for way more than just sound. It offers a common wireless protocol for linking to smart devices that is standardized, meaning any Bluetooth- enabled device can connect to any other Bluetooth-enabled smart device (such as a smartphone or tablet). Bluetooth also avoids interference due to being a frequency-hopping protocol, meaning that it hops between frequency bands in its 2.4 GHz range to maintain a clean connection over short distances. This makes Bluetooth excellent for controlling settings on certain devices, such as the RX Series of PA cabinets or the Resound VX6.1.

The other major factor as to why Bluetooth audio streaming has become more common, is that it has become more commonplace for gigging musicians to use a smart device to play backing tracks or intermissions between acts or sets. In this instance, the latency becomes irrelevant, since they will be reacting to the music coming out of the speaker, instead of speaking into a microphone only for the audience to hear them on a delay. This is what has lead to the rise of Bluetooth adapters like the Stage BR1X, because they enable an easier way to plug into mixers or PAs and add bluetooth capability where there wasn’t any prior.

Traditional Wireless: Pros and Cons

Despite the continuous spread of Bluetooth into the pro audio sphere, more traditional wireless tech still exists and is being not just used but innovated on. Why is this? Well, for starters, these technologies reduce latency down to double-digits of milliseconds to make them viable for real-time audio transmission (usually below the 50 ms mark). This is what the vast majority of wireless microphones and in-ear monitors are built with, since such devices need to operate close enough to real time that performers can react to what they hear (or not be out of sync with their bandmates).

There is also the fact that traditional wireless systems, being built on what is essentially radio transmission, easily have range that Bluetooth does not. A Bluetooth device averages about 100 feet of operating range in ideal conditions with line-of-sight. A system like Samson’s Concert XD2 has three times the range at 300 feet of operating range with line-of-sight, easily outpacing the Bluetooth protocol. On top of that, one can extend analog systems like the Concert 99 using additional BNC antennae (or using range-extenders tuned to the right frequency) to further push that range for larger venues and spaces.

However, there are downsides to this tech as well. While some transmission tech can be relatively cheap (Samson’s XPDm and Stage line of wireless microphones are both relatively inexpensive even compared to pro-grade systems like the Concert 88 or XD2), they’re still significantly more expensive to manufacture than Bluetooth, partially because the components are specifically engineered to each wireless system instead of just being a standardized Bluetooth chipset.

There is also the fact that these systems have to deal with interference, especially in the analog space. If a given analog wireless system is broadcasting in the same frequency as another, there will be at best crosstalk and at worst destructive signal interference that could make both signals incapable of reading anything at all while they’re both active. While most systems these days tend to opt for frequency agility (like the aforementioned Concert 88 and 99 systems), these are not always a fix if there is too much noise on the EM spectrum, and therefore needs to be planned around when going on tours (thankfully, intelligent digital systems are not nearly as prone to this issue, and the aforementioned Concert XD2 operates in the largely-vacant 1.9 GHz band to avoid this problem entirely).

So What Does This All Mean, Anyways?

Wireless of any kind if a complicated beast, but understanding the different wireless protocols out there will make sure that you can understand why the audio space is placing those protocols in the relevant spaces. Knowing the strengths and limitations of both Bluetooth and more traditional wireless setups will let you figure out which systems you’ll need to help make your performances work and sound their best.