professional long range wireless headphones?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

can somebody please recommend me stereo wirelles headphones with range up to
300m?
price is not important

tnx

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Several firms make low-power (< 1W) stereo FM transmitters. (They're primarily
intended for transmitting to radios within your house, or on your own property.)
With the right antenna, you should be able to get 300m (1000'), even if such
distances are illegal.

http://members.tripod.com/~transmitters/links.htm

http://www.hobbytron.com/profmsub.html

http://www.nrgkits.com/NRG-FM-Transmitters.html

http://www.broadcastwarehouse.com/ [...] ransmitter

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Vedran" <bla@bla.ba
> can somebody please recommend me stereo wirelles headphones with range up
> to
> 300m?
> price is not important
>


** Is that 300m through solid rock, a forest full of conifers, from one
submarine to another, from one subway station the next ????

Or it is open range across water or desert ?

Or something in between like a crowded auditorium





............. Phil

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yeah, but the OP asked about 300M broadcasting, so regardless, it's against
the law in America.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:co65tk$hgd$1@panix2.panix.com...
> William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >Several firms make low-power (< 1W) stereo FM transmitters. (They're
primarily
> >intended for transmitting to radios within your house, or on your own
property.)
> >With the right antenna, you should be able to get 300m (1000'), even if
such
> >distances are illegal.
> >
> >http://members.tripod.com/~transmitters/links.htm
> >
> >http://www.hobbytron.com/profmsub.html
> >
> >http://www.nrgkits.com/NRG-FM-Transmitters.html
> >
> >http://www.broadcastwarehouse.com/search?searchtext=all-fm-transmitter
>
> These are all in violation of FCC Part 15 requirements in the US.
> Please, QRM problems are bad enough as it is without adding to them.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Yeah, but the OP asked about 300M broadcasting, so regardless, it's against
> the law in America.
>
The Lectrosonic wireless mics can reach that(1000 feet) line of sight
no license needed
I don't know of a headset that would do that though
G

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Roger W. Norman wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, but the OP asked about 300M broadcasting, so regardless, it's against
>>>the law in America.
>>
>>The Lectrosonic wireless mics can reach that(1000 feet) line of sight
>
>
> If you are under very good conditions and are careful, you can often do
> that. I wouldn't want to count on it on a regular basis, though.
>
>
>>no license needed
>
>
> Yes, a license is needed to operate ANY of the Lectro wireless mikes.
> In the US, anyway. You _must_ fill out the form and send your check in
> to the FCC. Do not operate these things without getting the license.
>
>
I asked Karl Winkler about this at AES he told me No license was needed
and he would promise 600 feet under the worst condition with 1000 feet
being the assumed nominal range
George

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<hLIpd.979356$Gx4.37314@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Roger W. Norman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, but the OP asked about 300M broadcasting, so regardless, it's against
> >>>the law in America.
> >>
> >>The Lectrosonic wireless mics can reach that(1000 feet) line of sight
> >
> >
> > If you are under very good conditions and are careful, you can often do
> > that. I wouldn't want to count on it on a regular basis, though.
> >
> >
> >>no license needed
> >
> >
> > Yes, a license is needed to operate ANY of the Lectro wireless mikes.
> > In the US, anyway. You _must_ fill out the form and send your check in
> > to the FCC. Do not operate these things without getting the license.
> >
> >
> I asked Karl Winkler about this at AES he told me No license was needed
> and he would promise 600 feet under the worst condition with 1000 feet
> being the assumed nominal range
> George

Well, you know how these promises are when you hear them at a trade
show...

Most of our transmitters operate at 100mW (some are at 70 and some are
at 250) and thus have greater range than the more common units
operating at 30mW or under (most of the lower-cost units on the
market) and even a bit more than the units operating at 50mW (high-end
Sennheiser, etc.) 600 ft is usually well within the range of a 100mW
transmitter and well-filtered receiver. 1000 ft. is certainly possible
as well, depending on conditions. We do not "promise" that kind of
performance (nor would any wireless manufacturer), but our systems are
well regarded for good range and resistance to interference.

Here's what I know about the license issue: for VHF devices under 50mW
and UHF devices under 250mW, they are classified by the FCC as
something like "auxilliary TV transmitters". For applications involved
with TV production, they should be licensed. For anything NOT
involving TV production (i.e. stage, touring, etc.) they are ILLEGAL.
Doesn't matter who makes them: Shure, Lectrosonics, Sennheiser, etc.
However, the FCC basically looks the other way because there is NO WAY
they could actually regulate their use. There are millions of systems
out there, and thousands more each day.

So basically, don't worry about it, unless you feel like making a
donation to the FCC.

This is of course not the "officially sanctioned response reviewed by
lawyers" but instead the practical, real world one.

Karl Winkler

Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <coftr7$p6k$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> I'm still trying to get a straight answer on the legality of using the
> low-band VHF wireless systems. I have a license form for one, dated 1976.
> Nobody knows if the itinerant use channels are still legal for wireless
> down there, at least nobody that I talked to.

Well, I guess if you turn on the receiver and don't hear anything,
that's a good sign that the channels are unused. <g>


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> And, all the information I have may be totally wrong, since the FCC is
> currently a disorganized mess and regulations seem to be in constant flux.

Which portion of the public airwaves did you want to privatize and what are you offering? <vbg>