I dont care about all that mumbo jumbo tech talk I just read, albeit an interesting read. As long as it works, and the quality is lossless this would be sick! I'm definately a prospective buyer. There have been many times that the thought "I wish there was a decent pair of wireless headphones I could use with my mp3 player" has crossed my mind.
Is it really stainless steel? It's so rediculously soft that I assumed it was aluminum. Some other people said it was aluminum as well, but I've never gotten corroboration. Whatever it is, the alloy choice was bad, IMO.
I believe that the nano back is aluminum. LibertyLink antenna is a long ferrite bar with a few windings. It is autotuned by the chip. So they say if there is at least a 4mm gap to even ferrous metals, the near field is suitable for the transmission. I know that the headphone ferrite antennas sit very close to the speakers so even a fixed mag field must not interfere.
Again, the tech discussion is interesting.
I ask- what is it worth to cut the wire assuming the system offers good sound? $79? $99? In my opinion, BT headphones have failed because the cost of the system was too high.
I believe that the nano back is aluminum. LibertyLink antenna is a long ferrite bar with a few windings. It is autotuned by the chip. So they say if there is at least a 4mm gap to even ferrous metals, the near field is suitable for the transmission. I know that the headphone ferrite antennas sit very close to the speakers so even a fixed mag field must not interfere.
I can tell you for a fact that there is interference, but on the iPod side it's probably dealt with as acceptable attenuation, and on the headphone side the fields produced by the headphones are way outside of the spectrum used by the radio.
I can tell you for a fact that there is interference, but on the iPod side it's probably dealt with as acceptable attenuation, and on the headphone side the fields produced by the headphones are way outside of the spectrum used by the radio.
The field lines are less than perfect, true. But in 3D space is there enough B-field to get a signal in all orientations. Yes I think so.
The Bit Error Rate is 10X better than BlueTooth. At CES, I was able to move the player at a rapid pace in various directions with no dropouts. So their receive antenna diversity scheme must be working.
I guess we are guilty of keeping the thread technical. Have we scared off the guys who would comment on the value of wireless headphones? oops.
I believe that the nano back is aluminum. LibertyLink antenna is a long ferrite bar with a few windings. It is autotuned by the chip. So they say if there is at least a 4mm gap to even ferrous metals, the near field is suitable for the transmission. I know that the headphone ferrite antennas sit very close to the speakers so even a fixed mag field must not interfere.
Again, the tech discussion is interesting.
I ask- what is it worth to cut the wire assuming the system offers good sound? $79? $99? In my opinion, BT headphones have failed because the cost of the system was too high.
The Bit Error Rate is 10X better than BlueTooth. ...
Comparing radios to Bluetooth is like comparing cars to the Ford Edsel. . . In other words, I should hope that the bit error rate is 10X better than Bluetooth's!
Lastly, we don't have very many technical thread around here. It's always nice to get one in from time to time.
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
Is it really stainless steel? It's so rediculously soft that I assumed it was aluminum. Some other people said it was aluminum as well, but I've never gotten corroboration. Whatever it is, the alloy choice was bad, IMO.
I believe that the nano back is aluminum. LibertyLink antenna is a long ferrite bar with a few windings. It is autotuned by the chip. So they say if there is at least a 4mm gap to even ferrous metals, the near field is suitable for the transmission. I know that the headphone ferrite antennas sit very close to the speakers so even a fixed mag field must not interfere.
Again, the tech discussion is interesting.
I ask- what is it worth to cut the wire assuming the system offers good sound? $79? $99? In my opinion, BT headphones have failed because the cost of the system was too high.
Originally posted by podlife
I believe that the nano back is aluminum. LibertyLink antenna is a long ferrite bar with a few windings. It is autotuned by the chip. So they say if there is at least a 4mm gap to even ferrous metals, the near field is suitable for the transmission. I know that the headphone ferrite antennas sit very close to the speakers so even a fixed mag field must not interfere.
I can tell you for a fact that there is interference, but on the iPod side it's probably dealt with as acceptable attenuation, and on the headphone side the fields produced by the headphones are way outside of the spectrum used by the radio.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I can tell you for a fact that there is interference, but on the iPod side it's probably dealt with as acceptable attenuation, and on the headphone side the fields produced by the headphones are way outside of the spectrum used by the radio.
The field lines are less than perfect, true. But in 3D space is there enough B-field to get a signal in all orientations. Yes I think so.
The Bit Error Rate is 10X better than BlueTooth. At CES, I was able to move the player at a rapid pace in various directions with no dropouts. So their receive antenna diversity scheme must be working.
I guess we are guilty of keeping the thread technical. Have we scared off the guys who would comment on the value of wireless headphones? oops.
Originally posted by podlife
I believe that the nano back is aluminum. LibertyLink antenna is a long ferrite bar with a few windings. It is autotuned by the chip. So they say if there is at least a 4mm gap to even ferrous metals, the near field is suitable for the transmission. I know that the headphone ferrite antennas sit very close to the speakers so even a fixed mag field must not interfere.
Again, the tech discussion is interesting.
I ask- what is it worth to cut the wire assuming the system offers good sound? $79? $99? In my opinion, BT headphones have failed because the cost of the system was too high.
It's stainless in all of the series.
Originally posted by podlife
The Bit Error Rate is 10X better than BlueTooth. ...
Comparing radios to Bluetooth is like comparing cars to the Ford Edsel. . . In other words, I should hope that the bit error rate is 10X better than Bluetooth's!
Lastly, we don't have very many technical thread around here. It's always nice to get one in from time to time.
Originally posted by addabox
I wonder how much thickness the sled adds to the Nano-- hard to tell from the picture.
I'm assuming that they're not getting everything, including batts, into that half inch of plastic on the bottom.
Acceptable thickness should be about the same as the iPod Mini.