Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless ?
Hi, I'm trying to install a wireless system. Are there any wireless transmitter/receiver combinations that allow standard wired speakers to be wireless? I mean are there any wireless receivers with built-in amps for driving standard speakers, or must wireless speakers be used ? If I can only go with wireless speakers, what are the best ones ? Bill |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Lampman wrote:
I'm trying to install a wireless system. Are there any wireless transmitter/receiver combinations that allow standard wired speakers to be wireless? I mean are there any wireless receivers with built-in amps for driving standard speakers, or must wireless speakers be used ? No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. You could have an IFB receiver driving a power amp run off a small generator. I have seen this done for delay stacks at concerts. If I can only go with wireless speakers, what are the best ones ? Good ones do not exist. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. Well, no. It doesn't. It still eliminates the need (and logistics) of running thick gauge speaker wire from the amplifier to the distant room. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , ric wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. Well, no. It doesn't. It still eliminates the need (and logistics) of running thick gauge speaker wire from the amplifier to the distant room. So, put the amplifier in the distant room and run thin gauge line level cable. No wireless needed. Or run 70V system. Going wireless is just such a huge can of worms that it's best to avoid opening it unless you absolutely have to. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Bill Lampman wrote: I'm trying to install a wireless system. Are there any wireless transmitter/receiver combinations that allow standard wired speakers to be wireless? I mean are there any wireless receivers with built-in amps for driving standard speakers, or must wireless speakers be used ? No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. You could have an IFB receiver driving a power amp run off a small generator. I have seen this done for delay stacks at concerts. If I can only go with wireless speakers, what are the best ones ? Good ones do not exist. Over on news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound, an engineer from Lectrosonics said they were working with a (some?) powered speaker vendor(s) to use Lectro's digital wireless receiver plugged into the accessory slot. (Like maybe my Mackie SRM-350s, etc?) Of course, that is a commercial solution and possibly well out of the (unstated?) budget range of Mr. Lampman. And still requires mains power, of course. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless speakers? How about a transmitter sending audio to a wireless
receiver (much like the IFB rig described earlier or an in ear monitor pack) to an ac or battery powered speaker? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Going wireless is just such a huge can of worms that it's best to avoid opening it unless you absolutely have to. Hear! Hear! Here! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Lampman wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to install a wireless system. Are there any wireless transmitter/receiver combinations that allow standard wired speakers to be wireless? I mean are there any wireless receivers with built-in amps for driving standard speakers, or must wireless speakers be used ? If I can only go with wireless speakers, what are the best ones ? An interesting area since it's one I'm loosely involved in. And may be developing for. Wireless transmission of high quality audio is bandwidth intensive. To date I'm still unaware of anything capable of transmitting and receiving CD quality audio. There are ppl working on it though in the same 'license free' band as wireless networking etc.... There are Bluetooth audio headsets and stuff out there but they are strictly low-fi. Normally using 64kbits/sec which after 'overheads' associated with RF signal redundancy probably sound a bit like 32kbits/sec mp3. Graham |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ric wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. Well, no. It doesn't. It still eliminates the need (and logistics) of running thick gauge speaker wire from the amplifier to the distant room. You still need a *power* cable though ! Don't be too distant btw. 2.4GHz @ the allowed transmit level gets mopped up pretty fast. Graham |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
psalter wrote:
Wireless speakers? How about a transmitter sending audio to a wireless receiver (much like the IFB rig described earlier or an in ear monitor pack) to an ac or battery powered speaker? Have you looked at the specs. It aint hi-fi ! Graham |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , ric wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. Well, no. It doesn't. It still eliminates the need (and logistics) of running thick gauge speaker wire from the amplifier to the distant room. So, put the amplifier in the distant room and run thin gauge line level cable. No wireless needed. Or run 70V system. Going wireless is just such a huge can of worms that it's best to avoid opening it unless you absolutely have to. There's been no shortage off ppl 'announcing' wireless hi-fi audio without remotely having the product available that I got into a full blown row with a potential business partner over this. He was *convinced* that his 'mates' knew what they were talking about. He said " my brother works in semiconductors - you're just being negative " etc blah - blah - blah and what-not. His brother does indeed. I'd previously asked him for any helpful contacts. He'd mentioned Cirrus logic. When I got Cirrus Logic's PR guy to mail my 'friend' to the effect that they had dropped all interest in that product area he *finally* shut up. Graham |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote ...
There's been no shortage off ppl 'announcing' wireless hi-fi audio without remotely having the product available that I got into a full blown row with a potential business partner over this. There are some pretty cool RF modules over at www.sparkfun.com Likely wouldn't be terribly difficult to interface to A\D and D/A converters to make a high-quality digital wireless link. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote ... There's been no shortage off ppl 'announcing' wireless hi-fi audio without remotely having the product available that I got into a full blown row with a potential business partner over this. There are some pretty cool RF modules over at www.sparkfun.com Likely wouldn't be terribly difficult to interface to A\D and D/A converters to make a high-quality digital wireless link. Interesting link ( more for the other stuff actually ). Can any of them handle a 1.4 Mbps ( CD audio quality ) link with no errors ? I suspect they may fail regulatory requirements anyway. I also rather doubt they use frequency hopping to ensure a clear pathway. Graham |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:49:57 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote ... There's been no shortage off ppl 'announcing' wireless hi-fi audio without remotely having the product available that I got into a full blown row with a potential business partner over this. There are some pretty cool RF modules over at www.sparkfun.com Likely wouldn't be terribly difficult to interface to A\D and D/A converters to make a high-quality digital wireless link. Interesting link ( more for the other stuff actually ). Can any of them handle a 1.4 Mbps ( CD audio quality ) link with no errors ? I suspect they may fail regulatory requirements anyway. I also rather doubt they use frequency hopping to ensure a clear pathway. Do a search for Sonetteer. They showed several devices which meet that criterion including a receiver with a built-in power amp. Kal |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
No, the problem is that a power amplifier requires a good deal of current. You can get an IFB receiver that will drive headphones nicely, but if you want to drive speakers, you need a reasonable amount of power and that means you need to plug it into the wall, which defeats the whole idea of wireless. Well, no. It doesn't. It still eliminates the need (and logistics) of running thick gauge speaker wire from the amplifier to the distant room. You still need a *power* cable though ! Yes, but the AC outlet can be close to the speaker, whereas the speaker wire itself would have to be brought from another room. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
There are some pretty cool RF modules over at www.sparkfun.com Likely wouldn't be terribly difficult to interface to A\D and D/A converters to make a high-quality digital wireless link. Interesting link ( more for the other stuff actually ). Can any of them handle a 1.4 Mbps ( CD audio quality ) link with no errors ? I think "FM radio" quality is a more realistic goal for wireless speakers. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Have you looked at the specs. It aint hi-fi !
We are lacking critical information here, such as the application, hi-fi/lo-fi, permanant/temporary install, venue/home, music/speech, live/recorded; we just don't know. He asked about wireless speakers so packs and powered speakers were the simplest solution I could think of. Bill, we could use some clarification here. I agree the IFB unit is probably not hi fidelity but an ear pack should have fairly decent frequency response. Of course if this is a permanant install a whole bunch of batteries that need constant replacing would end up being a big pain. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
My "crititcal information" : I want to have the highest fidelity possible using wireless transmission - CD,DVD,DAT, etc.. If I can use my existing (Morel) speakers W/O cables and have the same quality as wired, that is what I am lookng for...permanent installation.. "psalter" wrote in message oups.com... Have you looked at the specs. It aint hi-fi ! We are lacking critical information here, such as the application, hi-fi/lo-fi, permanant/temporary install, venue/home, music/speech, live/recorded; we just don't know. He asked about wireless speakers so packs and powered speakers were the simplest solution I could think of. Bill, we could use some clarification here. I agree the IFB unit is probably not hi fidelity but an ear pack should have fairly decent frequency response. Of course if this is a permanant install a whole bunch of batteries that need constant replacing would end up being a big pain. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Lampman" wrote ... My "crititcal information" : I want to have the highest fidelity possible using wireless transmission - CD,DVD,DAT, etc.. If I can use my existing (Morel) speakers W/O cables and have the same quality as wired, that is what I am lookng for... permanent installation.. No problem. As long as you have a budget that likely exceeds the cost of all the rest of your equipment comibined. Maybe several times over. OTOH, doesn't seem likely on a "reasonable budget". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ric wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: There are some pretty cool RF modules over at www.sparkfun.com Likely wouldn't be terribly difficult to interface to A\D and D/A converters to make a high-quality digital wireless link. Interesting link ( more for the other stuff actually ). Can any of them handle a 1.4 Mbps ( CD audio quality ) link with no errors ? I think "FM radio" quality is a more realistic goal for wireless speakers. CD quality links are in the pipeline - trust me. I can't say too much since I signed an NDA. Graham |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:49:57 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote ... There's been no shortage off ppl 'announcing' wireless hi-fi audio without remotely having the product available that I got into a full blown row with a potential business partner over this. There are some pretty cool RF modules over at www.sparkfun.com Likely wouldn't be terribly difficult to interface to A\D and D/A converters to make a high-quality digital wireless link. Interesting link ( more for the other stuff actually ). Can any of them handle a 1.4 Mbps ( CD audio quality ) link with no errors ? I suspect they may fail regulatory requirements anyway. I also rather doubt they use frequency hopping to ensure a clear pathway. Do a search for Sonetteer. They showed several devices which meet that criterion including a receiver with a built-in power amp. I wonder whose product they're using. I'll have to get up to date with the company I know that's working on it. Graham |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:11:20 -0400, "Bill Lampman"
wrote: My "crititcal information" : I want to have the highest fidelity possible using wireless transmission - CD,DVD,DAT, etc.. If I can use my existing (Morel) speakers W/O cables and have the same quality as wired, that is what I am lookng for...permanent installation.. Hire a professional to run the wires in your walls. Guys that do this everyday can make it as slick as snot on a doorknob. In my day job I work with several and am often amazed. Good fortune, Chris Hornbeck |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Lampman wrote: My "crititcal information" : I want to have the highest fidelity possible using wireless transmission - CD,DVD,DAT, etc.. If I can use my existing (Morel) speakers W/O cables and have the same quality as wired, that is what I am lookng for...permanent installation.. It seems that these guys have something close to what you want. http://freespace.virgin.net/sonnetee...o/bardone.html Graham |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote:
Over on news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound, an engineer from Lectrosonics said they were working with a (some?) powered speaker vendor(s) to use Lectro's digital wireless receiver plugged into the accessory slot. (Like maybe my Mackie SRM-350s, etc?) Of course, that is a commercial solution and possibly well out of the (unstated?) budget range of Mr. Lampman. And still requires mains power, of course. Lectro stuff is about as good as it gets, and it's still very audibly different than a straight wire. But I have seen Lectro and Vega IFB packs used for delay stacks at festivals (with generators at the base of the stack). It only takes one CBer with a dirty linear a few miles down the road the screw everything up, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
Wireless transmission of high quality audio is bandwidth intensive. To date I'm still unaware of anything capable of transmitting and receiving CD quality audio. There are ppl working on it though in the same 'license free' band as wireless networking etc.... Actually, a cheap trick we have used has been to take the inexpensive transmitter/receiver pairs from the X-10 system which are intended for passing video around the home, and running S-PDIF audio through them. We have successfully shot S-PDIF from one building to the next in downtown Baltimore just by pointing the things out the windows. Channel reliability wasn't the best and I'd worry a lot about rain fade, but it worked better than I'd expected and it allowed us to get good quality audio around. There are Bluetooth audio headsets and stuff out there but they are strictly low-fi. Normally using 64kbits/sec which after 'overheads' associated with RF signal redundancy probably sound a bit like 32kbits/sec mp3. There's no reason you can't get as much bandwidth as you want, as long as you're willing to pay for it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: Wireless transmission of high quality audio is bandwidth intensive. To date I'm still unaware of anything capable of transmitting and receiving CD quality audio. There are ppl working on it though in the same 'license free' band as wireless networking etc.... Actually, a cheap trick we have used has been to take the inexpensive transmitter/receiver pairs from the X-10 system which are intended for passing video around the home, and running S-PDIF audio through them. We have successfully shot S-PDIF from one building to the next in downtown Baltimore just by pointing the things out the windows. Channel reliability wasn't the best and I'd worry a lot about rain fade, but it worked better than I'd expected and it allowed us to get good quality audio around. There are Bluetooth audio headsets and stuff out there but they are strictly low-fi. Normally using 64kbits/sec which after 'overheads' associated with RF signal redundancy probably sound a bit like 32kbits/sec mp3. There's no reason you can't get as much bandwidth as you want, as long as you're willing to pay for it. --scott We're using a proprietary method, developed in-house, that gets very close to 88.2kHz, 20-bit quality (with actually measureable 107dB s/n) into the standard FCC FM mask requirements for bandwidth in the UHF region. The audio is not companded, but instead we use a unique DSP process to treat the audio before transmission. It is not identical to a cable, but most users tend to say that it is the closest thing on the market. And it's not terribly expensive anymore, since we are starting to sell a lot of it, and have made some stripped-down products recently. And unlike most network-based methods, ours only has latency of 3.2mS. /spam Karl Winkler Lectrosonics, Inc. http://www.lectrosonics.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Carlan wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in : We have successfully shot S-PDIF from one building to the next in downtown Baltimore just by pointing the things out the windows. Channel reliability wasn't the best and I'd worry a lot about rain fade, but it worked better than I'd expected and it allowed us to get good quality audio around. How did you convert spdif to a video signal? SP/DIF and video are very similar signals. Both are 1 volt p-p @ 75 ohms. In theory 24/96 SP/DIF has somewhat greater bandwidth requirements than NTSC video, but 24/44 is far closer at around 6-8 MHz. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Carey Carlan wrote: (Scott Dorsey) wrote in : We have successfully shot S-PDIF from one building to the next in downtown Baltimore just by pointing the things out the windows. Channel reliability wasn't the best and I'd worry a lot about rain fade, but it worked better than I'd expected and it allowed us to get good quality audio around. How did you convert spdif to a video signal? I didn't. It's a square wave with a 4KHz bandwidth or so. It went right into the device as if it were video... it doesn't care about synch configuration or anything. Just like using video DIs for distributing S-PDIF audio around. It doesn't meet the specs... the received signal has a lot more jitter than it should because the edges are rounded a little, but the DAC locked up nicely to it and it worked out fine. I wouldn't want to rely on it for anything I was getting paid for or put my reputation up on, but for home use it seems a fine cheap way of moving digital audio around. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: Carey Carlan wrote: (Scott Dorsey) wrote in : We have successfully shot S-PDIF from one building to the next in downtown Baltimore just by pointing the things out the windows. Channel reliability wasn't the best and I'd worry a lot about rain fade, but it worked better than I'd expected and it allowed us to get good quality audio around. How did you convert spdif to a video signal? SP/DIF and video are very similar signals. Both are 1 volt p-p @ 75 ohms. In theory 24/96 SP/DIF has somewhat greater bandwidth requirements than NTSC video, but 24/44 is far closer at around 6-8 MHz. Indeed, if do a little hostorical research, you'll discover that the choice of 44.1 kHz sample rate was dictated by the fact that the only large-capacity storage devices for digital audio at the time (late '70s) were video recorders. The sample rate was chosen such that an integral number of frames could be stored on each scan line. For example, take NTSC video with its 525 lines and 60 Hz field rate. Assume 35 blanked lines, that leaves 490 lines per frame, or 245 lines pere field. There's plenty of bandwidth to fit 3 samples per scan line, so: 60 fld/s * 245 lin/fls * 3 sample/lin = 44,100 samples/s For 625 lines @50 Hz, you have 37 blanked lines, levaing 588 lines/frame or 294 per field, 3 samples per line, and you get 50 fld/s * 294 lin/fls * 3 sample/lin = 44,100 samples/s Clever, eh? The point being that, yes, while it can be said that digital audio signal are a lot like video signals, at one time, they WERE video signals (and still are, it's just that there aren't a lot of video recorders being used for this purpose any more). The issues mentioned of jitter and the like could be remedied by a properly design DAC where the D/A clock is not tied intimately to theincoming bit rate. The longer-term average, on the order of several millieseconds, is quite stable and accurate over this sort of a link, while the bit-level timing could well be off by a bit. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote: In article , Carey Carlan wrote: (Scott Dorsey) wrote in : We have successfully shot S-PDIF from one building to the next in downtown Baltimore just by pointing the things out the windows. Channel reliability wasn't the best and I'd worry a lot about rain fade, but it worked better than I'd expected and it allowed us to get good quality audio around. How did you convert spdif to a video signal? I didn't. It's a square wave with a 4KHz bandwidth or so. Uh, actually, more like 2.8 MHz. S/P-DIF has 32 bits/sample subframe, 4 bits header/preamble, 24 bits usable audio data, 4 bits channel status, user status, validy and parity bits. Two subframes per sample frame, 44,100 sample frames per second, thus: 32*2*44100 = 2,822,400 bits/second And since it's biphase-encoded, it's essentially a square wave per bit. All perfectly suited for transmission via standard video channels. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Actually, a cheap trick we have used has been to take the inexpensive transmitter/receiver pairs from the X-10 system which are intended for passing video around the home, and running S-PDIF audio through them. I knew I remembered talking with someone who had done this and couldn't recall who. Not sure if it was you or not, but at least this confirms I wasn't dreaming it. Thanks for the crosscheck. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
The bitrate and the *bandwidth* required to reliably send / receive aren't the same though. In this case, I'd say experimental evidence makes the point moot. "If it happens, it must be possible." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Joe Kesselman wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Actually, a cheap trick we have used has been to take the inexpensive transmitter/receiver pairs from the X-10 system which are intended for passing video around the home, and running S-PDIF audio through them. I knew I remembered talking with someone who had done this and couldn't recall who. Not sure if it was you or not, but at least this confirms I wasn't dreaming it. Thanks for the crosscheck. I got the idea from Dave Josephson, who saw it at the Strawberry Festival. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Kesselman wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: The bitrate and the *bandwidth* required to reliably send / receive aren't the same though. In this case, I'd say experimental evidence makes the point moot. "If it happens, it must be possible." But the video sender surely has more than 2.8 MHz bandwidth ? Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Wireless ? | General | |||
Sound-proof headphone recommendations? Also, wireless mics. Lots of questions! | Audio Opinions | |||
Sound-proof headphone recommendations? Also, wireless mics. Lots of questions! | Pro Audio | |||
Wireless ULXS Series Beta 87A | Pro Audio | |||
Possible to convert to wireless speakers? | Tech |