Jensen 900mhz Wireless Headphones Manual

1. Jvc 900mhz Wireless Stereo Headphones

Asks: 'I've recently been looking at getting some wireless headphones of the RF rather than infra-red variety. After for a it struck me that I don't actually want a whole new set of headphones.

I already have a nice pair of headphones as well as earphones. What I really want is an RF transmitter and a small clip on receiver that I can plug my existing headphones/earphones into. The problem is, I can't find anyone selling what I am describing, even don't quite have what I'm looking for. Does anyone know/have experience of such a product?' 'I see several advantages to this:. Adaptability: I can then use earphones/headphones as appropriate for the activity, or possibly use it as an RF link between hardware in different rooms.

Replacability: If I damage the headphones I only have to replace them, not the whole headphone/receiver unit; this bit will hopefully lead to. Lower costsHas anyone seen something like this, before?' Of course it will work.

I've done this before. Get yourself one of those cheap FM transmitters that transmits in the normal 88-107Mhz band (it's low power). I think radioshack even carries them (or they used to.) Searching google works too. Then get a cheap AM/FM 'walkman'. I have a freebee from some tradeshow that's only about 1/2' thick, 1-1/2' square, with a belt clip. Works great.Sun spots.

They guy is going to be a few feet from the transmitter. All sources of interference except from his computer will be a non-issue. I just bought this same transmitter(moving across country, rental truck, want CD's, you get the idea) and it really does work great.as long as it was motionless with respect to the reciever.

I stuck it on my Rio mp3 player, and carried it about with my stereo tuned in, and as I moved I heard static. When I stopped, it was fine. It easily worked across the room, but quality declined when too close too the monitor, or behind the computer(was thinkin it might be easy way to get mp3's to stereo without cord).

It seems like the old&cheap recharables I threw in it lasted 8 hours, but I wasn't keeping track. I suppose now I need to figure out how to power it without the batterys, to make it really useful out of the car. 'scuse me?I'm using, as I type this, JVC 900Mhz Wireless Headphones. Right this moment, Bon Jovi's 'Wild In The Streets' is blasting over them.I get mild interferance (that I can fine-tune out usualy) from our 900Mhz cordless phone when it's in use, that's about it.There's a couple spots in the house that I get some odd interferance that will clear up just by moving my head, I've been unable to pinpoint what it is, but it doesn't really affect me.These things are not IR, they go through walls, I can walk clear out to our mailbox and still have a signal. Mind you, this is going through a combination of several wooden and concrete walls.I see no reason that this 'won't work'.Certainly the sound quality isn't exactly recording-studio-standards, but it's more than enough for any consumer application. And it's far better than what you're going to pull out of an FM.radio.

This is a pretty good project for a beginner geek. Should take a couple hours, including travel time.radioshack.com carries all of the wires, resistors, transistors, and breadboards that you'll need for this. Basically you're going to build a little repeater/amplifier. Just take the stereo jack (also at Radio Shack) and wire it up to a variable resistor (for tuning the frequency) and a standard transmitter chip.Choose a well-known architecture, and you can install debian.org on it, good to go.Fun little project, and a good way to get your feet wet. Having used this quite a bit I can say that even though it is a pretty good deal it is still far from perfect.

This Jensen unit works fairly well but as it is analog it is suspect to the limitations of analog technology, ie. You will hear static moving around the house and yard.

If they had made this digital it would be near perfect.One of my goals was to provide a wireless link for three persons to listen simultaneously up to a distance of about 100-150feet and this did work quite well. Having people be able to use their own headphones was big plus and actually a requirement.It did take me quite a few days to find this baby so I would not flame the original poster too much. I just wish that people would just use usenet for things it is best suited for and bother slashdot with something more geeky.(ie. Digital spread spectrum version of this would be geeky enough.). Building a radio emitter is not very difficult (I remember having an electronic kit when I was young with 60+ different circuits you could build, and one of them was a radio emitter).

Ideally you'd choose it not to interfere with your local channels, or some neighbours could become upset if your power is too high.Then, on the receiving end, a small walkman is all you need. Plug your headphones or earphones, and there you go!Of course, the quality of the transmission will vary depending on the quality of the hardware and which frequency you choose (near or far from some other channel). Firstly, you should be able to buy a pair of cheap RF headphones and rewire them yourself. You can even keep the original RF headphones about your neck, with a jack installed to plug your preferred headphones into.

Yes, it will look a bit weird.Alternatively, there are all kinds of devices for remote audio that are meant to be hooked to a stereo. Is it really such a big deal to get an RCA to 1/8' phono plug adapter for these and replace the AC adapter with a battery pack?Admittedly, either is a little bulky, but certainly not too much to bring about with you in your home or workspace. An FM tranmission is at an effective quality of 22kHzNot necessarily - the FM broadcast band layout gives each channel 200kHz of bandwidth (which is why all FM broadcast stations have center frequencies ending in an odd digit). Nyquist's theorem says you only need 2x bandwidth to represent a given frequency.If you're operating under Part 15, then how much AF spectrum you represent with this is up to you. The more you use, the better the signal/noise ratio you need (Shannon's law), however representing 1kHz of AF with 4.5kHz of RF is already overkill. You are comparing analog to digital bandwidth. Two different things.

As per Nyquist's theorem 44ksamples/sec digital can acurately reproduce a 22kHz analog signal and no more. So in theory a 44kHz mp3 is about equivalent to a 22kHz analog signal. In reality you can't get quite that good, but it dosen't matter as few can hear much past 18kHz anyway.As discussed elsewhere an FM transmission has an audio bandwidth of about 17-18kHz, so yes in theory a 44kHz mp3 will be better. Although mp3's sound crappy so you probably won't notice. Nor can most cheap headphones acurately reproduce higher frequencies. So really you have bigger things to worry about then the few kHz of bandwidth you might lose by broadcasting on FM. Things such as the weak transmit power.

I have four wireless headphones that I use for movie parties in lu of an expensive stereo system. A few things to consider: unless it's in the 900mhz or 2.4ghz range, the static interference will be so annoying that it will defeat the purpose.

So, making your own is pretty much out of the question.I am not aware of a versitile stereo relay device that is capable of doing what you ask.I HIGHLY recommend the Sennheiser products. Don't get the RS-65 though, get the RS-85 from online dealers such as etronics.com.

The units is so damn awesome. The electronics filter out static interference and unlike most wireless headphones, Sennheiser's are capable or reproducing the full 20hz to 22khz spectrum. You won't find that in a Sony product.They have velvet ear cushions, lithum ion batteries, strong bass synthesis, excellent range, and you can buy additional receiver units so you and your friends can all watch a movie at your own personal viewing volume. It's amazing the things you never hear in a movie with traditional stereo systems. At $185, they are a bit pricey but I think it's one of the best entertainment investments I've made. Well, ignoring cost, maybe you should look at pro audio in-ear wireless monitor systems.

They typically operate over VHF or even UHF frequencies, are channel selectable, and the receiver consists of a walkman-sized beltpack. Too bad they run $400-$1000 new from nadywireless.com, samsontech.com or shure.com but who knows what you can drum up on Ebay! Yes, this is professional audio gear, and it LOOKS expensive. As long as you take care of it, it should last you the rest of your life, or 2 road tours, whichever comes first.

I went through a bunch of 'propriatary' headphones for watching tv. After problems with batteries, interference and the expense (if you step on the headphone, you need to buy a new transmitter).

I decided to go with a real FM Broadcast band transmitter. I got me a Ramsey ramseyelectronics.comFM 25 kit (it has to be a kit, FCC rules)and have been loving life since. Some of the bennifits include:. You can use any headphones that receive FM. I can use a little pocket radio around the yard playing CNN. Much more development effort and cost reduction goes into a mass market item than the big clunky 'wireless' headphones. It's 'open source' (grin)It took about 4 hours to build the kit and was not difficult (all components are through hole).At $130, it's not cheap initally, but you will wind up saving money in the long run.

This is definately the way to go. Alternatively, you might get away with some low power VHF ham gear if there's nobody in the area to hunt you down and yell at you - but at 30mW, your broadcast range won't be very high either. The kit is going to be much cheaper than that anyhow, unless you have the gear already. You WILL lose some fidelity over the wired headphones though, don't kid yourself.

Most people will never notice the difference.Mildly off topic, don't ever read anything on how to detect errors in compression. I used to work with MPEG codecs and I can't watch most of the movies on the net. I can imagine what learning to detect mp3 artifacts does:).The only thing that would be better is if you designed or bought a small digital transmitter and decoder with a 16bit x 44.1kHz bandwidth. These units might exist out there if you look, but every single one of the stand-alone FM units (aside from quality kit like the Ramsey unit) blow chunks because of frequency drift or intermittant static. The other problem is batteries go dead, I listen to music all day when I'm at work.FWIW my solution at work is to stream to my notebook and then listen off it. It's something like $80 at Best Buy.

It can use standard earphones, but comes with it's own. Works fairly well, but the incoming signal strength needs to be set right so it doesn't clip the audio. It's not particularly strong - it won't penetrate the steel subflooring where I work so I have to turn it off when I change floors and I sometimes have to 'reorient the antenna' when there is a lot of metal between me and the transmitter.:( It uses rechargable batteries (included) and has a built in recharger. Charges usually last 10-12 hours. In Wired parlance, it delivers economy level performance, but I've yet to find a product one functional tier higher. Perhaps one of the other responses might enlighten. Actually, I've also been thinking of doing something similar.

The trick is, I want to make a baby transmitter on a belt clip that can plug into a Discman/Walkman/Mp3 player/radio. This would transmit to earbuds powered by a watch battery with only a tiny antennae sticking out. This is the beauty: no wires, and completely concealable (think toque).Does anyone think this is possible? Have any advice? So far the only thing keeping me from building it is the smallness required to effectively work inside an earbud. Ok I've seen way to many of these posts dogging anything less that 900MHz or 2.4GHz.

Jvc 900mhz Wireless Stereo Headphones

First to clarify why we like higher frequencies better. High Q circuits or the relationship between the cuttoff and ideal resonance gives us less interference with larger bandwidths at higher frequencies with less power lost. This is great for the ever shrinking world of electronics were we want less power loss cause we like batteries to last longer, smaller wavelengths shorter antennas/permeates through more structures easier.

This however does not mean that circuits with a lower Q value like those you would find with the same bandwidth at a lower frequency lack any ability to reproduce the audible spectrum. Granted it does require more electronics to filter out things like harmonics and possible outside interference but that doesn't mean it will sound any worse that a 2.4GHz products. It is simply cheaper to make consumer goods like this and assume it is of a quality that is acceptable enough to be sold at a particular price point.What I would recommend is you find a product that you can test out before purchasing or has a liberal enough return policy that you could use the product and decide if it works for you because a poorly designed 2.4GH product could sound far worse that a well designed 87-108MH product.To examine what I'm talking about here further just search for resonant circuits on google.