[Tobiah]

At home, I record solo guitar while monitoring
with wired headphones. The cable can be a problem,
getting in the way, and sometimes causing its own noise.
It just occurred to me that wireless may be the way to go.
I'd want digital transmission to the phones, and a
no-compromise high-fidelity flat natural sound. All of
this for ~$100-$200.

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.


Thanks.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/19/2020 12:21 PM, Tobiah wrote:
'd want digital transmission to the phones, and a
no-compromise high-fidelity flat natural sound.Â* All of
this for ~$100-$200.

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.

I think that through Google you'll find consumer grade earphones (which
aren't necessarily inexpensive) that use Bluetooth (you'll need a
Bluetooth transmitter to connect to your headphone output) and are
designed to connect to smart phones. They tend to not be flat and
natural, they tend to be good listening for whatever kind of music you
like to listen to. The latest Bluetooth spec has pretty good fidelity
from end to end, it's the earphones you need to worry about.

Sennheiser makes some decent ones (and some inexpensive consumer grade
ones too), and Audio Technica makes some Bluetooth phones as well, in
both grades.

One suggestion would be the Audio Technica ATH-M50BT, the Bluetooth
version of their well respected ATH-M50 studio headphones, coupled with
a Bluetooth transmitter with analog input. I'm sure somebody in the pro
audio world makes one but I couldn't come up with one in a few tries.
There are bunch of consumer ones that probably wouldn't be the weakest
link in a system.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/19/2020 12:21 PM, Tobiah wrote:
'd want digital transmission to the phones, and a
no-compromise high-fidelity flat natural sound.* All of
this for ~$100-$200.

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.

I think that through Google you'll find consumer grade earphones (which
aren't necessarily inexpensive) that use Bluetooth (you'll need a
Bluetooth transmitter to connect to your headphone output) and are
designed to connect to smart phones. They tend to not be flat and
natural, they tend to be good listening for whatever kind of music you
like to listen to. The latest Bluetooth spec has pretty good fidelity
from end to end, it's the earphones you need to worry about.

Sennheiser makes some decent ones (and some inexpensive consumer grade
ones too), and Audio Technica makes some Bluetooth phones as well, in
both grades.

One suggestion would be the Audio Technica ATH-M50BT, the Bluetooth
version of their well respected ATH-M50 studio headphones, coupled with
a Bluetooth transmitter with analog input. I'm sure somebody in the pro
audio world makes one but I couldn't come up with one in a few tries.
There are bunch of consumer ones that probably wouldn't be the weakest
link in a system.


Perhaps a Bluetooth audio receiver coupled to your favourite wired
headphones (run the cable down your back) might get you good headphone
quality and less tangled cables.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ralph Barone wrote:

Perhaps a Bluetooth audio receiver coupled to your favourite wired
headphones (run the cable down your back) might get you good headphone
quality and less tangled cables.

The newer generation of Bluetooth audio is amazingly better than the last,
but it's still kind of awful. Still, do you really need good audio for
tracking? You sure need low latency.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers: Audio Technica Headphones

At the AES last fall I heard some commentary regarding both flavors of
ATH-M50 headphone, and the ATH-M40. Slightly "V-shaped" sound from
the former, and more "neutral" from the albeit cheaper latter.

Thoughts?

[geoff]

On 24/04/2020 12:35 pm, wrote:
Mike Rivers: Audio Technica Headphones

At the AES last fall I heard some commentary regarding both flavors of
ATH-M50 headphone, and the ATH-M40. Slightly "V-shaped" sound from
the former, and more "neutral" from the albeit cheaper latter.

Thoughts?


Dunno - have got the M40s. Probably pretty accurate description of the
M50s though, but by no means is it extreme. M50Xs less scooped.

But is that the *only* difference with the M40s ? Probably not.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:
Dunno - have got the M40s. Probably pretty accurate description of the
M50s though, but by no means is it extreme. M50Xs less scooped.

But is that the *only* difference with the M40s ? Probably not.

geoff

____________
Beyond the obvious price difference, the M40x impedance is slightly lower - 35ohms vs the
38 on M50x. So probably easier to drive with the typical smart phone. And slightly narrower
range of fit adjustments, according to reviewers.

[geoff]

On 26/04/2020 11:06 pm, wrote:
geoff wrote:
Dunno - have got the M40s. Probably pretty accurate description of the
M50s though, but by no means is it extreme. M50Xs less scooped.

But is that the *only* difference with the M40s ? Probably not.

geoff

____________
Beyond the obvious price difference, the M40x impedance is slightly lower - 35ohms vs the
38 on M50x. So probably easier to drive with the typical smart phone. And slightly narrower
range of fit adjustments, according to reviewers.



35 v. 38 is neither here nor there.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 19/04/2020 17:21, Tobiah wrote:

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.

The main problem with digital wireless headphones, especially Bluetooth
ones, is the latency. Whatever you play will come through the headphones
as if it were being played through a speaker about 20 to 30 feet away,
as the round trip delay through the codec system is about 20
milliseconds at best.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/19/2020 2:55 PM, John Williamson wrote:
The main problem with digital wireless headphones, especially Bluetooth
ones, is the latency. Whatever you play will come through the headphones
as if it were being played through a speaker about 20 to 30 feet away,
as the round trip delay through the codec system is about 20
milliseconds at best.

Good point. I've never measured it, but with every new version of
Bluetooth they say that latency is improved.

On the other hand, a 20 ms delay on a vocal is much more tolerable than
a 2 ms delay because you don't get comb filtering when the earphone
signal mixes with the natural sound in your throat. Many people say they
never notice this, but that probably means they have their voice too
loud in the 'phones.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 20/04/2020 6:55 am, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/04/2020 17:21, Tobiah wrote:

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.

The main problem with digital wireless headphones, especially Bluetooth
ones, is the latency. Whatever you play will come through the headphones
as if it were being played through a speaker about 20 to 30 feet away,
as the round trip delay through the codec system is about 20
milliseconds at best.



And unless you are listening from a smartphone, you will likely need a
stand-alone bluetooth transmitter. Not a problem in itself, but likely
not yet available in the newer standards.

And if you read this article you may begin to appreciate what a nest or
worms Bluetooth is, and that it is not that straightforward to even know
what you've got !

https://www.soundguys.com/understand...-codecs-15352/

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/19/2020 5:38 PM, geoff wrote:
And if you read this article you may begin to appreciate what a nest or
worms Bluetooth

Well, maybe Tobiah will be willing to trade one nest of worms for
another nest of worms. I suppose he could go for a UHF wireless
headphone system like the big bucks acts use with their in-ear wireless
monitoring systems, but a good one is big bucks.

Frankly, I don't see what's the problem he's dealing with when using
wired headphones but if he's got enough money there's probably a great
solution out there.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 20/04/2020 10:18 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/19/2020 5:38 PM, geoff wrote:
And if you read this article you may begin to appreciate what a nest
or worms Bluetooth

Well, maybe Tobiah will be willing to trade one nest of worms for
another nest of worms. I suppose he could go for a UHF wireless
headphone system like the big bucks acts use with their in-ear wireless
monitoring systems, but a good one is big bucks.

Frankly, I don't see what's the problem he's dealing with when using
wired headphones but if he's got enough money there's probably a great
solution out there.



And even then you have the complication of battery capacity.

Maybe an IEM belt-pack with cabled headphones would be the answer. At
least then the batteries can be instantly changed when flat.

But me, I'm happy to stick with my cabled headphones which I don't find
much of an inconvenience for the things that I do....

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:

--------------------
At home, I record solo guitar while monitoring
with wired headphones. The cable can be a problem,
getting in the way, and sometimes causing its own noise.
It just occurred to me that wireless may be the way to go.
I'd want digital transmission to the phones, and a
no-compromise high-fidelity flat natural sound. All of
this for ~$100-$200.



** You may be better off going for IR headphones.

No latency and no interference issues.

$100 should get you decent pair.



..... Phil

[Tobiah[_6_]]

I'm cured. I'll stick with wired phones. No
way I'm going to take any fidelity or latency hit.
An simple extension cable relieves much of the
annoyance from the cable being in the way.

Thanks for the responses.

[Michael Beacom[_3_]]

On 2020-04-19 16:21:15 +0000, Tobiah said:

This YouTube video talks about this very problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJPc0hi0E90
Swee****er sells the wireless headphone boxes for $230

Hope this helps
Mike


At home, I record solo guitar while monitoring
with wired headphones. The cable can be a problem,
getting in the way, and sometimes causing its own noise.
It just occurred to me that wireless may be the way to go.
I'd want digital transmission to the phones, and a
no-compromise high-fidelity flat natural sound. All of
this for ~$100-$200.

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.


Thanks.

[geoff]

On 23/04/2020 3:48 am, Michael Beacom wrote:
On 2020-04-19 16:21:15 +0000, Tobiah said:


This YouTube video talks about this very problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJPc0hi0E90

Swee****er sells the wireless headphone boxes for $230


Hope this helps

Mike


5ms may be good enough - best try it out. Quite inexpensive ....

Most regular analogue IEM system could do similar, in stereo if desired,
without the latency.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 23/04/2020 3:48 am, Michael Beacom wrote:
On 2020-04-19 16:21:15 +0000, Tobiah said:

This YouTube video talks about this very problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJPc0hi0E90

Swee****er sells the wireless headphone boxes for $230


5ms may be good enough - best try it out. Quite inexpensive ....

Most regular analogue IEM system could do similar, in stereo if desired,
without the latency.

If you're going to put the live feed into the mix, latency on the headphone
is critical for tracking. 5ms is enough to cause weird comb filtering on
the vocals in the phones.

If you're not going to put the live feed into the mix, latency doesn't
matter at all. You could have several seconds of latency and it would
be just fine, you'd just have to advance the new track up a little in
software.

And to be honest, tracking headphones can sound pretty awful as long as
they have a good sense of presence.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 26/04/2020 12:57 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 23/04/2020 3:48 am, Michael Beacom wrote:
On 2020-04-19 16:21:15 +0000, Tobiah said:

This YouTube video talks about this very problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJPc0hi0E90

Swee****er sells the wireless headphone boxes for $230


5ms may be good enough - best try it out. Quite inexpensive ....

Most regular analogue IEM system could do similar, in stereo if desired,
without the latency.

If you're going to put the live feed into the mix, latency on the headphone
is critical for tracking. 5ms is enough to cause weird comb filtering on
the vocals in the phones.

How ya going to get 5ms latency ( or 1ms for that matter) in an analogue
wireless link ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 26/04/2020 12:57 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
5ms may be good enough - best try it out. Quite inexpensive ....

Most regular analogue IEM system could do similar, in stereo if desired,
without the latency.

If you're going to put the live feed into the mix, latency on the headphone
is critical for tracking. 5ms is enough to cause weird comb filtering on
the vocals in the phones.

How ya going to get 5ms latency ( or 1ms for that matter) in an analogue
wireless link ?

With analogue links, latency is not an issue, but then you get a whole bunch
of other problems in return.

Whatever happened to those infrared headphone links? I still have one
around somewhere that uses a 1 MHz carrier and an IR LED. Fidelity is
just so-so but would be fine for tracking.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:

At home, I record solo guitar while monitoring
with wired headphones.Â* The cable can be a problem,
getting in the way, and sometimes causing its own noise.
It just occurred to me that wireless may be the way to go.
I'd want digital transmission to the phones, and a
no-compromise high-fidelity flat natural sound.Â* All of
this for ~$100-$200.

I'm going to start Googling this subject that I know
nothing about, but I thought I'd prime the pump here
to get some focus on what to look for, and maybe
direct model/brand suggestions.


Thanks.

They are doubtless Bluetooth, and with Bluetooth you get delay.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/24/2020 11:15 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
They are doubtless Bluetooth, and with Bluetooth you get delay.

If it's digital, there will be delay. We haven't solved that problem
yet. The question is how much, and how does it affect what you want to do.

Has anyone here tried playing an instrument (an all electronic one, to
be fair to the study) while monitoring through Bluetooth headphones and
said "AAAAAAKKKK! I can't play like this!?"

Or even better, set up an experiment to actually make a measurement?



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:32:40 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 4/24/2020 11:15 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
They are doubtless Bluetooth, and with Bluetooth you get delay.

If it's digital, there will be delay. We haven't solved that problem
yet. The question is how much, and how does it affect what you want to do.

Has anyone here tried playing an instrument (an all electronic one, to
be fair to the study) while monitoring through Bluetooth headphones and
said "AAAAAAKKKK! I can't play like this!?"

Or even better, set up an experiment to actually make a measurement?

Delay, or more properly latency will always feature in a wireless
link. Interference has to be overcome with error correction, and a big
part of that is forward correction which involves deconstructing the
digital bits and sending them at different times so a single blast of
noise won't destroy a whole word. At the receiving end all the bits
have to be gathered up and reassembled into bytes before decoding can
begin. That reassembly is the basic latency in the system, although
there are other sources on top. The better protected the system, the
lengthier the latency period. The lowest latency Bluetooth audio codec
I know of is 40mSec, and it is a bit fragile to interference.

d

[geoff]

On 26/04/2020 1:15 am, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:32:40 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 4/24/2020 11:15 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
They are doubtless Bluetooth, and with Bluetooth you get delay.

If it's digital, there will be delay. We haven't solved that problem
yet. The question is how much, and how does it affect what you want to do.

Has anyone here tried playing an instrument (an all electronic one, to
be fair to the study) while monitoring through Bluetooth headphones and
said "AAAAAAKKKK! I can't play like this!?"

Or even better, set up an experiment to actually make a measurement?

Delay, or more properly latency will always feature in a wireless
link. Interference has to be overcome with error correction,


No. Plenty of analogue systems around.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/26/2020 2:31 AM, geoff wrote:
No. Plenty of analogue systems around.

Have we forgotten how this discussion started? The original poster, for
whatever reason, wanted to be rid of the trailing headphone cable. Hence
the discussion about wireless.

Digital wireless headphone systems are relatively new and have many
advantages over analog systems that are of little or no value to a
single user who just doesn't want to have a cable dangling off his ear.

An old fashioned analog RF system, providing you can find one on a
frequency that hasn't been re-assigned to something that can interfere
with it, will give you near speed-of-light latency. The latency in
digital wireless headphone and microphone systems is all about the
digital part.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/24/2020 11:15 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
They are doubtless Bluetooth, and with Bluetooth you get delay.

If it's digital, there will be delay. We haven't solved that problem
yet.

Ayup. But Bluetooth is particularly egregious; it has a certain
interpretation of frequency-hopping that expects a lot of loss,
and the output is reassembled from what makes it.

We tried it for serial ports for outside industrial gear, and it failed.

? The question is how much, and how does it affect what you want to do.

Has anyone here tried playing an instrument (an all electronic one, to
be fair to the study) while monitoring through Bluetooth headphones and
said "AAAAAAKKKK! I can't play like this!?"

Or even better, set up an experiment to actually make a measurement?




Not me; I don't own a Bluetooth anything except what's in the phone and
car radio. Well, the keyboard and mouse.

--
Les Cargill