Volume control at the speaker?
 

"DaveC" wrote in message
news.net

In a distributed audio system in a residence, how can
volume control in each room be accomplished.

(1) Separate amp at each location, not totally impractical
in these days when you can get a pertty fair 100 wpc amp for
under $80 if you look around.

(2) Transformer-type stepped volume controls. Ironically
they are around $30 each, so you're talking a bit less than
half the price of the receiver.

http://www.hometech.com/audio/volume.html

Volume control at the speaker?
 

"DaveC" wrote in message
news.net
Thus spake Arny Krueger:

(1) Separate amp at each location, not totally
impractical in these days when you can get a pertty fair
100 wpc amp for under $80 if you look around.

Sources for small amplifiers? Place in wall? Attic?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amplifier-module...QQcmdZViewItem

It needs a pair of 24 volt transformers, and here are some
candidates at about $12 each:

http://www.action-electronics.com/trnsfrmr.htm


Google turns up so many amps, but are stereo system
component types.

Those too, including receivers.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

In article .net,
says...

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Thanks,


Yamaha makes a system called MusicCAST that does this. Has a hard
drive, stores 1,000 CD's in MP3 format or 100 in original format.
My son sells these in his audio store. See Yamaha.com.

JC the elder

Volume control at the speaker?
 

In article .net,
DaveC wrote:
(1) Separate amp at each location, not totally impractical
in these days when you can get a pertty fair 100 wpc amp for
under $80 if you look around.

Sources for small amplifiers? Place in wall? Attic?

My solution was to make them, as if hidden don't have to look pretty.
Plenty of kits on the market. I used a DC controlled pre-amp for volume
etc, as then the controls take up a tiny space and can easily be fitted on
a face plate of the type used for sockets etc, and there are no safety
implications if used in a wet room.

This was some time ago - a remote control might do as well.

But I've got an easy to wire house. Victorian with a cellar and dry lined
walls. A modern solid concrete one would be a different matter. ;-)

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"DaveC" wrote in message
news.net...
Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Yes, there is; you can have a central computer acting as a music server,
with a wireless ethernet network, and network music devices such as the
Squeezebox.

So, in each of the eight rooms you'd have speakers and an amplifier (or
powered speakers) and a Squeezebox. You could also have other devices
connected to the amplifier.

So you could have:

Mode 1: All eight rooms playing the same sound from their Squeezebox, with
the Squeezebox acting in multicast mode. The volume in each room would be
controlled by its own amplifier.

Mode 2: Some of the eight rooms playing the same sound from their
Squeezebox, and others playing diferent sounds from the music server via the
Squeezebox. Selection of music in each room is controlled by the Squeezebox
remote control.

Mode 3: Some of the rooms playings sounds from their Squeezboxes, others
playing sounds from local sources (eg, TV with line-out connections, or
their own computer.)

Now: there's no need to use wireless everywhere; you can use a mix of
wired and wireless connections.

The Squeezebox is one of the more expensive devices at £250 or so each. I
have a Netgear MP101, which now cost about £70, but can't do Multicast.

On the other hand, all these devices can do Internet radio. I've not looked
into it, but I suppose you ought to be able to set up your own Internet
radion statio within your home, so all your Netgear boxes could tune into
it. (Does anyone know how to set up an Intenet radio station for use within
their home?)

Costs for a basic quality system (YMMV):

Central Computer ... whatever
Central Wireless Ethernet hub ... £70

Per room Netgear MP101: £70
Per room amplifier: eg Richer Sounds Cambridge A1 £80
Per room speakers: eg Richer Sounds Celestion F10 £110
Per room leads, stands etc: £40

So I think you could get a basic system with reasonable quality small
speakers at £300 a room; and for an extra £50 you could get better
floorstanding speakers. And of course you can use different-quality
equipment in each room.

Don't forget, this is providing all the audio requirements in each room ...
central music, TV, computer, etc.

Tim


..

Wireless audio distribution?
 

DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in stereo @ 44kHz
sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps of bandwidth.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Wireless audio distribution?
 

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Wireless audio distribution?
 

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:17:47 -0700, DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Thanks,

I have some 2.4GHz wireless units that can send/receive video and
stereo audio... MATCO ASK-2008-TR

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.

Cheers!
Rich

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:
wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...
Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.
44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec
Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

Graham


Even accepting your numbers, a 10 Mbps link is adequate. So it's not
necessary to resort to MP3.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Wireless audio distribution?
 

On 8/3/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking,
whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated
-
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself,
I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You've provided other BS swearing about the correctness of it and have been
wrong. Your credibility slipped before this and stating 6 Mbit/s here
confirms you don't know Jack.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.

If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're using.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

CJT wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...
Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.
44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec
Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

Graham


Even accepting your numbers, a 10 Mbps link is adequate. So it's not
necessary to resort to MP3.

10Mbps would indeed be fine if the link could grab most of the relevant bandwidth.

Existing 2.4G audiolinks are mostly 'mp3' like. Look for the term 'sub band codec' in the
description - although many are simply sold using the confusing and meaningless term
'stereo quality' !

I note that Jim Thompson commented on a analogue FM based 2.4G audio link too.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff,
handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's
encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this
myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I
was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.

If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost
audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're
using.

Graham


You get a 'pfsst' noise (that may lose something in translation) until
everything sync's up again. Audio streaming isn't generally critical stuff
so why bother trying to make up the lost stuff.

Ken

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.
You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.

If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're using.

Graham

Once their time has passed, they're irrelevant.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Existing 2.4G audiolinks are mostly 'mp3' like. Look for the term 'sub
band codec' in the
description - although many are simply sold using the confusing and
meaningless term
'stereo quality' !

Well, I use a wireless link for my Netgear MP101, and it handles .wav files.

I see it says on the box that the MP101 uses 802.11g, which uses the 2.4GHz
technology, and speeds are "up to 54Mbps" (yea, right ...).

Tim

..

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost
audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're
using.

Graham


You get a 'pfsst' noise (that may lose something in translation) until
everything sync's up again. Audio streaming isn't generally critical stuff
so why bother trying to make up the lost stuff.

That's what I thought.

That makes such a scheme unacceptable for serious hi-fi or professional audio
usage which will be the mainstay of the market for such a product.

Ergo... redundancy *is* required.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

CJT wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.
You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.

If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're using.

Graham

Once their time has passed, they're irrelevant.


Which is why you have a receive buffer and there's latency between transmission and reception.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Tim Martin wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Existing 2.4G audiolinks are mostly 'mp3' like. Look for the term 'sub
band codec' in the
description - although many are simply sold using the confusing and
meaningless term
'stereo quality' !

Well, I use a wireless link for my Netgear MP101, and it handles .wav files.

I see it says on the box that the MP101 uses 802.11g, which uses the 2.4GHz
technology, and speeds are "up to 54Mbps" (yea, right ...).


Product Specifications
• Digital Audio File Formats:
- MP3 up to 320 Kbps or variable bit rate (VBR)
- WMA 8/9 to 192 Kbps
- Internet Radio (streaming MP3)

http://www.netgear.com/pdf_docs/MP101_ds_NA_30Nov04.pdf

Trust me - uncompressed digital audio wireless links are not yet available. I
expect the MP101 compresses wav files on the fly.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/3/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking,
whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated
-
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself,
I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You've provided other BS swearing about the correctness of it and have been
wrong. Your credibility slipped before this and stating 6 Mbit/s here
confirms you don't know Jack.

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise for your
stupid comment above ?

It appears that *YOU* are the one who 'knows jack' since you're basically talking
straight out of your arse. I suggest you go learn something about the technology.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

On 8/4/05 6:12 AM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/3/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a
residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking,
whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's
encapsulated
-
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this
myself,
I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You've provided other BS swearing about the correctness of it and have been
wrong. Your credibility slipped before this and stating 6 Mbit/s here
confirms you don't know Jack.

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise for
your
stupid comment above ?

It appears that *YOU* are the one who 'knows jack' since you're basically
talking
straight out of your arse. I suggest you go learn something about the
technology.

I don't care a whole lot about what *one* company is *working on*. How
about you point me to an *ANSI* Standard, or even one in progress in a
Working Group?

Oh..... I remember, you like to make reference to "standards" that aren't
really Standards.

IMHO you aren't trustworthy in discussions.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:


Trust me - uncompressed digital audio wireless links are not yet available. I
expect the MP101 compresses wav files on the fly.

Graham


Curious - I quite often play wav files over my wireless network. Do you
know what sort of compression is used? Can it be varied?

As for:

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summar...e%20technology

- uses some form of (unspoken) compression?

TIA

Rob

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:

CJT wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.
You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.
If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're using.

Graham
Once their time has passed, they're irrelevant.


Which is why you have a receive buffer and there's latency between transmission and reception.

Graham

Unless you buffer the whole session (e.g. a complete song, or perhaps
even a complete CD), there's always the possibility of a buffer not
arriving in time.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/3/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...
Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.
44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec
Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.
That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking,
whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated
-
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself,
I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.
You've provided other BS swearing about the correctness of it and have been
wrong. Your credibility slipped before this and stating 6 Mbit/s here
confirms you don't know Jack.

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise for your
stupid comment above ?

It appears that *YOU* are the one who 'knows jack' since you're basically talking
straight out of your arse. I suggest you go learn something about the technology.

Graham


The Turtle Beach Audiotron does .wav, and if you wanted to, you could
link to it via wireless.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:
Tim Martin wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Existing 2.4G audiolinks are mostly 'mp3' like. Look for the term 'sub

band codec' in the

description - although many are simply sold using the confusing and

meaningless term

'stereo quality' !

Well, I use a wireless link for my Netgear MP101, and it handles .wav files.

I see it says on the box that the MP101 uses 802.11g, which uses the 2.4GHz
technology, and speeds are "up to 54Mbps" (yea, right ...).



Product Specifications
• Digital Audio File Formats:
- MP3 up to 320 Kbps or variable bit rate (VBR)
- WMA 8/9 to 192 Kbps
- Internet Radio (streaming MP3)

http://www.netgear.com/pdf_docs/MP101_ds_NA_30Nov04.pdf

Trust me - uncompressed digital audio wireless links are not yet available. I
expect the MP101 compresses wav files on the fly.

Graham


Mmm - definitely don't follow you here. My (any) 'g' wireless link has a
real world 2 megabyte per second transfer speed. There is simply no need
for audio compression, and I can see no sign of it happening on either
of the machines in the network. The same with video I'd guess - an
uncompressed avi file will stream in it's native format.

The Netgear is essentially a mini puter capped by its ability to process
compressed audio. It could happily stream uncompressed audio, subject
only to bandwidth.

Rob

Wireless audio distribution?
 

In article , Pooh Bear rabbitsfriendsand
writes
Tim Martin wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Existing 2.4G audiolinks are mostly 'mp3' like. Look for the term 'sub
band codec' in the
description - although many are simply sold using the confusing and
meaningless term
'stereo quality' !

Well, I use a wireless link for my Netgear MP101, and it handles .wav files.

I see it says on the box that the MP101 uses 802.11g, which uses the 2.4GHz
technology, and speeds are "up to 54Mbps" (yea, right ...).


Product Specifications
• Digital Audio File Formats:
- MP3 up to 320 Kbps or variable bit rate (VBR)
- WMA 8/9 to 192 Kbps
- Internet Radio (streaming MP3)

http://www.netgear.com/pdf_docs/MP101_ds_NA_30Nov04.pdf

Trust me - uncompressed digital audio wireless links are not yet available. I
expect the MP101 compresses wav files on the fly.

Graham


They are, but not as you might know, or want to pay for them;))

--
Tony Sayer

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"CJT" wrote in message



44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels =
1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping
stuff, handshaking, whatever and redundancy for lost
packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not
calculating this myself, I have it on good authority
from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite surprised how much overhead is required myself
actually.

Even accepting your numbers, a 10 Mbps link is adequate.
So it's not necessary to resort to MP3.

I was just listening to some .wav files stored on a file
server across the room, using a SMC 2662W USB-attached
plain-old-vanilla old-tech, low-tech 802.11b wireless
interface. The file I was listening to with Winamp was a
44/16 stereo .wav file.

There's also the slight matter of 802.11a which delivers an
uncompressed 54 mbps, over shorter distances but still
plenty fine to reach across a room or a house.

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:


Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in stereo @ 44kHz
sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps of bandwidth.

Uhh... 44.1 KHz * 16 bits * 2 channels = 1.4112 Mbit / sec....
definitely possible.


Thomas

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Product Specifications
. Digital Audio File Formats:
- MP3 up to 320 Kbps or variable bit rate (VBR)
- WMA 8/9 to 192 Kbps
- Internet Radio (streaming MP3)

http://www.netgear.com/pdf_docs/MP101_ds_NA_30Nov04.pdf

..wav and lpcm support was added via a software update; they are not in the
manual

Tim

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on
uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise
for your
stupid comment above ?

Wireless computer network links can and do work at ten million bits a second
or more, with nominal speeds several times that figure.

I've been monitoring my wireless network transmission to my Netgear MP101
while playing an 860MB .wav file (44100Hz/16-bitstereo), and it is sending
data at about 200,000 bytes a second, which is about what you'd expect for
an uncompressed file. The server software CPU consumption is near-zero -
less than 5 CPU seconds in the last 5 minutes.

Tim

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Zak wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:


Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in stereo @ 44kHz
sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps of bandwidth.

Uhh... 44.1 KHz * 16 bits * 2 channels = 1.4112 Mbit / sec....
definitely possible.

It's *possible* - just not currently commercially available. That's the raw data
rate btw. It'll take a lot more bandwidth to get it wirelessly from A to B.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message



44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels =
1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping
stuff, handshaking, whatever and redundancy for lost
packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not
calculating this myself, I have it on good authority
from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite surprised how much overhead is required myself
actually.

Even accepting your numbers, a 10 Mbps link is adequate.
So it's not necessary to resort to MP3.

I was just listening to some .wav files stored on a file
server across the room, using a SMC 2662W USB-attached
plain-old-vanilla old-tech, low-tech 802.11b wireless
interface. The file I was listening to with Winamp was a
44/16 stereo .wav file.

There's also the slight matter of 802.11a which delivers an
uncompressed 54 mbps, over shorter distances but still
plenty fine to reach across a room or a house.

That's from *computer to computer* over a wireless network.

I never said that couldn't be done. We were discussing a standalone link
that's suitable for replacing hard wiring, where you have 'dumb box' to
receive the wireless audio. I don't see having a PC in every room just
to receve audio as a practical solution.

If you have a computer at the far end you can indeed send your file over
wireless ethernet. It takes a fair bit of the bandwidth on a slower
connection though. Standalone systems are a different kettle of fish. I
know of *none* currently offering 16 bit linear pcm and I can assure you
I've researched it very thoroughly. It may seem surprising but it's a
fact. It is being worked on though. I can't say too much on account of
an NDA.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/4/05 6:12 AM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/3/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a
residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...

Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.

44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking,
whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's
encapsulated
-
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this
myself,
I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You've provided other BS swearing about the correctness of it and have been
wrong. Your credibility slipped before this and stating 6 Mbit/s here
confirms you don't know Jack.

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise for
your
stupid comment above ?

It appears that *YOU* are the one who 'knows jack' since you're basically
talking
straight out of your arse. I suggest you go learn something about the
technology.

I don't care a whole lot about what *one* company is *working on*. How
about you point me to an *ANSI* Standard, or even one in progress in a
Working Group?

Oh..... I remember, you like to make reference to "standards" that aren't
really Standards.

IMHO you aren't trustworthy in discussions.

And you're a worthless plonker who can't even respond to a straight question. I'd
forgotten you're one of Gay Mason's mates. Explains a great deal.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

CJT wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

On 8/3/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:

wrote:

wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
DaveC wrote:

Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio throughout a residence
to
8 rooms? Digital?

Something similar to wireless computer networking...
Currently only at mp3 like quality. True16 bit linear pcm in
stereo @ 44kHz sampling requires something like about 6 Mbps
of bandwidth.
44,1000 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec
Sorry, that's:

44,1000 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

or

44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.
That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking,
whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated
-
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself,
I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.
You've provided other BS swearing about the correctness of it and have been
wrong. Your credibility slipped before this and stating 6 Mbit/s here
confirms you don't know Jack.

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise for your
stupid comment above ?

It appears that *YOU* are the one who 'knows jack' since you're basically talking
straight out of your arse. I suggest you go learn something about the technology.

Graham


The Turtle Beach Audiotron does .wav, and if you wanted to, you could
link to it via wireless.

It rather appears that it does the typical 'sub-band codec' thing with a wav file.

Part of the audio tech spec for the Audiotron is as follows - and it's not the spec to
be expected of linear 16 bit pcm.


Signal to Noise 91dB (A-weighted)

THD+N -78dB (A-weighted) (-78dB = .0125%)

http://www.turtlebeach.com/site/prod...tron/specs.asp

I hope you understand why this clearly isn't linear 16 bit. I've never even seen a
manufacturer have the brass neck to A-weight a THD spec before ! Talk about being
desperate.

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

tony sayer wrote:

In article , Pooh Bear rabbitsfriendsand
writes
Tim Martin wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Existing 2.4G audiolinks are mostly 'mp3' like. Look for the term 'sub
band codec' in the
description - although many are simply sold using the confusing and
meaningless term
'stereo quality' !

Well, I use a wireless link for my Netgear MP101, and it handles .wav files.

I see it says on the box that the MP101 uses 802.11g, which uses the 2.4GHz
technology, and speeds are "up to 54Mbps" (yea, right ...).


Product Specifications
• Digital Audio File Formats:
- MP3 up to 320 Kbps or variable bit rate (VBR)
- WMA 8/9 to 192 Kbps
- Internet Radio (streaming MP3)

http://www.netgear.com/pdf_docs/MP101_ds_NA_30Nov04.pdf

Trust me - uncompressed digital audio wireless links are not yet available. I
expect the MP101 compresses wav files on the fly.

Graham


They are, but not as you might know, or want to pay for them;))

I was indeed simply considering the consumer market ! ;-)

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:00:51 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:07:23 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping stuff, handshaking, whatever
and redundancy for lost packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated -
there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not calculating this myself, I have
it on good authority from some guys who are developing the product. I was quite
surprised how much overhead is required myself actually.

You don't have to use TCP/IP, and you don't need, or even want, lost
packet redundancy, at least not for streaming audio. If you need a
protocol at all, use something like UUCP.

If you don't account for lost packets what's going to happen to any lost audio data ? I'll
ask some more next time I talk to the guys about the protocol they're using.


You leave it gone, because if you try to resend it, you'll lose ensuing
packets, or at least they'll get out of order. You drop it, and keep
on truckin'...

And if it's just streaming bits, you won't lose whole packets, and a
bit or two here and there is insignificant for, say, MP3. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Wireless audio distribution?
 

Tim Martin wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

So, if I was to point you to a company that's actually working on
uncompressed
digital audio links and they confirmed what I said, would you apologise
for your
stupid comment above ?

Wireless computer network links can and do work at ten million bits a second
or more, with nominal speeds several times that figure.

I've been monitoring my wireless network transmission to my Netgear MP101
while playing an 860MB .wav file (44100Hz/16-bitstereo), and it is sending
data at about 200,000 bytes a second, which is about what you'd expect for
an uncompressed file. The server software CPU consumption is near-zero -
less than 5 CPU seconds in the last 5 minutes.

Ok - that's a standard wireless computer network right ?

I'll bet that whatever utility measures the data rate is simply looking at the
raw data transferred - the actual traffic that the 'network' sees - not the RF
data rate in bps.

I wouldn't expect to see much CPU utilisation - I expect the ethernet
controllers do most of the hard work.

I was talking about a *standalone* point to point method of distributing audio
wirelessly. There's no ethernet controller to take the strain nor any OS, CPU or
whatever.

Incidentally, I decided it was time to do some more Googling since the company I
was expecting to deliver still hasn't come up with the goods.

You may find this interesting - it appears to be the first chipset designed for
this function. It's barely in production it seems. I was kinda guessing at the
6Mbps data rate. They've apparently managed to get it into 4Mbps. Still a lot
more than the raw 1.4Mbps of the raw audio data though.

http://www.nvlsi.no/index.cfm?obj=do...isplay&doc=242

" Nordic launches nRF24Z1 - an Industry First Single Chip 2.4GHz 4Mbit/s
Solution for CD-Quality Wireless Audio Streaming, with Extremely Low Latency "

Graham

Wireless audio distribution?
 

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message



44.1 ksamples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels =
1,411,200 bits/sec

In any case, it's 1.4 Mbits/sec, NOT 6 Mbits/sec.

That's the raw data rate only !

Now you have to add overhead for the frequency hopping
stuff, handshaking, whatever and redundancy for lost
packets - and I've no idea how the data's encapsulated
- there'll doubtless be extra stuff there too. I'm not
calculating this myself, I have it on good authority
from some guys who are developing the product. I was
quite surprised how much overhead is required myself
actually.

Even accepting your numbers, a 10 Mbps link is adequate.
So it's not necessary to resort to MP3.

I was just listening to some .wav files stored on a file
server across the room, using a SMC 2662W USB-attached
plain-old-vanilla old-tech, low-tech 802.11b wireless
interface. The file I was listening to with Winamp was a
44/16 stereo .wav file.

There's also the slight matter of 802.11a which delivers
an uncompressed 54 mbps, over shorter distances but still
plenty fine to reach across a room or a house.

That's from *computer to computer* over a wireless
network.

In this day and age, just about *everything* is a computer.

What's the difference between a $299 stand-alone dedicated
client and a $399 computer besides 33% higher cost?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...c=D30CL1&s=dhs

I never said that couldn't be done. We were discussing a
standalone link that's suitable for replacing hard
wiring, where you have 'dumb box' to receive the wireless
audio. I don't see having a PC in every room just to
receve audio as a practical solution.

I believe the OP said:

"Is there a wireless solution to distributing audio
throughout a residence to
8 rooms? Digital?"

One approach is to have a file server loaded with audio
files that are to be distributed. Clients at each location
download the audio that is desired at that location.

Another approach is to have intelligent clients that stream
audio from off-site services through an on-site router.

If you have a computer at the far end you can indeed send
your file over wireless ethernet. It takes a fair bit of
the bandwidth on a slower connection though.

I believe the OP said nothing about the wireless connection
being necessarily slow, given that the wireless connection
was generally available for a reasonable cost.

Standalone
systems are a different kettle of fish. I know of *none*
currently offering 16 bit linear pcm and I can assure you.

But a distributed solution running 16 bit linear PCM can be
assembled from inexpensive computers.

I've researched it very thoroughly. It may seem
surprising but it's a fact. It is being worked on though.
I can't say too much on account of an NDA.

OK, someone puts together a Linux box and some software.