what's keeping 802.11a/b/g speakers from being made?

[dolph]

or bluetooth, but from what i understand about bandwidth 802.11a/b/g would sound better. the speakers would be plugged into a regular ac power outlet, but they would connect wirelessly to the source (eg, a notebook computer). i think there would be an enormous market for this, but is it technically unfeasible right now? if so, why? if not, well, what's taking so frickin long?

 

[sao123]

1 word:


COST

 

[rjain]

probably ease of configuration, too. which computer connects to which set of speakers? What IP does the speaker get? How does the computer know which speakers are available? I don't know, but I think bluetooth is better designed for this kind of application. 802.11 speakers are basically the same as Ethernet speakers (since 802 is the ethernet standard category). As far as bandwidth goes, you'll want at least 1.5 Mbit/s for basic CD quality audio. For more modern setups, you'd want at least 15 Mbit/s, streaming and reliable.

 

[Mday]

Originally posted by: dolph
or bluetooth, but from what i understand about bandwidth 802.11a/b/g would sound better. the speakers would be plugged into a regular ac power outlet, but they would connect wirelessly to the source (eg, a notebook computer). i think there would be an enormous market for this, but is it technically unfeasible right now? if so, why? if not, well, what's taking so frickin long?

you want 802.11 to transmitt audio? are you stupid? that's a complete waste of the bandwidth spectrum. next thing you know, you'd want a nuclear powered moped.

wireless speakers already exist, they use 900MHz range.

there is NO huge market for this, it's cheaper to just use wires. and no idiot is going to have those speakers if they exist just due to mere interference concerns. 802.11b is used to transmit DIGITAL signals. obviously, you can transmit analog signals at 2.4 GHz, but that';s not 802.11b. if you use 802.11b, you need a chip that converts the digital sound into a digital signal for transmission at the computer end. then you need a digital to analog converter ON EACH SPEAKER just to have each speaker work. that's A WASTE OF MONEY. dacs dont grow on trees. it'd double the cost of most speakers just to be able to do this. and it'd quadrouple the cost of your sound card.

 

[glugglug]

The speakers need wires anyway to power them, who cares if they have one more?

 

[dolph]

to those who obviously don't understand what i want from these speakers (glugglug and mday), let me spell it out: i want to walk into a bedroom/living room/etc. with my notebook, sit down wherever i please, and listen to music from my notebook on the speakers in that room while having my notebook unattached to any wires. of course the speakers are plugged into the wall to be powered. there's no reason they shouldn't be. and mday, before you were so kind to point out, i KNOW 802.11b is used to transmit DIGITAL signals. hopefully you UNDERSTAND now that there DOESN'T NEED to be a dac on EACH SPEAKER because it's alright for the speakers to be attached to EACH OTHER, just not to THE AUDIO SOURCE. and please, correct me if i'm wrong, but my soundcard on my notebook has an optical audio output which i'm pretty sure is DIGITAL, kind of like EVERYTHING ELSE in the computer, so i'm not entirely sure why it would quadruple the cost of my sound card.

furthermore, hp has an 802.11b media center to hook up to normal speakers, and linksys just came out with their own, too. both of those "kind of" do what i describe.

 

[Mday]

802.11b is not meant to do this. this is something more for bluetooth, and even then, there isnt enough bandwidth. if you want wireless control of audio, you should be sending out audio signals via the 802.11b. just send control signals thorugh bluetooth to some receiver which has the audio files on them.

by having the source be the notebook, you're going to saturate the channel. and you will need to convert the audio signal into 802.11b, which doesnt exist. and you will have to have the receiver convert 802.11b back into audio. that's simple, but you'd have to have some extensive chipset modifications and additions which wil lmake thing smore expensive. and you stated that the speakers would be plugged into a regular ac powered outlet, not that they would be plugged into a central receiver. be more clear next time please.

 

[Sahakiel]

Text

 

[Shalmanese]

The problem is there is relatively little demand for such a product.

The easiest way to do it would be to simply hook up a cheap computer to your stereo and get it to play music files from your machine.

 

[dakels]

To my knowledge these devices are already in the works. I dont see why not. There is almost always a market for wireless whatever. I dont know the technical details about getting it done, but I'm sure as long as there is a viable market, it will be accomodated.

The speaker market is a very strange market as well with of course your general customer base but the speaker and audio market have tons of nitch markets as well. Someone spending $8000 for speakers doesn't care about an additional $100 wireless expense. Myself included who just purchased another 5.1 surround set. If I had the option to make this set partly wireless without losing quality I would seriously consider it. Wiring my rear channels was an extreme PITA which I would easily pay $200-300 to be wireless.

article link

If you can't see the link its a tech news article.

CSR Bluetooth selected for BridgeCo wireless speakers
Posted : 08 May 2003

Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR) has shipped its BlueCore wireless technology to BridgeCo AG, to be used on its wireless speaker designs. BridgeCo is a supplier of entertainment network adapter technology which uses semiconductors and software to enable consumer electronics devices and PCs to communicate together.

CSR's BlueCore technology has been selected for the designs to deliver high performance Bluetooth wireless connectivity. The BridgeCo wireless speaker design includes MP3 decoding with a built-in TCP/IP stack which, and when paired with CSR BlueCore Bluetooth technology, makes the speakers into a portable Internet radio.

I would have figured it would use some sort of compression. This may be ok in some cheapo wireless speakers but any real audiophile with good speakers wouldn't want compressed audio unless the compression was minimal. For some speakers on the deck or some other room away from your main stereo or computer, compressed audio wireless would seem suitable IMO. Even an MP3 compression to 256kbps wold seem fine to me. And 256kbps MP3 is easily considered CD quality to most people and even if your audiophile ears disagreed, from what I have seen, you'd need some pretty accurate speakers to see the difference between uncompressed and 256kpbs well ripped MP3.

Now if you could transmit power wirelessly, non line of sight without making me exra crispy...

 

[Cogman]

Humm, This brings an interesting thought to mind. Really what is to stop us from making an interactive home? I actually kindof like the idea of it. You could set up one computer, a music server, with several sound cards. Then you could have a remote device, like a laptop. Send a wireless message to the central computer like "Play Moonlight Sonata in The living room" and the other computer would translate that to the correct sound card and play the sound for that room. that would be sweet, and realy would not cost to much. Think about getting a TTS engine hooked up to the central computer. send voice messages throught the house with you laptop. It would be fun.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Humm, This brings an interesting thought to mind. Really what is to stop us from making an interactive home?

Sounds like good ol' Billy G.'s house.

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Humm, This brings an interesting thought to mind. Really what is to stop us from making an interactive home? I actually kindof like the idea of it. You could set up one computer, a music server, with several sound cards. Then you could have a remote device, like a laptop. Send a wireless message to the central computer like "Play Moonlight Sonata in The living room" and the other computer would translate that to the correct sound card and play the sound for that room. that would be sweet, and realy would not cost to much. Think about getting a TTS engine hooked up to the central computer. send voice messages throught the house with you laptop. It would be fun.

There is already a device similar to what you described. I saw a demo on TechTv where you have a remote that takes in voice commands and prompts the remote computer to play a given MP3 file. I'm not sure what protocol was used for the remote, or the cost. I also have an app on my Pocket PC that works with Winamp on a remote PC and acts as a remote over 802.11b. About the wireless speakers using 802.11b, I think that is a great idea and as seen with the Soundblaster solution, this isn't that far out or expensive.

 

[ReiAyanami]

or those new speaker-less speakers (i'm not kidding)

 

[BigPoppa]

Deja vu, i was walking back from class today when I got to thinking that bluetooth wireless headphones would kick ass, then this thread pops up.

 

[zephyrprime]

Yeash. So many people saying it's a bad idea. I think it's a fine idea. There's nothing keeping it from being done except an uncertain level of demand in the market.

 

[Mday]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Yeash. So many people saying it's a bad idea. I think it's a fine idea. There's nothing keeping it from being done except an uncertain level of demand in the market.

there is nothing wrong with localized wireless audio transmission. using wifi is just a bad idea. it's cheaper and more convenient to have the source connected to the receiver (with wires), and control the source wirelessly. i mean, if you use a remote\virtual desktop application using the audio source as the client, and the laptop as the host, you could just do it that way. that's what wifi would work at. or even bluetooth (if the source was an appliance\gadget and not a full PC), bluetooth should not be used for networking (read LAN, or WAN, bluetooth is PAN).

 

[Pudgygiant]

I just saw speakers at RadioShack using bluetooth. So stop bitching.

EDIT*
And bigpoppa, they already have plenty of bluetooth headsets (for cellphones), but from what I've heard the quality bites.

 

[BigPoppa]

I want sennheiser quality, not cell phone quality.

 

[Peter]

One word: Synchronicity. You'll have a tough time getting all those wireless transmissions synced up well enough so that stereo or even spatial sound effects aren't all messed up.

 

[dakels]

Synchronicty 1 or 2? (The Police reference)

I dont see why synchronicity would be an issue. Whether by line or by air its all traveling at the speed of light right?

Also on the issue of quality, I'm no expert but I would think digital signal reproduction is only limited to the quality in which the signal is sent and reproduced. Not the means in which that signal travels. Such as how good is the DAC, compressions, and replication of that original signal. Because its digital, there should be no degradation of signal issues. It either gets the complete information or it doesn't. Anything such as lost packets can be resent just like ethernet. right? But in that situation, you'd have to have a ping back to the source to acknowledge that all data was recieved to see what needs to be resent. On a live stream that could present some issues and alot of overhead....?

Anyways, I use a bluetooth headset (Jabbra) and its not bad. Not as much as I hoped for, but again, not bad. The signal is clear and the audio is decent. But with any wireless technology, you are getting a substandard component with a wireless capability. Meaning, a $30 headset on a $70 wireless module. Its also a first generation product. Same goes for my Sennheiser wireless RF900mhz headphones and my Advent digital wireless headphones. Both are 60% cost of wireless technology and 40% headphone technology, if that. Neither stand up to my Grado's by a long shot. Why? Because with my Grado's, I paid $120 for $120 worth of headphones and great ones at that. With the wireless Senn's, I paid $120 for $40 headphones and the rest for the convenience of wireless. I also realize that at this price range, a larger % is going into the cost of being wireless then if it was a $600 product. The difference between my wireless digital advents and analog Senn's is clear. I'm not talking about the sound itself. I am talking about the transmission of sound. Reproduction of that sound is up to the manufacturer.