If you’ve read much of my content, you know I have a soft spot for analog. Vinyl records, tube amps, analog signal chain whenever possible, there’s something honest about it. That said, I’m not stuck in the past. I was helping churches transition from analog to digital consoles back when digital was brand new and intimidating for many teams. I’m all for innovation when it actually solves problems.
Going from analog to digital wasn’t a gimmick, it was a sea-change. Digital consoles solved more problems than they caused. But not every so-called “upgrade” deserves the same enthusiasm. I’ve seen more and more tech decisions in churches that feel less like meaningful progress and more like someone just trying to go viral. Big ideas. Questionable results.
Having been in the industry a while now, I think I’ve learned to tell the difference between trends that genuinely improve the worship experience, technically and culturally, and the ones that seem to exist mostly to impress other tech people. Some of the more frivolous trends often come from “influential” TDs with too much budget and too much time. Sometimes I think they just want to see who’ll bite.
I once saw someone mic a hi-hat with an RE-20. In all fairness it was a photo, so I didn’t hear it, but really? The list goes on. The common practice of muting the acoustic guitar, a major pet peeve of mine. Ten vocalists on stage singing into dead mics. The snare drum pitched lower than the kick. We’re not short on creativity, just maybe a little short on authenticity.
Which brings me to wireless gear. It’s not a fringe trend, it’s the norm now, expected everywhere. But that’s exactly why it’s worth examining. Just because something is common doesn’t mean it’s always the best solution, especially for churches with tight budgets. And tight budgets usually mean small to mid-sized churches, which often means smaller stages, limited space, and tech teams made up of part-time staff and volunteers without deep technical knowledge. There’s nothing wrong with that. But I see lots of smaller organizations trying to replicate high-profile churches with disastrous results.
I helped a church once that insisted, yes, insisted, that everyone on stage use wireless mono in-ear systems. Why mono? Because that was the only wireless IEM system they could afford. This was a tiny stage. Nobody was “exploring the studio space.” The keyboard player couldn’t have moved if she wanted to. But wireless was non-negotiable, because it “looked cleaner.”
Sadly, they already had personal monitor mixers with stereo outputs. All they needed was $15 headphone extension cables. Better sound, full stereo, no batteries, no RF issues. But they went wireless because it looked more “pro.” A classic case of big church envy. Highly contagious, and sometimes fatal to common sense.
I’ve seen lots of churches invest in low-quality wireless systems that just sound bad. And I don’t mean “my golden ears can hear what the hoi polloi cannot” bad, I mean obvious-to-everyone bad. Distorted. Thin. Noisy. Harsh.
In this scenario, a $100 SM58 will outperform a budget wireless mic system all day long. And let’s be clear, even the cheapest wireless rig still usually costs more than a basic wired setup. But the wired option almost always wins on sound quality, reliability, and simplicity, especially in small to mid-sized churches.
Years ago, I worked with a large church with a great system. The worship leader would sometimes lead from center stage with an acoustic guitar, and other times from a piano. When he was down front, he was on a high-end wireless system with a Neumann KK105 capsule. When he was at the piano, we used a wired Neumann KMS105 (essentially the same mic, one wired and one wireless). Same settings, same EQ, at least for starters. But the wired mic was inherently smoother, warmer, with more presence and clarity. It just felt better in the mix. In the IEMs, the difference was even more obvious.
Now, I’ve got friends in big-church-world who might push back here. Some would argue that a high-end wireless mic system is every bit as good, if not better, than a wired equivalent. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree in a one-to-one test. If you’re using one great wireless setup on one great vocalist, with a talented audio engineer, I wouldn’t fault anyone who couldn’t tell the difference in a blind A/B test. And in all fairness, I’m not saying I could either.
But start stacking it with four, six, or even ten wireless vocal mics, and you may find yourself working harder to smooth over digital and RF artifacts that accumulate and deteriorate the overall vocal sound. It adds up and grits up. The same goes for acoustic instruments; wireless systems often don’t deliver the same warmth or detail you get from a good DI and a solid cable. This is one of the many reasons professional studios don’t use wireless mics or IEMs. The purity of the signal path still matters.
Full disclosure: if you’ve got ten vocalists on stage with wired mics, clutter is going to be a challenge. So in situations like that, you need to decide what compromises you’re willing to make; cleaner vocals or a cleaner stage. As an audio purist at heart, it’s easy for me to lean toward the cleaner vocal sound, after all I don’t have to deal with your messy stage with cables everywhere. And you probably know what I’m going to say here… Nobody ever said, “I really could have gotten to the throne if it weren’t for all those cables.”
Recently, a church I do a lot of work with did an all-wired day: five wired vocal mics, multiple acoustic instruments all with wired DIs, and of course a mic’d up drum kit, no tracks, just as wired as we could get in a wireless world. With as much confirmation bias aside as I’m capable of, I thought it sounded fantastic.
That’s why I’m starting to cheer on churches that are quietly going back to wired gear, especially for vocalists and musicians who are fairly stationary. I’ve started seeing more of it lately. It’s not widespread, but it’s definitely more than I’ve seen in the past. In many of these cases, it’s well-respected singers and intellectually honest engineers acknowledging that, for their worship environment, the wired mic simply sounds better. Maybe it’s just for that one worship leader, but they’re doing what works and I admire that.
Same story with IEMs. I once saw a drummer’s wireless pack fail mid-service. The team swapped in a wired pack, and afterward he asked if he could just keep it that way. “It sounds better,” he said. He was right. Why spend more money for wireless IEM transmitters and receivers on musicians who are in static positions on stage, like the drummer, keyboardist, bass player, or even guitarists, when wired connections actually sound better?
I’m not saying churches need to ditch wireless altogether. But it doesn’t have to be the assumed default. Especially in smaller churches with static setups and real-world budgets. Sometimes the low-tech answer is the smarter, and frankly the better one.
Maybe this isn’t a trend, and maybe it never will be. But if more churches are rediscovering the value of wired gear, I’m all for it. Unlike some of the flashier “innovations” we chase in church tech, this one is rooted in something real: better sound and better stewardship. If going old-school with wired mics, instruments, and IEM systems means clearer mixes and more dependable systems, that’s a trade I’ll take any day.
We don’t need more trends. We need more clarity, both sonically and culturally. I look forward to hearing how you use wired versus wireless. Until then: don’t forget to listen.
