Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[David Buckley]

Does anyone manufacture IEM headphones, ie headphones with the receiver built in, a no-cable solution?  Most "wireless" headphones I can find use Bluetooth; all Bluetooth I've played with has unacceptable latency.  The other option I've looked at is IR headphones for hearing impaired folks, and these are of lower audio quality than I'd like, as well as being mono which is a dealbreaker.  I've also web looked at silent disco earphones, but the marketing doesn't inspire me, ditto the use of RCA inputs to the transmitter.

Budget - in line with quality IEM electronics plus decent buds is entirely acceptable.

[Tim Weaver]

No

[David Buckley]

Thanks Tim; given there haven't been a flood of posts contradicting you,  you've confirmed my worst fears.

I'd checked the usual suspects, and some less-than-usual and non-first-tier brands, and even the kit the folks that do movie location sound use,  and come up with nothing.

[Tim Weaver]

I'm not familiar with all their product line, but it's likely that Lectrosonics will have the smallest beltpack for IEM or IFB use. Small and rugged is kinda their thing.

[Karl Winkler]

Does anyone manufacture IEM headphones, ie headphones with the receiver built in, a no-cable solution?  Most "wireless" headphones I can find use Bluetooth; all Bluetooth I've played with has unacceptable latency.  The other option I've looked at is IR headphones for hearing impaired folks, and these are of lower audio quality than I'd like, as well as being mono which is a dealbreaker.  I've also web looked at silent disco earphones, but the marketing doesn't inspire me, ditto the use of RCA inputs to the transmitter.

Budget - in line with quality IEM electronics plus decent buds is entirely acceptable.

There used to be wireless headphones that were analog and operated in the 902-928 MHz band. They weren't great, but worked OK for short distance stuff.

Have you looked at the Phonak stuff? They make the "Invisity" earbuds that are receiver and earbud in one. They are analog AFAIK and operate in the VHF band. The sound is not full fidelity, but speech quality (like an IFB system) but may be OK for what you are doing.

[Dave Garoutte]

Why not plug your headphones into an IEM body pack?
Then you get to choose the quality you want.

[Brian_Henry]

Why not plug your headphones into an IEM body pack?
Then you get to choose the quality you want.

I think he's trying to eliminate the headphone cable itself if I understand the OP correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Buckley]

You understand exactly, Brian, it's the cable that is the problem, otherwise cans and and IEM receiver would be the answer.

I'm aware of the all-in-ear things that film sound guys use and they all have very limited frequency response, and are eye-wateringly expensive, but I guess they are are in a very niche market, and it is a remarkable bit of miniaturization.  And I don't need invisibility, which is where these things really score.

I've not got around to implementing it yet, but it seems that Sennheiser (amongst others) still make non-Bluetooth wireless headphones with an RF base, and I'm told these have no digital processing, so shouldn't have latency problems, and are of decent quality.  And they are high-street purchasable, so should make testing and return non-problematic.

[Glen Kelley]

I'm aware of the all-in-ear things that film sound guys use and they all have very limited frequency response, and are eye-wateringly expensive, but I guess they are are in a very niche market, and it is a remarkable bit of miniaturization.  And I don't need invisibility, which is where these things really score.

I wonder if any of the sports-centered companies have something? I looked at Coachcom, and all of their stuff is pretty standard intercom-style stuff. What do quarterbacks wear in their helmets? Does anyone know?

[Dave Garoutte]

I wonder if any of the sports-centered companies have something? I looked at Coachcom, and all of their stuff is pretty standard intercom-style stuff. What do quarterbacks wear in their helmets? Does anyone know?

A wireless speech system is not going to have good frequency response.
Get one of those mini Lectrosonic things and clip it onto the headband.

[Brian_Henry]

You understand exactly, Brian, it's the cable that is the problem, otherwise cans and and IEM receiver would be the answer.

Sorry I know of nothing that can help, but I am curious what your application is that makes the wire problem for you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim McCulloch]

Sorry I know of nothing that can help, but I am curious what your application is that makes the wire problem for you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps a "psychic" performance?

[Henry Cohen]

What do quarterbacks wear in their helmets? Does anyone know?

Motorola MotoTrbo radio modules, operating in digital mode. Can't handle musical material, besides sounding bad (relative to musical performance requirements) to begin with.

[Jason Glass]

There used to be wireless headphones that were analog and operated in the 902-928 MHz band. They weren't great, but worked OK for short distance stuff.

Have you looked at the Phonak stuff? They make the "Invisity" earbuds that are receiver and earbud in one. They are analog AFAIK and operate in the VHF band. The sound is not full fidelity, but speech quality (like an IFB system) but may be OK for what you are doing.

Not only does the Phonak Invisity that Karl recommended exceed the OP requirements, it's available for rent from VER so you can try it out for awhile before you purchase.

http://www.ver.com/product/phonak-invisity-in-ear-receiver-wcontainer/

With

https://www.ver.com/product/phonak-tx300v-20-channel-studio-transmitter/

Or

https://www.ver.com/product/comtek-bst-25216-synthesized-transmitter/

[David Buckley]

Sorry I know of nothing that can help, but I am curious what your application is that makes the wire problem for you.

Radio presenters.  They'd like less cables please. 

[Tim Weaver]

That Phonak unit is an IFB for talking heads. Not what the OP is looking for I don't think. The stated frequency response is 200-4.5K. Telephone much?

A self contained IEM system for music does not exist yet. Bluetooth just isn't the answer (at least not yet), and honestly I don't see anybody scrambling to make this exist. The market just isn't there....

[Jason Glass]

That Phonak unit is an IFB for talking heads. Not what the OP is looking for I don't think. The stated frequency response is 200-4.5K. Telephone much?

A self contained IEM system for music does not exist yet. Bluetooth just isn't the answer (at least not yet), and honestly I don't see anybody scrambling to make this exist. The market just isn't there....

Aah, yes. Crappy audio, for sure.

Anyway, my next suggestion isn't pro-level RF tech, but the audio should be more than adequate, and it's certainly inexpensive enough to gamble on:

https://en-us.sennheiser.com/audio-headphones-stereo-wireless-120-ii

They operate in 926-928 Mhz and only have 3 channels to choose from.

Sennheiser also has a few other RF models, including more expensive options, and most are available on Amazon. All will most likely have consumer type RCA and/or TRS audio inputs.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=is_s?k=sennheiser+rf+headphones

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[ProSoundWeb Community]