OT: Wireless rear speaker adapters for 5.1 systems

Not Bluetooth, its latency is a disaster. My Jelly Comb headphones are good and seem to use the 2.4 GHz band (unregulated I guess, used for WiFi) so something that works in a similar way.

Does the latency matter that much for rear speakers? You most notice latency when watching someone speaking (lip sync) and on a surround system speech should be coming from the front direction. The back speakers are more for atmosphere audio.

Most AV amps allow you you to adjust the delays to each channel to help tune out variations in room size and seating position. So they can also help compensate for other delays.

(not that I would use BT either for that application - I put my rear speaker cables under the floor)

Putting cables under the floor isn't an option for this room, and I wouldn't be allowed to run trunking.

Another difficulty is finding a sensible place to put the front speakers with the new room layout (TV in the corner, next to a big fireplace) so I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be better to replace the AV amp and front speakers with a soundbar that has built-in wireless links for the rear speakers. Do soundbars do clever things with phase to widen the audio "image"?

I suppose it depends on what the sound is, bit disconcerting if somebody drops something behind you and the thump is heard a while after it is dropped!

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 16:52:49 on Sun, 1 Dec

Does it have carpet, in which case flat cables are available.

If you get a sound effect like that it's off camera. You don't see something dropped behind you.

A few years ago the BBC got something very wrong on one of their live outside broadcasts, they swapped front L and R with back L and R

It doesn't really work like that, you're immersed in the centre of a sound stage and aware of what is happening all round.

It has a large Persian(?) carpet, but the floor is rather elegant 30s "parquetry" so I'm going to restore it to its former glory and replace the carpet with something much smaller.

If there is a skirting board you could rout a channel in the wood and embed the cables in that.

John

We've just finished decorating so I don't think that would go down too well ;-) - and there's a doorway en-route.

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 20:38:03 on Sun, 1 Dec

Another option is to run the flat cable along the wall above the skirting board, and then re-paint or re-wallpaper.

There are devices for transmission, but when you look at the associated wires and junk with the schemes, it's hardly a visual win. It still looks silly, like you're running an RF lab in your living room.

The manufacturers seem to like Bluetooth with AptX. The problem with that, is Qualcomm bought AptX, then proceeded to ruin it. And I couldn't begin to guess what coding spurs would be present in the audio on the receive side.

It is also difficult to determine how many units you would need to buy, to solve your particular problem. Four transceivers, one pair for L speaker, one pair for R speaker, so no messy analog cable has to run across the room ?

The devices use 5V and have a microUSB cable for the power connection. This means your remote speaker needs a power source, your "receiver" needs its +5V source, and it's still wires wires wires behind the speaker.

To have a lot of Bluetooth in the room, there is a limit to how many "piconets" you can have, and the spread spectrum channel-hopping scheme, when several piconets are hopping and colliding with one another, eventually it's too much for the scheme to withstand. And this might include incidental Bluetooth transmission from a neighbour (another piconet).

A piconet for example, might mean I could have three Bluetooth computers in the room (talking to one another, counts as one piconet), and do Windows networking over them... at 75KB per second. Windows could not do that at one time, but a test several months ago, I got that working. It's more of a bar bet thing, than practical. Bluetooth in general, isn't practical. For example, I can't make it work between the computer room and the kitchen, it only goes to the end of the hall and that's it. Bluetooth has three power levels, but not all device types are available in all power levels.

Bluetooth 5 supports Internet Of Things applications (which is not how windows would run one), but in IOT mode, the datarate drops. So any range improvement, is at the expense of datarate.

There were simpler devices in the "Radio Shack era", but those are long gone now. For we need the whizzy crap with the processors in everything, to do a simple job.

Paul

I managed to run some cables around the ege of my floor and through the walls a bit.

It is work, but you can hide cables. Is there any skirting you can remove, back groove and replace? For doors remove the framing and do similar

Or go up the walls and run above ceiling?

Or spend 50 quid..

We've just finished decorating the room - SWMBA would not be impressed with holes in the wall.

Yes, there are several similar systems (that one is for active speakers) and I was hoping for some comments from people who'd tried them

True, but I doubt that would look good or that it would stay stuck to the wall. Going round a doorway involves a bend in the "awkward" plane of the cable.

BTDTGTTS

Fresh decorating is better - you still have the matching paint!

Amazon is reliable, If it does not work send it back

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 12:56:08 on Mon, 2 Dec

The flat cables are extremely flat, just a thin laminate.

It has no awkwardness like that, imagine yourself folding some masking tape through a right angle.

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 12:48:59 on Mon, 2 Dec

Sounds like a situation where a little "thinking ahead" would have avoided the conundrum you are in.