Wireless headphone users

How many of you use wired headphones, wireless or nothing?

I use the auvio 33-283's and tdks WR 700s wireless phones. Also my xp deus of course has the ws4s. Don't think I could handle going back to wired ones now.

What are peoples thoughts on ear buds, vs over the ear phones?

I like the wireless phones on my XP GMP, haven't had an issue except for the minor recharging inconvenience, they are comfortable and the signal is good and the response is as good as the onboard speaker IMO. I don't find buds to be comfortable on a long outing.

I haven't seen a pair of ear buds with a long enough cord. As soon as u set detector down they get ripped out. If they did the weight of the cord prob would pull em out. The auvio 33-284 wireless ear buds are awesome. Good luck finding em tho

XP deus and detecnix wifi phones ,big takeup in the UK now

Picked up a set of TDK WR 700 and they work great. Was a little skeptical when I first tried them because the low tones were scratchy. Solution was to plug in a inline volume control. Tones are great now. Crank the detector volume to max, as well as the inline volume and adjust volume to comfortable level on the headphone adjustment. Went with the battery phones, 2 AAA in the headphones and 2 AAA in the transmitter, because with the rechargeable phones you only get about 6 hours on a charge and it takes 2-3 hours to recharge. Carrying 4 AAA batteries is no problem and takes 2 minutes to change them out and last for 25-30 hours. The freedom of not being tethered to the detector is awesome. Have not experienced any signal lag what so ever so everything is spot on. Would highly recommend going wireless, just be sure and go with the 2.4 GHZ KLEER technology and not Bluetooth or AM/FM transmitters and receivers.

I use both

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

I'm frustrated by the lack of progress in this area. I would prefer some sort of wireless setup. I like earbuds in real hot weather but prefer headphones. Wireless microphones and guitars obviously operate without lag and have great tonal range. I guess to an average user of headphones or earbuds listening to music, these aren't problems. It seems low lag headphones designed for wireless phones have limited audio response. Sooner or later something will come along.

Wires don't bother me that much but comfort does and I find using the backphones from XP, whether the wired variety or the Deus Ws4 headphones are the best combination of comfort and sound. I thought the Deteknix wireless were going to fill the need but turns out many/all of them them are defective and problematic. The Rapoo3070s continue to work the best for true wireless but not on all detectors I have used them on. I find XP wired backphones plugged in to the WM 10 module are the most comfortable and usable arrangement on the CTX.

I don't care for ear buds....another comfort issue for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2016 06:11PM by shoveler.

Quote:"It seems low lag headphones designed for wireless phones have limited audio response"

I'm curious why you say this. They seem to have more that the needed response. Detectors (with rare exceptions) are all mono, yet all the commercial gear is hifi-derived, so it's stereo. Detectors don't have exotic dynamic range, so don't require 16-bit hifi data converters. Detectors don't produce a wide range of frequencies, especially ones that only teenagers and bats can hear. So I think true detector-specific cordless 'phones could be a lot less than 'hi-fi quality' and still be fine.

To answer the original question about which of the three audio choices I use, I would say that I only use no 'phones when airtesting/experimenting at home, or in the field if my headphones are broken.

I use the TDK WR 700 headphones and wired headphones. Both are great. Water machines of course are wired headphones only. For some reason my Deeptech Vista Gold does not like the wireless setup. They just have a scratchy sound that is not there with the normal wired headphones. I do not like earbuds at all....Stuart

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:"It seems low lag headphones designed for
> wireless phones have limited audio response"
>
> I'm curious why you say this.

The simple fact is BT compresses the audio by design. It is getting better. On machines like the Racer where there is blended audio where you really need to hear the nuances of the audio, the BT setups just don't quite bring that full audio to the ears in my opinion. For single tone modes it isn't much of a problem although I have also noticed some fainter signals heard through wired phones are sometimes just not there on a wireless setup.

Thanks for all the input so far. I agree rechargeable battery life can be an issue. What if you could have over 12 hours rechargeable, ? just curious the average max time wireless users are doing

I just remembered my experience with the factory Racer BT module and headphones and my (and others) dissatisfaction with the audio quality. I traded a few emails with a guy at Makro. I never resolved the issue. I thought I may have had a defective module but now I just think it is a product that should not have been released by Makro. He said they did very limited testing with various headphones and selected the Phillips to package with their setup. The Phillips headphones seem to work okay when paired with a BT module on my computer listening to music. He was curious what combinations of transmitters and headphones I had tried (maybe 4 or 5) since I had better success with another brand. My impression was Makro is not very concerned about wireless technology. In the end despite BT standards it still seems to be hit and miss with different combinations of transmitters and headphone brands. Let me know if anyone wants a deal on Makro Racer wireless headphones and the module.

Quote TabWhisperer: "The simple fact is BT compresses the audio by design"
I see what you're saying - anything that meddles with the signal is potentially going to have a negative effect. Bluetooth does compress. Other systems seemingly don't, the 'Kleer' system being one. And the simple direct digital transmission method used by the Deteknix cordless 'phones also doesn't use compression, from what I can gather (info is sparse).

There are two technical aspects that get virtually no mention, but probably affect cordless headphone operation:
( 1 ) Add-on transmitters, like the Deteknix one, the TDK one, etc, are designed with a particular input audio level in mind, usually based on what mp3 players etc put out. Detectors may (and often don't) meet these requirements, putting out more than the transmitter can cope with. Possible problems include:
Saturation, which seriously changes the signal;
Compression, which modestly affect the signal, reducing the difference between loud and quiet;
AGC (automatic gain control) which will attempt to continuously regulate the sound whether it's loud or quiet, resulting in odd volume-related effects.
Correctly matching the detector to the transmitter is essential in my opinion.
( 2 ) High-pass filtering. It's pretty much universal with digital audio to not pass DC signals, there's always some filtering that removes frequencies below 20 Hz, it can be done digitally, or with analogue circuitry, or both. Detectors often put out very artificial audio, that is not symmetrical. That is, it's one-sided, rather than being 'neutrally composed' like real natural sounds. Passing detector audio through such digital transmission systems can affect it, especially if combined with the previously mentioned clipping/limiting/compression problems.

I think it's likely these factors may account for some of the observed issues: "it sounds tinny","it works on my Tesoro, but not my Racer", "it works on my Walkman, but not my E-Trac", "something's missing, the weak signals aren't there" etc.

Ok guys, thanks for the replies so far. Modified question, especially for those that use wireless headsets. Tell me what makes a wireless headset ideal for you. Example: Battery life?, Lag? Comfort? Rugged? Folding? Compact? What makes your ideal headset. Also, your thoughts on price. Ideal, and max?

Thanks

neptronix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok guys, thanks for the replies so far. Modified
> question, especially for those that use wireless
> headsets. Tell me what makes a wireless headset
> ideal for you. Example: Battery life?, Lag?
> Comfort? Rugged? Folding? Compact? What makes
> your ideal headset. Also, your thoughts on price.
> Ideal, and max?
>
> Thanks

My ideal wireless set would sound the same as a wired set.

Battery life would be needed for at least 6 hours, preferably 8 or more.

I think it would be great to package a transmitter paired with a receiver that might be able to mount to a headphone set, clipped to a jacket or belt or put in a shirt pocket. Maybe something like a custom pouch could hold the transmitter to a detector rod. Maybe the transmitter should have a volume control to account for the variable levels of the audio output of the detectors? I'm not clear if they have auto levels or not. The receiver would be amplified and have a volume control and 1/8 and 1/4 jacks. The CTX setup is close. I thought the CTX setup was decent except for the fact it wasn't portable to other machines. I would bet the CTX receiver could be made smaller and lighter. This would leave the choice of phones or earbuds up to the user.

I think Deteknix has tried to market something like I am talking about. They look similar to other BT products that are generally available. I'm betting since it BT based it will also have the routine problems. Has anyone tried them?

As for Bluetooth, it was originally intended for data transfers and basic cell phone earbuds and such. From what I have read, a newer BT v4 has a newer standard called aptX which is supposed to be better than A2DP and more suited for HiFi audio like wireless speakers. I would assume that means minimal lag as well. On the other hand there seems to be industry problems where products technically meet baseline BT requirements for a standard like A2DP but not all A2DP devices are created equal so it is still hit and miss.

Does anyone know if the Whites V3i headphones are BT or some other RF signal?

I noticed one device, a BT aptX compatible brand Avantree TC200 that can act as transmitter or receiver. That is in the direction of what I am thinking about.

Last addition. I just found this page with low latency aptX heaphones.

[www.aptx.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2016 05:11AM by TabWhisperer.

@Tabwhisperer: The Deteknix 'phones are not Bluetooth. They use some simple direct digital transmission system.

@Neptronix: Concensus of opinion (from other forum discussions) is that latency (lag) has to be less than 60 millisecs. Plenty of people who've used the 'Kleer' equipment find it's latency (of about 125 ms) to be too much.

Transmit battery run-time is one thing that spoils some of the commercially available products. They tend to have small cells, in order to keep the dongle small. Detectorists really need 12 hours life - two six-hour sessions without recharging. The extra weight/size of the ~1000 mAh cell is not a problem.

A 12 hour Li battery in a XP backphone configuration with a universal 2.4 transmitter would be ideal. Sennheiser RS-160s come close for a full cup model and the price is about right.

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> @Neptronix: Concensus of opinion (from other forum
> discussions) is that latency (lag) has to be less
> than 60 millisecs. Plenty of people who've used
> the 'Kleer' equipment find it's latency (of about
> 125 ms) to be too much.
>
yes, I find it interesting that I've tried the Kleer tech headphones (sennheiser version) and did not find
them acceptable...but other folks seem to be ok with them....they're great for TV use though....

the only system that worked for me was when I had the CTX and they state the latency of their system
as 10ms...it was perfect to my ears...

too bad minelab won't release their tech as a general purpose standalone system. I would have prefered it over the Gold Tester they released...and I definitely think there would be a market for them...

Does the $125-$165 price range scare anyone?

I would have no problem with that price if they were a durable product with good performance. The Deteknix , while not back phone style , seemed to have good quality but do not work correctly . the Rapoo work but have poor durability because of the cheap construction.
Interesting that the lag time seems to be a function of the detector one is using. I found the Rapoos (2.4) work terrific on an etrac but I was disappointed in the performance when tested on the F75 , MXT and CTX all of which are faster recovery machines then the etrac

shoveler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would have no problem with that price if they
> were a durable product with good performance. The
> Deteknix , while not back phone style , seemed to
> have good quality but do not work correctly . the
> Rapoo work but have poor durability because of
> the cheap construction.
> Interesting that the lag time seems to be a
> function of the detector one is using. I found the
> Rapoos (2.4) work terrific on an etrac but I was
> disappointed in the performance when tested on the
> F75 , MXT and CTX all of which are faster recovery
> machines then the etrac

Which Rapoo model?

3070

Here in the U.K, the Rapoo H3010 model is / was the preferred one, though the H3070 appears similar. They seemed to have 'low' latency ( but I've not seen an actual figure stated) but they are flimsy, not ideal for detecting use. But they were very low cost.

One important feature is this: They must not power down automatically after 2 minutes / 5minutes etc of 'no signal'. Maybe after 15 minutes is OK.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2016 06:23PM by Pimento.

sennhauser rs160 review on ut

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2016 04:26PM by diggers.

A bit of reading up online tells me that the Sennheiser RS160's have a latency of 45 msec, whereas the TDK WR700's have a 125 msec latency, despite both of them using the 'Kleer' system.
It just gets more confusing, the more you look into it.

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bit of reading up online tells me that the
> Sennheiser RS160's have a latency of 45 msec,
> whereas the TDK WR700's have a 125 msec latency,
> despite both of them using the 'Kleer' system.
> It just gets more confusing, the more you look
> into it.

As are the various Rapoo models. I was not aware of the 3010s and about the only difference in company propaganda I can find is the 3010s specs claim an anti-interference connection while the 3070s do not. That is the most important feature as long as the sound is acceptable...regardless , I would be concerned using either on a detector with no threshold.

shoveler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pimento Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A bit of reading up online tells me that the
> > Sennheiser RS160's have a latency of 45 msec,
> > whereas the TDK WR700's have a 125 msec
> latency,
> > despite both of them using the 'Kleer' system.
> > It just gets more confusing, the more you look
> > into it.
>
> As are the various Rapoo models. I was not aware
> of the 3010s and about the only difference in
> company propaganda I can find is the 3010s specs
> claim an anti-interference connection while the
> 3070s do not. That is the most important feature
> as long as the sound is acceptable...regardless ,
> I would be concerned using either on a detector
> with no threshold.

Anyone interested in being a tester?