[cjpearson]

I have always been skeptical of buying anything that transfers audio via a wireless signal, and have always thought good cables make or break a good audio system. According to a gentleman at the local Hifi store, the latest and greatest craze sweeping the world is a wireless audio system.  Though I don't really understand the concept, as I was a little put off by his aggressive sales technique, I don't see myself ever investing in such a system. What are your thoughts?
 
-Cam

 

[kingtz]

My understanding is that any signal that relies on RF is prone to interference, delay, and quality degradation. I, too, prefer good quality cables (and by "good", I am not referring to the $100/foot-unicorn horn-faerie dust-cables). Also, I don't care how great a product is, if the sales person is annoying me, I'll not buy. If he's too pushy, I just thank him for his time and then look for someone else.

 

[cjpearson]

Exactly he seemed really into the whole concept which made me wary about everything...even him. I mean he was really creaming (for lack of a better word) over this and I told him five times all I wanted was a DACMagic. So I ended up walking out and ordering one online, 70 dollars cheaper anyway. What about anyone else? Ideas on a wireless system? Preferences?

 

[HammerSandwich]

The Sonos system flat out works.  It establishes its own wireless mesh & can link into your existing wired LAN.  Sonos' UI & convenience are top notch.  OTOH, you can buy better sound quality for the same money.  All depends what you prefer.

 

[haloxt]

I wonder how good a headphone could sound if it buffered digital into ram and had built-in dac and amp. Would mean quite minimal wiring one possibly good thing, as I am of the opinion that cables are a necessary evil.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I'm skeptical of a wireless system, too. If anything, it introduces you to even more points of failure. If a transmitter dies a few years on, you'll probably have to buy a new system. Those of us with our "hairshirt" cabled systems will not have the same expense.

Part of this is that audio has few innovations and is mostly moribund. Any new thing a salesman can push - especially that which isn't available used - means a hard sell.

 

[dura]

I wonder how good a headphone could sound if it buffered digital into ram and had built-in dac and amp. Would mean quite minimal wiring one possibly good thing, as I am of the opinion that cables are a necessary evil.

I might be wrong but I seem to remember that Sennheiser once did exactly that, say some 15 years ago?

I'm not opposed to wireless per se, as long as the transmitted signal ia digital there are good ways to fully recover it on the receiving site.

 

[Landis]

Quote:

I'm skeptical of a wireless system, too. If anything, it introduces you to even more points of failure. If a transmitter dies a few years on, you'll probably have to buy a new system. Those of us with our "hairshirt" cabled systems will not have the same expense.

Part of this is that audio has few innovations and is mostly moribund. Any new thing a salesman can push - especially that which isn't available used - means a hard sell.

To be honest, some of the technology and products are actually rather impressive. I haven't had a chance to hear anything that was really Hi-Fi, but even some of the basic stuff didn't sound too bad at all.
 
The transmitters work on little cards that are slid into a corresponding receiver or wireless box and into the speakers as well, at least on the models I had checked out. So if a transmitter short circuits, you buy another one for a moderate price. Definitely there are many things that could go wrong in comparison to straight analog connections and the proven technology, but this is something that I think will, one day, be perfected.

 

[haloxt]

I imagine wireless may have some potential benefits over wired, but it's not like we've tapped the full potential of wired anyway, neither are we likely to fully tap wireless. SPDIF implementation and gadgets can get extremely expensive, and ultimately all it is is a necessary and expensive evil because it is a real time stream prone to jitter or timing issues. Simply buffering into ram in the same box as the dac like in some mp3 players can eliminate interference and real time jitter. I know some gear like squeezebox are good examples of avoiding spdif jitter, but heck, all freaking dac's should implement this kind of ram buffering.

 

[project86]

I have a bit of experience with wireless transmitting. The system built in to my JVC RX-D702 receiver is sort of an afterthought, and sounds very compressed. Best used for background music. My JHC-A2 wireless DAC/amp sounds pretty darn good, although it is subject to interference at times, including the occasional random loud noise for seemingly no reason. But most of the time it sounds quite good.
 
I've been intersted in the Dugood DAC-3, as seen here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dugood-DAC-3W-HIFI-WIRELESS-DAC-DVD-PLAYER-COMPUTER-/400085569445?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
It seems to be a bit more of a high end implementation but of course I don't know how it sounds.
 
Ultimately I think you could reach the same level of quality as a wired system, but the cost to performance ratio is not nearly as good when using wireless. It should only be used when wires are not an option.