Wireless Idea

Jeremy Ordan

Jeremy Ordan

Major Contributor
OK, so I was thinking about this with all the wireless threads going on right now. We all accept the G2 as the benchmark for quality wireless. The question I ask is this, Bluetooth. It has a range of 90' and great quality. Now, when you take into account the fact that Bluetooth also is digital and dirt cheap, why aren't we seeing $200 Bluetooth wireless units? 90' is more than adequate and it seems like the idea solution.
 
I thought I heard this commercial thing on XM saying that it works up to 90'. I don't know, but even at 33' look at how small bluetooth is. You could have a transmitter that is the size of a quarter, plus the technology is dirt cheap. It just seems like the best solution for wireless, but then again, if Sennheiser came out with it they would want $1000. Still, am I the only one who is seeing the benefits of this? Too bad I'm technically inept.
 
I don't know what to think about this. Maybe there's a sound quality issue that would arrise? For digital to work it's just 1s and 0s, but perhaps there's some issue in the mic pre of the TX?

I've always wondered why you can get a set of walkie-talkies for $100 that will transmit a mile and yet it's inconceivable to get wireless that works like that? Then again no walkie-talkie sounds anything like a G2 with a decent mic.

I don't know what to make of the Bluetooth for audio concept just yet. Some days I'm torn on the idea of marketing conspiracy. We are a relatively small pool of consumers... and if there was an incredible sounding wireless for a hundred bucks then that would instantly kill every other wireless product... we'd all have 4 of them... and it would be years before the demand would return.
 
After running a google on some stuff, Bluetooth is available in 1 meter, 10 meter, & 100 meter incriments. I found this link that goes into depth on the standard and things like that, but while it talks about applications for headsets and GPS it talks nothing about microphone or entertainment uses. I guess my question is, why are we limited to UHF & VHF radio transmission when digital transmission seems to be a much better way for these things to work? This Bluetooth thing just seems like you could have a micro transmiter that operates off a rechargable battery source that lasts for hours, delivers superior audio in a smaller package, and is extremely cost effective. This is where I found the info on the standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth.

Then again, they say that they can make a tire that never wears down but they wont release them because it will kill the industry...
 
Ahhh, I posted again before I read Matt's reply. I have no idea what to think of this either. Maybe there is something that is just fundamentally wrong with my idea. Maybe there is an inherent difference in a sound quality or it is just not set up that way and the reason it is acceptable is because it operates over the telephone which has an inherent reduction in sound quality, but this seems to be one of those times when logic points to other solutions. I'm starting to confuse myself... or I just came up with a $100 million idea that I posted on an internet forum to be stolen
 
WikiPedia says version 1 is 723 kbs...but 16-bit/48Khz audio is already 768 Kbs by itself, without the framing and other overhead that has to go into the datastream for transmission.

BT 2 should handle it, though.
 
hmmm, it seems like we're a generation away from having it then, but I don't think there is any chance of us seeing a unit like this in the price range that it should be when compared with other devices using this technology.
 
Despite the theoretical max speed on BT, the normal data rate you can reasonably expect it way too low for anything like 16-bit/48khz audio.

It would be almost as easy to implement something like this with 802.11b/g. I don't see any reason why you could not create a wireless mic that uses either of these standards.

One issue I see is latency. I assume that most of the available UHF and VHF systems are analog. Using a bluetooth or WiFi system would imply using using a ADC for the mic and a DAC on the receiver. This means you have the time it takes for the signal to be transmitted + potential of TCP/IP overhead + time of ADC + DAC, so it could potentially be several ms. I think it is pretty common for the ping times on a WiFi network to be something like 50ms, which would be way too much for audio.
 
Considering that many people with bluetooth headsets get poor reception when the phone is on their left hip and the earpiece is in the right ear, 2.5' away, I doubt BT is ready for prime time. If it was viable somebody would be using it.
 
There are definately some exciting possiblities for possible wireless in the future. On another note, Lectrosonic is drastically reducing the price of getting some digital hybrid wireless today. With the LM and 401 you can get digital wireless for less the 2 grand (~$1700), very sweet deal. Most of the analog wireless issues are gone with the digital hybrid system.

Wireless technology is the one area in location audio where we are going to see some dramatic changes in the next couple of years.

Many thanks to a certain board member here (remains unnamed) who gave me a head's up last summer on the LM/401 deal that was coming in the future. :grin:

Cheers
 
First: I dont think, even if bluetooth is able to put out the speed we need, that the transmitter would be really really small, cuz we now need really good (like 24bit) analogue to digital conversion, and a nice little preamp before that in the Tx. So I think size wise, maybe still the same. And price wise, well thats going to bring it up a bit. On the plus side, the transmission wont retard your cool signal because digital wont drop the quality like analogue transmission.

Second: Latency. CR@P! Didnt think of that. But what is great about this problem is that the Computer industry moves way faster than the Audio industry and WiFi and Bluetooth are technology that isnt even aimed at us in the first place, so maybe latency will come right.

I'd actually be happy with a CONSTANT 50ms delay if the signal was perfect, cuz you could just slip the track in post. But I guess latency isnt constant.

Third: What might be really cool about this technology is that multi channel receivers would be common as pie! (If pie is common in America).


Dammit world, FAST FORWARD! (but leave me young....)
 
i've actually discussed this w/ manufacturers. it doesn't have the range or audio quality to be considered good.
 
Dave_Fisk said:
i've actually discussed this w/ manufacturers. it doesn't have the range or audio quality to be considered good.
Click to expand...

Is that as of right now or for the fore seeable future?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top