Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

wireless loudspeaker

Status
Not open for further replies.

CHUX

New Member
hello,

can any body help me with the schematics of a wireless speaker.
i am designing an amplifier system for my class. The schematics should comprise both the TX and RX.

The idea :idea: is to put the transmitter(TX) section in the output of the amplifier while the receiver goes to the loudspeaker.

Please guy, I need the schematics urgently to finish-up my design. :?
 
A radio transmitter and radio receiver are complicated, how much of your design have you completed? The receiver will also need an amplifier and power supply for it to drive a speaker.
Just attach empty project boxes to the amplifier and speaker and sneak some wires between them.
 
Why bother to build a receiver? Buy one - an ordinary radio.

Then build a transmitter. Audioguru has put diagrams of these in this forum.
 
thanx for replying. the pre-amps, amp section, the power section are all ready. the amplifier system had been tested already usind wired speakers.

please, want I want now is that wireless speaker section.
can any boby help me out.
 
To audioguru: David said that you have put a related diagram concerning mine in this forum. please where can I find it.
 
Here's my FM transmitter circuit again:
 

Attachments

  • fm_tx_mod4_187.gif
    fm_tx_mod4_187.gif
    46.2 KB · Views: 968
Here's what it looks like:
 

Attachments

  • fm_transmitter_mod4_pic_433.jpg
    fm_transmitter_mod4_pic_433.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 1,021
You have FM radios in Africa? :lol:
Phone an FM radio station and ask the engineer if they broadcast with North America or Europe pre-emphasis.
 
audioguru said:
You have FM radios in Africa? :lol:
Phone an FM radio station and ask the engineer if they broadcast with North America or Europe pre-emphasis.

I would go with Europe, it's only North America who like to be different :lol:
 
I still say that North America invented FM broadcasting. In order to reduce hiss and since sound reproduction equipment in those days didn't have extended treble frequencies, they designed pre-emphasis that is excessive. When the Europeans finally got around to planning their FM broadcasts, microphones, speakers and recording equipment improved enough to show that less pre-emphasis is best.
North America is leaving their over-compressed and ad-laden ordinary FM broadcasting in the past. They use digital-FM and satellite broadcasts now with the old bugs ironed out. Even internet high bit-rate MP3's sound pretty good. :lol:
 
audioguru said:
North America is leaving their over-compressed and ad-laden ordinary FM broadcasting in the past. They use digital-FM and satellite broadcasts now with the old bugs ironed out. Even internet high bit-rate MP3's sound pretty good. :lol:

What's the spec like on your digital radio?, in the UK DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) is of lower quality than FM broadcasts or satellite radio broadcasts (due to the lower bitrate employed). This also assumes you can get it!, coverage is pretty poor - personally I think it's a waste of time!.
 
nigel digital is good quality just digital sound does not always sound as good as analoge
 
monkeytree said:
nigel digital is good quality just digital sound does not always sound as good as analoge

That's rather a consumer comment!.

Digital is good on SOME points, CD is good because it doesnt loose any information - digital TV and radio are not so good, because they compress it so heavily. As well as the amount of compression used, the bitrate is crucial, UK DAB uses such a low bitrate that it's spec is poorer than FM radio.

Digital broadcasting isn't about quality (that's a popular misconception), it's about lower costs for the broadcaster - and not just a few percent, probably something like 80% cheaper!.
 
The signal to noise ratio of digital radio is excellent, like a CD. I don't know which digital compression code they use, sometimes it sounds odd.

I think that CD's are pretty good now. I don't hear any difference with the "enhanced" ones. Even TV audio sounds much better today than not long ago. AM sounds just as bad as always.

Sony had a hard time with their little disc thingy. I heard version 5 of their decoder and it sounded awful. What version are they at now? 25? :lol:
 
Some of the long-distance telcos here use a low bitrate to save bandwidth. I worked with a major bank who switched from poor quality telco conferencing between branches to satellite. An enormous difference in quality and costs.

Am I replying to a post that got deleted?
 
Digital broadcasting was ORIGINALLY about quality, until the accountants realised that the more channels they could cram into the bandwidth, the more money they could make. Then bang went our quality. I really can't understand why consumers are accepting the kind of poor quality transmissions that digital TV is offering at the moment, especially when the government is planning to switch off the superior quality analouge transmissions very soon!
 
Digital Radio sounds ok when you've got a good signal I reckon. I would agree that it's not as good as current FM transmissions mainly because of the amount of channels they're cramming into the bandwidth. If your reception is slightly off I find that the sound quality sounds very odd indeed. It sounds very much as if the bands are playing underwater!

Brian
 
ThermalRunaway said:
Digital broadcasting was ORIGINALLY about quality

NO! - it was never about quality, only about costs, and offering more choice for the same money. As such it's been a success, but ANY compression system (unless it's lossless) will always produce poorer quality than the original non-compressed source.

But if we're talking terrestrial digital?, the ONLY reason for it was so the government could sell some spectrum space to the mobile phone companies, following the 3G selloff the UK goverment thought Christmas had come early!. I suspect they are going to be massively disappointed with the results this time, with only small sections of bandwidth available, and varying wildly geographically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top