On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:38:26 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Well they do output a bit more power some 25 or so milliwatts. I've used
them to carry SPDIF over short distances such as the original poster
requires and much longer with bigger antennas..

I know this can be done and I've been looking into it for a while with
the interest in using it for subwoofers and/or rear/surround speakers
in a multichannel sound system. This would eliminate the need to run
many cables around or under the floor.

One OEM I spoke with (and whose devices seem suitable) said that
receivers could easily and cheaply be included in self-powered
speakers. Unfortunately, all the 'high-end' speaker manufacturers
evinced curiousity but no real interest.

Kal

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
One OEM I spoke with (and whose devices seem suitable) said that
receivers could easily and cheaply be included in self-powered
speakers. Unfortunately, all the 'high-end' speaker manufacturers
evinced curiousity but no real interest.


Hmm. If it could be done easily and cheaply at decent quality, why are
good quality radio mics so expensive?

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:54:20 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
One OEM I spoke with (and whose devices seem suitable) said that
receivers could easily and cheaply be included in self-powered
speakers. Unfortunately, all the 'high-end' speaker manufacturers
evinced curiousity but no real interest.

Hmm. If it could be done easily and cheaply at decent quality, why are
good quality radio mics so expensive?

I said it could be included in an already self-powered speaker, itself
of not inconsequiential cost. If one has already invested the power
supply and amplifier, it was estimated that the receiver could be
added on for about $100. That was about 3 years ago.

OTOH, one might demand even higher quality in a mike feed than for a
surround channel speaker. I would.

Kal

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
I said it could be included in an already self-powered speaker, itself
of not inconsequiential cost. If one has already invested the power
supply and amplifier, it was estimated that the receiver could be
added on for about $100. That was about 3 years ago.

OTOH, one might demand even higher quality in a mike feed than for a
surround channel speaker. I would.

Possibly. But radio mics are rarely used where the highest possible
quality is required, regardless of what some might believe.

I'm not necessarily disputing that it could be done, but $100 dollars
seems to be rather cheap as a retail figure given that even a modest
broadcast receiver will cost this and more. Without the transmitter.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
I said it could be included in an already self-powered speaker, itself
of not inconsequiential cost. If one has already invested the power
supply and amplifier, it was estimated that the receiver could be
added on for about $100. That was about 3 years ago.

OTOH, one might demand even higher quality in a mike feed than for a
surround channel speaker. I would.

Possibly. But radio mics are rarely used where the highest possible
quality is required, regardless of what some might believe.


They are in live and broadcast environments.
If you pay just short of 3 grand a set for them you get something that's
incredibly hard to differentiate from the same type of mic in a wired
version.

The quality and reliability of radio mics has improved immensly over the
last ten years.

Peter

In article ,
Pete wrote:
Possibly. But radio mics are rarely used where the highest possible
quality is required, regardless of what some might believe.


They are in live and broadcast environments.

Yes. I work in the latter.

If you pay just short of 3 grand a set for them you get something that's
incredibly hard to differentiate from the same type of mic in a wired
version.

If only this was true, you'd never use another cabled mic.

The quality and reliability of radio mics has improved immensly over the
last ten years.

I'm not even convinced about that. They've got smaller, certainly. But the
move to UHF brought other problems.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Pete wrote:
Possibly. But radio mics are rarely used where the highest possible
quality is required, regardless of what some might believe.


They are in live and broadcast environments.

Yes. I work in the latter.

If you pay just short of 3 grand a set for them you get something that's
incredibly hard to differentiate from the same type of mic in a wired
version.

If only this was true, you'd never use another cabled mic.

The quality and reliability of radio mics has improved immensly over the
last ten years.

I'm not even convinced about that. They've got smaller, certainly. But the
move to UHF brought other problems.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
I said it could be included in an already self-powered speaker, itself
of not inconsequiential cost. If one has already invested the power
supply and amplifier, it was estimated that the receiver could be
added on for about $100. That was about 3 years ago.

OTOH, one might demand even higher quality in a mike feed than for a
surround channel speaker. I would.

Possibly. But radio mics are rarely used where the highest possible
quality is required, regardless of what some might believe.


They are in live and broadcast environments.
If you pay just short of 3 grand a set for them you get something that's
incredibly hard to differentiate from the same type of mic in a wired
version.

The quality and reliability of radio mics has improved immensly over the
last ten years.

Peter

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
I said it could be included in an already self-powered speaker, itself
of not inconsequiential cost. If one has already invested the power
supply and amplifier, it was estimated that the receiver could be
added on for about $100. That was about 3 years ago.

OTOH, one might demand even higher quality in a mike feed than for a
surround channel speaker. I would.

Possibly. But radio mics are rarely used where the highest possible
quality is required, regardless of what some might believe.

I'm not necessarily disputing that it could be done, but $100 dollars
seems to be rather cheap as a retail figure given that even a modest
broadcast receiver will cost this and more. Without the transmitter.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:54:20 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
One OEM I spoke with (and whose devices seem suitable) said that
receivers could easily and cheaply be included in self-powered
speakers. Unfortunately, all the 'high-end' speaker manufacturers
evinced curiousity but no real interest.

Hmm. If it could be done easily and cheaply at decent quality, why are
good quality radio mics so expensive?

I said it could be included in an already self-powered speaker, itself
of not inconsequiential cost. If one has already invested the power
supply and amplifier, it was estimated that the receiver could be
added on for about $100. That was about 3 years ago.

OTOH, one might demand even higher quality in a mike feed than for a
surround channel speaker. I would.

Kal