A cool Kickstarter I found - JACK The WiFi Guitar Cable - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: vargoal
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 06:16:49 am
content: Found this cool kick starter project which enables users to connect two audio jacks without wires. They claim it's studio quality audio. Just wanted EEVBlog feedback.https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/432967670/jack-the-wifi-guitar-cable/description

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 10:53:38 am
content: quote from their kickstarter page....Quotewhat they mean by re-engineering of WiFithat sounds like bullshit to me... either it's WiFi or it's not WiFi anymore because it was re-engineered...

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 03:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 09, 2015, 09:37:08 amHit the nail on the head there Mojo.The latency is the crux IMHO, only takes a few milliseconds to make the thing a nightmare/impossible to use.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 06:16:10 pm
content: wonder how it performs when your at a gig with 20 interefering wifi networks nearby.......

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 09:41:11 pm
content: Yep, there's a reason (or two) WiFi is the wrong medium for live audio performing. Latency, propagation, interference, power requirements to name a few.There are plenty of other existing solutions for this, and I can't see how this would be as good as what's already in use.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 09:47:47 pm
content: You'd be insane to use it on stage - too much risk of interference.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2015, 11:53:48 pm
content: I think this is for people who dont understand how much a good wireless unit costs! hehIf it costs less then an iphone it probablly sucks...

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 05:56:06 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 09, 2015, 09:47:47 pmEspecially since there areproper solutionsavailable in the same price range already.I used a 100 EUR device for many years on stage. I don't even know why he bothers comparing it to bluetooth latency >.<Also: "No amp, no PC - just plug in your head phones" yeah or just buy a pocket POD already and save yourself the trouble with all this VST plugin nonsense. Great idea but wrong approach.

author: matseng
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 08:46:52 am
content: Quote from: Yago on January 09, 2015, 03:27:04 pmI don't play so I really don't know. But if what you're saying is true then it's impossible to play a guitar if the speakers are like three meters (I.E 10 milliseconds) away?

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 11:02:03 am
content: Quote from: matseng on January 10, 2015, 08:46:52 amWhich is why on medium/large stages there are monitor speakers placed on the stage, right in front of the musicians. On small stages that is usually not the case, since the main speakers are close enough.Greetings,Chris

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 11:41:35 am
content: Have you ever tried talking to someone on the phone and you could hear yourself as an echo? It's impossible to talk. 40 ms is enough to drive me nuts.It's the same with instruments, if you have to sync play with others and your sound comes say 20-50ms later than your strum, it affects your play.Sound technicians can probably tell you a little more about the need for a delay on bigger stages with speakers far apart.The 10 ms you refer to are probably hard to detect for most people but for reference, a metal shred with 1/16th strum at 200bpm are 75 ms apart.

author: tekthead
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 11:50:21 am
content: SMSC, now a part of Microchip provides one wireless solution, Kleernet, which exists within the 2.4GHz range. Models of modules such as the DWPCle83 would satisfy the low latency, high QOS requirements of this type of application but having attempted this type of solution in my first year of uni, the solutions are non-trivial and co-existence is a BIG issue. If you are really unlucky a system like this will bunny hop across sub-bands when two such systems are placed together and the effective bandwidth is reduced massively to the point where ugly digital audio glitching occurs.I am not quite sure they have provided enough detail about pairing and provisioning. Audio is probably carried as UDP packets. Both TCP and UDP still need a port and IP settings in place to communicate. Currently this appears to happen "magically".

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 02:46:24 pm
content: Quote from: matseng on January 10, 2015, 08:46:52 amYes, you can "feel" it when trying to keep tempo.At lower you can compensate, as it increases you start to feel as though time is sliding away from you.Gets worse when you combine instruments with different latency, IE high latency guitar playing to a zero latency backing track, and loose bass player = screwed.I found 6mS about my comfy limit when recording.

author: Christe4nM
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 05:35:02 pm
content: There is another design flaw that has nothing to do with the electronics: the size and weight (how little it may be) will wear out your guitar's jack really fast. Even a large (Neutrik) jack plug on your guitar cable can do that. If you're just playing at home that might not happen, but go on stage every so often and your gear must be able to handle a beating even when playing the slowest smoothest jazz. So any weight that is mechanically only supported by the jack output of the guitar (of effects pedal) is a big NO.And indeed: there is a reason why not many guitarist use a wireless setup, or if they do it is a very expensive one...

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 07:54:13 pm
content: I wonder if the market for this is the "bedroom producer"?Would make sense that home studios might want to avoid the high price of pro gear.They are also more likely to think new is better of recording technology.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 08:32:34 am
content: Quote from: Yago on January 10, 2015, 07:54:13 pmI dont know anyone who records guitars wirelessly.....a 20$ 20ft cable does the job just fine.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 09:10:18 am
content: But, does it go to 11?

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 05:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: iampoor on January 12, 2015, 08:32:34 amYep, but some of these bedroom producers are crackers (profools?).

author: MFX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2015, 10:46:11 pm
content: One wrong move and that jack's going to snap clean off.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2015, 03:03:44 am
content: Quote from: Yago on January 12, 2015, 05:41:25 pmYes.....oh yes....I can see it now, someone using an xlr to ts converter cable with one of these to "wirelessly" record vocals.

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 11:37:34 am
content: Quote from: iampoor on January 13, 2015, 03:03:44 amTo be fair, these days they are more likely to be recording it with their iPhone.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2015, 10:05:47 pm
content: Quote from: kizzap on January 16, 2015, 11:37:34 amOr a 50-100$ recording interface? Ive never met a musician...even hobbyist doing iphone recordings...interfaces and PC software is so cheap now!

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 11:50:34 am
content: Quote from: iampoor on January 16, 2015, 10:05:47 pmYou should perhaps think about your sample size. "I've never met..."If we forget about that wifi thing for a moment, the AD converters in those iRig HD things are no worse than those in other equipment. All you gain is more features and channels.And don't forget that Apple is really strong when it comes to recording music so I don't think you should throw a generalised "not doing iphone recordings" out there unless you make clear that you are still talking about that kickstarter wifi thing that tries to be everything and the kitchen sink.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 11:56:45 am
content: Quote from: Neganur on January 17, 2015, 11:50:34 amThat's right, audio creatives are considered right at the OS with Apple stuff, unlike on a PC and Android where you're dependent on bolt ons from third parties.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 09:30:46 pm
content: Not sure about the IPhone recording posts.Trust me an IPhone or even a good PC soundcard doesn't come close to the quality of a decent interface.Even the some of the apple compatible "Pro"kit is not so good, IE Mbox.Apple got the lead with ProTools package, but this was a hardware based processing system, the work was not native, the computer handled the UI and files.It is a dinosaur that died years ago, pro tools light being inferior when new.Even freeware PC packages like Reaper run protools into the ground these days(actually for some years).The "bolt ons" are actually a standard that exist in all recording environments, and are often where the cutting edge is, such a melodyne DNA was the latest thing when I last hit the button. At that time the only thing the Apple system had was the stability of the OS (as always!).

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2015, 10:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: Yago on January 17, 2015, 09:30:46 pmOh don't misunderstand me, it's not the actual phone or PC that does the encoding, they are just the "storage" part of the recording.A typical scenario would be a MacBook Air with some external 2-ch audio interface from MOTU or M-Audio etc., it's pretty common among musicians. No need for "cutting edge" equipment (suppose you mean several k's of multi-channel equipment). The iPhone thing is something you would use to record while at a friend's place or similar when you prefer mobility.I don't know the ProTools or melodyne you're talking about (rings a bell but drawing a blank at the moment), but software like Sibelius or Cubase is pretty common on apple computers.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 01:22:21 am
content: So the Iphone is only a storage device and has no part in the analogue chain, if so then it will have zero effect on sound, agreed.Had a quick look at the history of Cubase, I remember it starting on the Atari ST, but I thought it went to PC then, but it was Apple after ST, then PC too.Didn't know that!Motu makes some great interfaces, Maudio ... I steered clear, well clear!Last interface was EchoAudio.The PT HD systems was the ones with rack of hardware required.PT lite was native, but didn't even compensate processor cycles for effect plug-ins, so it introduced massive phase distortion and you had to manually adjust to correct phase!Again, I have no idea what they have now!On apple now I think pro tools and logic audio are the weapons of choice.Sibelious was more a notation bridge I thought, and I also think it has died.Melodyne is a software plug-in, an audio effect, one of millions out there now, but they do tend be tools that can define a sound, like different synthesisers (which also come in a plug in).If cubase doesn't have the reverb, guitar amp modelled sound, Hammond organ sound, just use a software "plug-in".I mentioned that particularly(Melodyne DNA) as everyone was raving about the technology when it was being released (I stopped doing music around this time).IMVHO it is a bloody awful thing that has been unleashed upon the world, it is the same as autotune, but it can "look" at a polyphonic sound (eg a guitar chord), separate a single element and allow editing of that note alone.So, you can change a minor chord to a major after it has been recorded. That is an audio stream, not midi data!Helps the talentless hide their lack of ability, and also allows record companies to keep pumping out the same shit with another pretty face, year in year out.We might be meandering off topic here a little

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 01:48:27 am
content: Although for "work" I use Windows almost exclusively, except when I'm testing cross platform compatibility, I do arrange music as a hobby for making backing tracks and sheet music for my sax and keyboard playing. I battled for a long time with Windows and various packages, but as soon as I tried OSX I could tell right away the OS had sound integrated into it from the start. Add to that packages like Logic Pro being a reasonable cost for such a fully featured system, and you can see why musos go for their stuff.Regarding Apple mobile devices, they've had USB audio host support in iOS for as long as I can remember, certainly back to iOS 3, whereas Android has only just started thinking about it. That's why there are tons of audio interfaces for Apple based mobile devices and almost nothing for Android.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 02:06:14 am
content: If there isn't already a competing commercial unit there will probably be one shortly.I just gook delivery of a couple of Audio Technica System 10 wireless mics which use WiFi. They seem to work quite well in a very WiFi intensive office setting. THey even have a guitar version.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 02:28:43 am
content: Ah bloody hell Richard, I forgot about you being an audio buff!So it could be a flyer then?

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:57:23 am
content: Quote from: Yago on January 18, 2015, 02:28:43 amI've been doing audio for 50 years. And video for 30 years.QuoteOh, I think it is legitimate. It is just a "re-mix" of now-viable mass market technology (inexpensive WiFi chipsets, etc.)It may be ill timed. Audio Technica is only the first of mainstream audio companies to produce a range of WiFi wireless audio products.I expect other manufacturers to follow suit this year.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 06:36:57 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 09, 2015, 09:47:47 pmAnd one great Pete Townshend windmill move and your "Jack" device snaps off and goes flying.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 06:39:20 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on January 09, 2015, 10:53:38 amMaybe they're just using it as a term for novices to understand. Maybe they mean "we've come up with our own radio technology that operates on the ISM band"

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 12:08:16 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 18, 2015, 05:57:23 amYes, followed your posts on GS and think we talked a couple of times.I meant would have been easier if I sent PM and asked you to take a look, instead of my meanderings.So conclusion is, its possible to use wifi for this application, but AT doing it is one thing and these guys another.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 12:38:43 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 18, 2015, 05:57:23 amIf AT are doing this for wireless mics, I assume they have some trick to deal with the latency, but I can't imagine what they could do which wouldn't break the normal behaviour of 802.11. Wi-FI has significant latency when you are the only user. When you are sharing the channel, which is unavoidable for most people these days, the latency bounces all over the place. There's no really effective QoS scheme. 802.11 gives very quirky results with VoIP.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 01:36:12 pm
content: Of course AT is not publishing their proprietary scheme, and I doubt they are using the complete data-packet 802.x communication scheme. But of course they have a scheme that is compatible and inter-operable with existing 802.x services so they don't step on each other.I have not done a specific video test yet, but informal tests show that the latency is imperceptible. I would not have believed that possible using the traditional packet-data schemes of 802.x Certainly wireless mic products using the standard Bluetooth protocols exhibit quite obvious latency.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 02:30:03 pm
content: I wonder how they deal with packet loss below the link layer? Typical 802.11 maintains connection at the link layer even if it's UDP traffic on top to make things more resilient, but that's going to introduce latency.My point is that if it really is WiFi, how does it avoid being interfered with without retires, and therefore delay?I would agree with you though that it probably wouldn't touch the IP stack.Edit: just had a look at the manual, does not seem to be WiFi at all, have I got the right product?http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/resource_library/literature/49804680d3ddaae2/p52402_03_system10_om.pdf

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:38:35 pm
content: Yes, that is the gadget. They claim to use "triple redundancy". They send each packet twice ("time diversity"), on two different channels ("frequency diversity") and using two different antennas ("space diversity"). Both the transmitter and receiver have two different antennas. And it scans all the WiFi frequencies and selects primary and secondary channels automatically and tells the transmitter which channels to use. It also hops channels automatically if there is any packet loss.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 05:55:00 pm
content: That makes sense. It's not really WiFi at all, other than that it's aware of other stuff in band that it avoids primarily by sniffing band utilisation. I would imagine it's smart enough to be dynamic too.I am sure that, being from AT, they'll have spent a lot of effort perfecting it. Dare I ask the pricing?

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2015, 06:09:09 pm
content: Because the technology (WiFi chipsets, etc.) are so ubiquitous and inexpensive these days, the price of these things is significantly LOWER than the previous contender for "Lowest Cost Decent Wireless Kit" which was the Sennheiser G3 series (the one that Dave did a "teardown" video in EEV # 571The units that I got (the camera-mount receiver with body pack/lav mic transmitter) was US$450 each. While an equivalent Sennheiser G3 system is almost US$200 more. I Think AT has a killer product there and others (Sennheiser, et.al.) will follow suit if they want to continue to compete.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2015, 11:45:07 pm
content: And, as if right on cue, Rode (famous Australian microphone brand) has come out with a 2.4GHz wireless mic product nearly identical to the Audio-Technica System-10.http://www.rodemic.com/wireless/filmmakerI published a 22-point feature comparison here:http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?332924-RODE-Announces-New-Wireless-Sytem-and-Two-New-Shotgun-Mics&p=1986513146#post1986513146

author: sunnyhighway
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 05:50:05 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 21, 2015, 11:45:07 pmI hate to say it, but the dominant words in this comparison are:presumably,likelyandunknown.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:24:25 am
content: Quote from: sunnyhighway on January 22, 2015, 05:50:05 amWell, all we have to go on are the advertising blurbs from Rode.OTOH, I actually have two of the AT systems in my hands.The Rode may actually be a better deal than the AT. We will see.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2015, 06:30:31 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 21, 2015, 11:45:07 pmUsing 44.1k samples/second is a bit old school. I haven't seen anything new that doesn't use 48k (or some wacky multiple of that) for quite a while.

author: ehughes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2015, 04:33:08 pm
content: For an electric guitar, 44.1KHz is overkill.1.) Once the wavelength of of the vibration is on the order of the pickup aperture (1/2 inch to 1.5") the frequency response starts to really roll off. The pickup is essentially a spatial integrator at that point.2.) The response of the coil after self resonance drop off (@3-4Khz)3.) Most guitars play through amps which have ton controls that really knock everything above 2khz way down.4.) A typical guitar speaker system simply has no useful properties above 3-4Khz.5.) The "meat" of the tone is in the 100-300 Range (Hz). None one plays with control above 1-2 Khz as it is way to bright up there to be useful for electric guitar. The inter-modulation products at these frequencies are horrific when do any kind of overdrive.The electric guitar is a very low frequency instrument. A 24KHz Fs would be plenty.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 10, 2015, 05:24:35 pm
content: Just because the main part of the "meat" is in the lower frequency range, doesn't mean that it doesn't have overtones.I think it's OK to say 6 KHz for overtones and wanted harmonic distortion, then perhaps up to 10 kHz for some special things like sounds that strings can make.There are a variety of "electric" guitars (semi-acoustic, piezo pickups etc) it's not just all plain old metal music in the 2kHz band.24 KHz might be plenty as you say (and I'd agree) but I guess 44.1kHz is just more practical simply because it is available and a well known standard used in CD.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2015, 08:11:59 pm
content: But they are NOT using the WiFi 802.x protocols. They are only using the (free) 2.4 GHz ISM band.WiFi does NOT "own" the 2.4 GHz band, (or the 5.75 GHz ISM band either)However AT, Rode, et.al. are not stupid. They know that their gadgets will be competing for bandwidth with existing band users (WiFi, BlueTooth, and even microwave ovens!)So the automatically scan the band before selecting the best channel to use (just like WiFi does).Furthermore, since sending a single monaural audio stream doesn't take near as much bandwidth as WiFi, they apparently only use a single (or two) WLAN channel,vs. standard WiFi which sprawls across five adjacent channels for each connection. So, the wireless audio gadgets are more nimble to find their way through the WiFi jungle.