Wireless headphone info

I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without using wired headphones.

What are my options ?

Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without using wired headphones.

What are my options ?

Bluetooth.

The article here discusses a certain audio profile for
Bluetooth, but doesn't help consumers all that much.
I really want to see a frequency response curve for each
one, but with various "trick" compression algorithms,
that isn't always meaningful. You can have full frequency
response, and relatively "low fidelity" with an appropriately
poor compression method. With lossless compression,
a frequency response curve has more meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX

I think this says it all.

https://www.engadget.com/2013/03/23/...luetooth-cans/

"Yeah, okay. 'Audiophile' and 'Bluetooth' don't go together"

And that's a good starting position for your shopping trip.
Nevertheless, Bluetooth is the most popular means of
getting a signal across the room.

"Image One Bluetooth headset. It's £199 / $249 and comes
with A2DP and aptX for high-quality audio"

So that one comes with aptX. My mission is complete,
because it means at least one set of headphones comes
with a decent Bluetooth Profile option.

*******

Things like Wifi, free-space-optical, or some Nicola
Tesla science project, are left as exercises for the
reader.

Bluetooth has range limitations, so you might also
want to investigate what the three ranges of
Bluetooth dongles, are really capable of.

This is an example of a 100 meter Bluetooth adapter.
A Class 1 transmitter. Read the reviews.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA0ZX21P6131

Bluetooth uses spread-spectrum frequency hopping, as a
broadcast method. But it doesn't have path diversity
as far as I know. Something that some of the
Wifi standards address. If the environment has reflections,
multipath, and the like, sometimes having a second antenna
and protocol at an angle to the primary antenna, gives
reception options. AFAIK, Bluetooth only has one
antenna, so has no provision for difficult environments.

It's even possible, that a lower power transmitter
is a better choice. So there's a good deal of
research to do there for you. Figuring out the
best way to run Bluetooth.

I don't use any Bluetooth here, so can't help you with that.

Paul

On 9/12/2016 10:59 PM, Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without using wired headphones.

What are my options ?


BlueTooth


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Andy schreef in berichtnieuws
...
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without using
wired headphones.

What are my options ?

Loudspeakers

In message , Paul
writes:
Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without
using wired headphones.
What are my options ?

Bluetooth.
[]
It's not the _only_ option. Wireless headphones have been around for
many years, before bluetooth really took off. There are two main
mechanisms - radio and infrared. Infrared is more or less line-of-sight
only; I'm not sure if it can be hifi. The RF ones certainly can be, but
by no means all of them are.

All these methods require a transmitter at the source end, of course. If
your computer is a moderately modern laptop, it probably already has a
Bluetooth transceiver built in (though almost certainly not RF or IR);
if it's a desktop/power, probably not. A bluetooth transmitter can be
bought for peanuts, and is tiny, but will use up a USB socket.

The transmitters for the RF type (non-bluetooth) are usually somewhat
larger; conversely, they often provide charging facilities for the
headphones when not in use, i. e. when you take them off, you plonk them
on the transmitter, and it charges them. (Bluetooth ones usually charge
via USB.)

Of course, the RF type can be used with sources other than your computer
- TV, hifi, even record-player.

For computer-only use, especially if the computer is a laptop, Bluetooth
probably _is_ the best option - certainly, it will give you a very wide
choice at the moment. Conversely, the RF sort shouldn't be dismissed out
of hand. (Especially as you might find them being thrown out by people
who've gone bluetooth.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:28:40 PM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without
using wired headphones.
What are my options ?

Bluetooth.
[]
It's not the _only_ option. Wireless headphones have been around for
many years, before bluetooth really took off. There are two main
mechanisms - radio and infrared. Infrared is more or less line-of-sight
only; I'm not sure if it can be hifi. The RF ones certainly can be, but
by no means all of them are.

All these methods require a transmitter at the source end, of course. If
your computer is a moderately modern laptop, it probably already has a
Bluetooth transceiver built in (though almost certainly not RF or IR);
if it's a desktop/power, probably not. A bluetooth transmitter can be
bought for peanuts, and is tiny, but will use up a USB socket.

The transmitters for the RF type (non-bluetooth) are usually somewhat
larger; conversely, they often provide charging facilities for the
headphones when not in use, i. e. when you take them off, you plonk them
on the transmitter, and it charges them. (Bluetooth ones usually charge
via USB.)

Of course, the RF type can be used with sources other than your computer
- TV, hifi, even record-player.

For computer-only use, especially if the computer is a laptop, Bluetooth
probably _is_ the best option - certainly, it will give you a very wide
choice at the moment. Conversely, the RF sort shouldn't be dismissed out
of hand. (Especially as you might find them being thrown out by people
who've gone bluetooth.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05

Thanks.

What do you thing of this.

Sennheiser RS120 on Ear Wireless RF Headphones with Charging Dock

https://en-us.sennheiser.com/audio-h...ireless-120-ii

Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:28:40 PM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without
using wired headphones.
What are my options ?
Bluetooth.
[]
It's not the _only_ option. Wireless headphones have been around for
many years, before bluetooth really took off. There are two main
mechanisms - radio and infrared. Infrared is more or less line-of-sight
only; I'm not sure if it can be hifi. The RF ones certainly can be, but
by no means all of them are.

All these methods require a transmitter at the source end, of course. If
your computer is a moderately modern laptop, it probably already has a
Bluetooth transceiver built in (though almost certainly not RF or IR);
if it's a desktop/power, probably not. A bluetooth transmitter can be
bought for peanuts, and is tiny, but will use up a USB socket.

The transmitters for the RF type (non-bluetooth) are usually somewhat
larger; conversely, they often provide charging facilities for the
headphones when not in use, i. e. when you take them off, you plonk them
on the transmitter, and it charges them. (Bluetooth ones usually charge
via USB.)

Of course, the RF type can be used with sources other than your computer
- TV, hifi, even record-player.

For computer-only use, especially if the computer is a laptop, Bluetooth
probably _is_ the best option - certainly, it will give you a very wide
choice at the moment. Conversely, the RF sort shouldn't be dismissed out
of hand. (Especially as you might find them being thrown out by people
who've gone bluetooth.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05

Thanks.

What do you thing of this.

Sennheiser RS120 on Ear Wireless RF Headphones with Charging Dock

https://en-us.sennheiser.com/audio-h...ireless-120-ii

Modulation FM stereo

That means it's probably a low power 88-108MHz transmitter.

Frequency response 22 - 19500 Hz

Probably plus or minus 3dB.

http://www.cnet.com/products/sennhei...cradle/review/

"The Bad: Noise and hiss sometimes intrude on the sound"

It's not Wifi, it's just analog RF on the FM band.
I think there is allowance for low-power FM in the
broadcast band for "remoting" signals. Like you
could use such a method inside your car.

*******

For the most part, I'm finding these products "dishonest"
about how the wireless part works. They're about as dishonest
as the wireless keyboard industry used to be. (With some
units operating on the 27MHz CB band. They would never
tell you what busy public band they were using.)

This one is a bit better, in terms of stating what it uses.

http://www.raxconn.com.tw/product_de...4&productid=68

# 2.4GHz ISM Band
# GFSK modulation
# RF frequency hopping in 34 channels
# RF Tx Power: Typ.16 dBm (Radiation)
# Rx Sensitivity: Typ.-78 dBm

So now we can look that one up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-shift_keying

"Gaussian frequency-shift keying (GFSK) filters the data pulses
with a Gaussian filter to make the transitions smoother. This
filter has the advantage of reducing sideband power, reducing
interference with neighboring channels, at the cost of increasing
intersymbol interference. It is used by DECT, Bluetooth,
Cypress WirelessUSB, Nordic Semiconductor, Texas Instruments LPRF,
Z-Wave and Wavenis devices. For basic data rate Bluetooth the
minimum deviation is 115 kHz."

Which means, potentially, they used an off-the-shelf IC for the job.

So at least that one might actually be digital, and then
the "walkie-talkie" side effects will be non-existent on that
one. Nice clean digital transmission. Only an inferior amplifier
driving the headphone cones, could ruin it :-)

Paul

Per Andy:
What do you thing of this.
Sennheiser RS120 on Ear Wireless RF Headphones with Charging Dock
https://en-us.sennheiser.com/audio-h...ireless-120-ii

I have another Sennheiser model:
https://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-RS.../dp/B006ZNX81E

Sparing people the rant, I will just say that these things are the
absolute pits..... Don't even *think* about buying a set. My hope is
that the guy responsible for letting that abomination get to market at
least got demoted or, better yet, lost his job.


Whatever you get, distinguish between "Open" and "Closed" headsets.

"Open" have mesh or whatever between the ear cup and the world so you
can hear somebody talking to you.

"Closed" have solid ear cups so that outside sounds are attenuated more.

"Horses for Courses".... I like "Open" because there isn't much
background noise where I use them and my wife does not have to repeat
herself when she says something and I have the headset on.


Tangentially: I had always assumed that there was a baked-in
bandwidth/sound quality limit for BlueTooth vs 2.4 or 5 ghz headphones.
Maybe I'm wrong. Can somebody who knows comment?
--
Pete Cresswell

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without using wired headphones.

What are my options ?

I am still a 900mz guy. I did play with antennas and such to increase
range but the biggest improvement was just putting the transmitter in
a PVC pipe housing, on top of my screen cage. I can get the signal
solid anywhere in the yard and about 3 doors down with a little drop
out occasionally. I thought about upping the supply voltage a little
to see if that made it better but I have not really seen the need. You
really have to be sure you do not have a neighbor with a cordless
phone or a baby monitor that you will be crashing in on. before you go
nuts with this. I have not had the problem here since people are
moving to 2.4gz

In message , Paul
writes:
Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:28:40 PM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer
without using wired headphones.
What are my options ?
Bluetooth.
[]
It's not the _only_ option. Wireless headphones have been around for
[]
What do you thing of this.
Sennheiser RS120 on Ear Wireless RF Headphones with Charging Dock

Sennheiser used to be a quality brand; they've recently added many
budget items to their range, so I don't know.

https://en-us.sennheiser.com/audio-h...ireless-120-ii

Modulation FM stereo

That means it's probably a low power 88-108MHz transmitter.

Not necessarily. If it is, then the headphones would be just an FM
radio.

Frequency response 22 - 19500 Hz

Probably plus or minus 3dB.

http://www.cnet.com/products/sennhei...harging-cradle
/review/

"The Bad: Noise and hiss sometimes intrude on the sound"

It's not Wifi, it's just analog RF on the FM band.

Definitely analog RF, but not necessarily on that band. There are
various bands where such things could be, such as 9xx MHz.

I think there is allowance for low-power FM in the
broadcast band for "remoting" signals. Like you
could use such a method inside your car.

Such things used to be illegal, but there were so many of them that they
had to change the rules. Mainly used for giving people a way of
connecting a source (such as an mp3 player) into the car audio system if
it didn't have an aux. input connection. Prices varied widely, so I
presume quality does too (though not necessarily in that linked a
manner!).
[]
For the most part, I'm finding these products "dishonest"
about how the wireless part works. They're about as dishonest
as the wireless keyboard industry used to be. (With some
units operating on the 27MHz CB band. They would never
tell you what busy public band they were using.)

This one is a bit better, in terms of stating what it uses.

http://www.raxconn.com.tw/product_de...4&productid=68

# 2.4GHz ISM Band
# GFSK modulation
# RF frequency hopping in 34 channels

That's going to be digital, error-correcting, and so on.
[]
Cypress WirelessUSB, Nordic Semiconductor, Texas Instruments LPRF,
Z-Wave and Wavenis devices. For basic data rate Bluetooth the
minimum deviation is 115 kHz."

Which means, potentially, they used an off-the-shelf IC for the job.

Though they don't actually say it _is_ Bluetooth.

So at least that one might actually be digital, and then
the "walkie-talkie" side effects will be non-existent on that
one. Nice clean digital transmission. Only an inferior amplifier

Though analogue _can_ give good quality results.

driving the headphone cones, could ruin it :-)

Paul
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A good pun is its own reword.

Andy wrote:
I am looking for a way to listen to my CDs from my computer without using wired headphones.

What are my options ?

Just ran across this wireless headphone analysis:
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-...less-than-50-1

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


Though they don't actually say it _is_ Bluetooth.

According to this, Bluetooth is spread-spectrum
with frequency hopping. It says 800 hops a second,
and 79 channels for the hopping pattern. (For some
reason, 1200 hops per second sticks in my mind.)
If a channel is impaired, there is some capability
to ignore it until the impairment goes away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

"Originally, Gaussian frequency-shift keying (GFSK) modulation
was the only modulation scheme available.

Since the introduction of Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, π/4-DQPSK
(Differential Quadrature Phase Shift Keying) and 8DPSK
modulation may also be used between compatible devices."

So the modern ones are a little more sophisticated.

Paul

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:29:11 PM UTC-5, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


Though they don't actually say it _is_ Bluetooth.

According to this, Bluetooth is spread-spectrum
with frequency hopping. It says 800 hops a second,
and 79 channels for the hopping pattern. (For some
reason, 1200 hops per second sticks in my mind.)
If a channel is impaired, there is some capability
to ignore it until the impairment goes away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

"Originally, Gaussian frequency-shift keying (GFSK) modulation
was the only modulation scheme available.

Since the introduction of Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, π/4-DQPSK
(Differential Quadrature Phase Shift Keying) and 8DPSK
modulation may also be used between compatible devices."

So the modern ones are a little more sophisticated.

Paul

Someone recommended the Sennheiser and I ordered it.

Will post what I think of it.

Andy