Making Your Headphones Wireless? 67
Chuck Chunder asks: "I've recently been looking at getting some wireless headphones of the RF rather than infra-red variety. After looking around for a bit it struck me that I don't actually want a whole new set of headphones. I already have a nice pair of headphones as well as earphones. What I really want is an RF transmitter and a small clip on receiver that I can plug my existing headphones/earphones into. The problem is, I can't find anyone selling what I am describing, even geeky places don't quite have what I'm looking for. Does anyone know/have experience of such a product?"
"I see several advantages to this:
- Adaptability: I can then use earphones/headphones as appropriate for the activity, or possibly use it as an RF link between hardware in different rooms
- Replacability: If I damage the headphones I only have to replace them, not the whole headphone/receiver unit; this bit will hopefully lead to...
- Lower costs
This won't work (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This won't work (Score:2)
My experience with wireless headphones has been quite good, and there's absolutely no reason why decent quality sound can't be transmitted a short distance. Just look at 802.11b, for example. More than enough bandwidth for full CD-Audio quality. If it comes down to it, why not integrate this into your home theater?
Re:This won't work (Score:2)
Sun spots... Good grief. They guy is going to be a few feet from the transmitter. All sources of interference except from his computer will be a non-issue.
Re:This won't work (Score:1)
Re:This won't work (Score:1)
Re:This won't work (Score:1)
1) Use an AC adaptor: I soldered one on, it was a 3v cigarette lighter cord that came from a dead cell phone. Saves loads on batteries.
2) If you have problems with reception or anything, open the thing up and extend the antenna with a piece of wire. I planned on doing this, but I found that I don't even need to with my setup.
Re:This won't work (Score:1)
Re:This won't work (Score:1)
Re:This won't work (Score:1)
I'm using, as I type this, JVC 900Mhz Wireless Headphones. Right this moment, Bon Jovi's "Wild In The Streets" is blasting over them.
I get mild interferance (that I can fine-tune out usualy) from our 900Mhz cordless phone when it's in use, that's about it.
There's a couple spots in the house that I get some odd interferance that will clear up just by moving my head, I've been unable to pinpoint what it is, but it doesn't really affect me.
These things are not IR, they go through walls, I can walk clear out to our mailbox and still have a signal. Mind you, this is going through a combination of several wooden and concrete walls.
I see no reason that this "won't work".
Certainly the sound quality isn't exactly recording-studio-standards, but it's more than enough for any consumer application. And it's far better than what you're going to pull out of an FM *radio*.
Re:Advent Headphones. (Score:2)
trivial (Score:1)
Radio Shack [radioshack.com] carries all of the wires, resistors, transistors, and breadboards that you'll need for this. Basically you're going to build a little repeater/amplifier. Just take the stereo jack (also at Radio Shack) and wire it up to a variable resistor (for tuning the frequency) and a standard transmitter chip.
Choose a well-known architecture, and you can install Debian Linux [debian.org] on it, good to go.
Fun little project, and a good way to get your feet wet.
You mwan you want this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:read the story! (Score:1)
Re:You mwan you want this? (Score:1)
Re:You mwan you want this? (Score:2)
One of my goals was to provide a wireless link for three persons to listen simultaneously up to a distance of about 100-150feet and this did work quite well. Having people be able to use their own headphones was big plus and actually a requirement.
It did take me quite a few days to find this baby so I would not flame the original poster too much. I just wish that people would just use usenet for things it is best suited for and bother slashdot with something more geeky..(ie. digital spread spectrum version of this would be geeky enough..)
Re:You mwan you want this? (Score:1)
Pretty much, yeah. (Score:2)
Looks like I've got a bit more research to do before I stump up the cash but thanks for the pointer.
Have you considered a Walkman for receiving? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, on the receiving end, a small walkman is all you need. Plug your headphones or earphones, and there you go!
Of course, the quality of the transmission will vary depending on the quality of the hardware and which frequency you choose (near or far from some other channel).
Re:Have you considered a Walkman for receiving? (Score:2, Informative)
But I think this guy wants a little bit higher quality and longer range...
Two options (Score:1)
Alternatively, there are all kinds of devices for remote audio that are meant to be hooked to a stereo. Is it really such a big deal to get an RCA to 1/8" phono plug adapter for these and replace the AC adapter with a battery pack?
Admittedly, either is a little bulky, but certainly not too much to bring about with you in your home or workspace.
Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:3, Insightful)
At which time you just tune it into your walkman, or radio headphones. Simple solution for mp3 players to your car stereo as well.
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:1)
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:2)
Not necessarily - the FM broadcast band layout gives each channel 200kHz of bandwidth (which is why all FM broadcast stations have center frequencies ending in an odd digit). Nyquist's theorem says you only need 2x bandwidth to represent a given frequency.
If you're operating under Part 15, then how much AF spectrum you represent with this is up to you. The more you use, the better the signal/noise ratio you need (Shannon's law), however representing 1kHz of AF with 4.5kHz of RF is already overkill.
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:1)
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:2)
A slight correction: It is 38kHz, see second box down [gsu.edu]. But who is counting. This makes sense as it is pretty easy to frequency double the 19kHz pilot and demodulate the L-R subband.
The site also claims that the channels are only 15kHz. Elsewhere I have seen claims of 17, 18, and even 19 kHz.
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:2)
As discussed elsewhere an FM transmission has an audio bandwidth of about 17-18kHz, so yes in theory a 44kHz mp3 will be better. Although mp3's sound crappy so you probably won't notice. Nor can most cheap headphones acurately reproduce higher frequencies. So really you have bigger things to worry about then the few kHz of bandwidth you might lose by broadcasting on FM. Things such as the weak transmit power.
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:2)
You have made a jump from sample rates to sound freqencies here that isn't valid. I can't hear a tone above 20kHz, but I can certanly tell the difference between a track sampled at 22kHz vs. on sampled at 44kHz.
-Peter
Re:Here is anouther solution for you. (Score:2)
Naturally you can hear the difference between a 22kHz digital signal and a 44kHz digital signal. You are looking at analog bandwidths of 11kHz and 22kHz respectively.
Anouther solution for you. (Score:2, Redundant)
This little jewel lets you plug it into your mp3 player and then it tranmits to a FM channel. You could use it in this case to transmit your computer sound out to a small fm headphone set. Or in my case I plug it into my mp3 player and then catch the FM station on my car stereo. Perfect little fix without spending a ton of new money. The kicker at work is you could let everyone with 30 feet of you tune into your custom FM station playing your mp3's.
Re:Anouther solution for you. (Score:1)
M.
Re:Anouther solution for you. (Score:1)
Why you need to buy a set of headphones.... (Score:1)
I am not aware of a versitile stereo relay device that is capable of doing what you ask.
I HIGHLY recommend the Sennheiser products. Don't get the RS-65 though, get the RS-85 from online dealers such as etronics.com
They have velvet ear cushions, lithum ion batteries, strong bass synthesis, excellent range, and you can buy additional receiver units so you and your friends can all watch a movie at your own personal viewing volume. It's amazing the things you never hear in a movie with traditional stereo systems. At $185, they are a bit pricey but I think it's one of the best entertainment investments I've made.
Ahh yes, the cost... (Score:1)
cheap wireless unit for guitar (Score:2, Informative)
There's one here [ebay.com] on eBay right now for $25.
FM Broadcast transmitter (Score:2, Informative)
FM 25 kit (it has to be a kit, FCC rules)
and have been loving life since. Some of the bennifits include:
It took about 4 hours to build the kit and was not difficult (all components are through hole).
At $130, it''s not cheap initally, but you will wind up saving money in the long run.
This is the way to go! (Score:2)
Mildly off topic, don't ever read anything on how to detect errors in compression. I used to work with MPEG codecs and I can't watch most of the movies on the net.. I can imagine what learning to detect mp3 artifacts does
The only thing that would be better is if you designed or bought a small digital transmitter and decoder with a 16bit x 44.1kHz bandwidth. These units might exist out there if you look, but every single one of the stand-alone FM units (aside from quality kit like the Ramsey unit) blow chunks because of frequency drift or intermittant static. The other problem is batteries go dead, I listen to music all day when I'm at work.
FWIW my solution at work is to stream to my notebook and then listen off it.
iRock! (Score:1)
This is easy (Score:2, Funny)
I use a Jensen (Recoton) Linx (Score:1)
Steps (Score:2)
2. Buy a laptop
3. Build a 802.11b wireless net for your apartment/home/domicile
4. Share/nfs/serve your mp3's from your desktop.
5. Retrieve/mount/client your desktop's mp3s from your notebook.
6. Enjoy music
Re:Steps (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Taking it to ridiculous levels.... (Score:2)
Somone's going to make a pile of cash off this idea, aren't they?
Re:Taking it to ridiculous levels.... (Score:2)
They're called Bluetooth headsets, and yes, they cost a ridiculous amount (in the range of $200).
Re:Taking it to ridiculous levels.... (Score:2)
Wireless Earbuds (Score:1)
Does anyone think this is possible? Have any advice? So far the only thing keeping me from building it is the smallness required to effectively work inside an earbud.
Re:Wireless Earbuds (Score:2)
Here's the tools you'll need to build it (Score:1, Funny)
- big 50's style TV rabbit ears
- magnetic induction core
- 5 pounds of cobalt 60
- chin strap
- 8 track player
- car battery
- lots of velcro
Once you get this stuff it practically builds itself.
Want digital wireless headphones? (Score:1)
For around $150, you get a couple of megabits/sec
streamed to your ears.
Unfortunately I don't know how quality the
supplied headphones are, although it might not
be too hard to hack up your headphones by ripping
the receiver out of the Amphony headset and
warming up the soldering iron.
Of course for much more cash, buy an iPAQ and
plug in an 802.11b card
Radio Shack model # 33-1165 ... discontinued? (Score:1)
Regurgitating false information (Score:2, Informative)
What I would recommend is you find a product that you can test out before purchasing or has a liberal enough return policy that you could use the product and decide if it works for you because a poorly designed 2.4GH product could sound far worse that a well designed 87-108MH product.
To examine what I'm talking about here further just search for resonant circuits on google.
Re:Regurgitating false information (Score:1)
all the equpment I have now due to one interfering with another. Yah, digital, spread rectum and all, doesn't matter. Sometimes, simple tech is better. This is one of those times. Go FM 87-108.
FM Transmitter (Score:1)
Mmmm. Rosin Core...*drool*