Wireless Surround Speakers?

My brother recently emailed me this question, and I thought I’d share my answer:

Are there any wireless surround speakers that don’t completely suck? I don’t need something great, but just want to avoid triumphant crapitude.

Unless something has changed dramatically in the last couple years:

(a) There aren’t really “wireless” speakers in the first place, and
(b) They all still mostly suck, in principle, unless you’re willing to blow serious coin, and even then they aren’t going to be as good as decent wired speakers.

It turns out this is a more complicated thing to accomplish than you might think. Remember, to drive a speaker, you need two things:

1. Analog audio signal
2. Amplification for said signal

Getting an analog signal to a speaker not using a wire means you have to either use some kind of analog broadcast like RF, which will be crappy from a noise perspective, or something digital—newer systems use Bluetooth, I believe. While this will preserve the signal, this has two implications: [1] Your receiver either needs to send a digital signal to the speaker, which your current receiver doesn’t do (though some new ones designed specifically to work with wireless speakers will), or you hook your receiver up to a transmitter which has an analog-to-digital chip (ADC) inside, and probably not a good one unless the system is very expensive. [2] Something in the speaker has to covert back to analog. This means each speaker needs its own digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) circuitry, which again will either be expensive or suck (choose only one option).

Then, once you have an analog signal, you need to amplify it before running it through the actual drivers. This means each “speaker” also has to contain an amp, which requires power, meaning… wires. You’ll need to run a power cord to each speaker. Also, there is no such thing as a good power supply that is also small, meaning the amp part, to be any good, can’t be little. The upshot of this is that you’ll need somewhat big surrounds which require plugs. (The actual amp inside the speaker can be reasonably small if it’s a digital amp, but I bet whatever $200 option Sony has instead uses the worst analog amp in the known universe, but at least it’s a small one.)

So, every wireless speaker will need: signal receiver, DAC, amp (requiring power), and then drivers, and the thing that takes what would normally be your speaker out needs an ADC and a transmitter. That’s a lot of components, and doing all of these pieces reasonably well can’t be especially cheap. Or rather, if it is cheap, that means that there is a lot of opportunity for really crappy components, which doesn’t bode well for sound quality.

The other problem here is that all of these steps take a little bit of time, meaning you’re probably going to have phase lag. That is, the sound coming out of your surrounds won’t be in phase with the sound coming out of your wired fronts, center, and sub. You might be able to mitigate this a little by setting appropriate channel delays all around, but that’s a tricky calibration problem. Newer and more expensive receivers will do this for you (they come with microphones that you move around and the system sends test signals to ensure good calibration), but I suspect you don’t have one that does.

Thus, a lot of reputable speaker companies won’t even bother trying to do this; your entry-level audiophile companies like Paradigm, B&W, Mirage, etc. don’t. Of course, I’m sure all the mass-market companies (e.g., Sony, Panasonic) have such things, but I’d be stunned if they don’t all produce triumphant crapitude, as you so colorfully put it (great turn of phrase, by the way).

It’s probably easier to just hide the wires.

New Toy: Nanovision Mimo

So, I just picked up a USB-driven mini-monitor, which can be had direct from Mimo Monitors or from The Gadgeteers. It’s a little 7“ monitor which does 800 x 480, and the cool thing about it is that you don’t need a video card to drive it—it gets both power and video direct over USB, using DisplayLink technology. And, of course, it’s small enough to be portable, so it can be thrown in a suitcase easily and then hooked up to a laptop with no trouble, which is the main thing I bought it for. I really like having a lot of display space and working on a laptop always feels like looking through a keyhole; this should help with that.

So far, it’s very cool. The monitor can be used in either portrait or landscape, and it’s a great compact size for little windows that you need, but don’t really need, and that you don’t want to have covering or underneath a bunch of other things. Chat client windows, browser download windows, tool palettes, etc. The Mac driver installed without a hitch and everything just worked. Even the USB cable is cool; it’s a pass-through cable which will take another USB device so it effectively doesn’t take up a port when plugged in.

So far the only drawback is that 800×480 on a 7” screen means really high pixel density, which means tiny, tiny text. But since I don’t really intend to do any serious reading on it, I’m not too worried.

Not super-cheap, no—the entry-level UM-710 is $130—and of course for that kind of money you can buy a 19“ real monitor. But I can’t put that in my suitcase, and when I’m at home I’d need an additional video card to run it with my already two-monitor desktop (which doesn’t have space for another 22” monitor anyway). So now I’m running three monitors at home, and I’ll be able to run two when I’m on the road.

Definitely a cool new toy.

Super Bowl Pick

In case anyone out there has been living under a rock lately, the NFL is about to finish the season (sniff) and play that Super Bowl thing that they do. The end of the season—nooooooooo!!! Man, the prospect of seven months with no football is always daunting.

For the teams, there’s a lot on the line. The Cards can end their 61-year drought. The Steelers can become the only franchise to win 6 Super Bowls. But what’s on the line for me and Al? Well, not a lot.

Now, I was a little under .500 for the season before the last round of bowls and the playoffs. But I went 9-3 in the last round of bowl games and so far I’m 8-2 in the playoffs—that’s a serious roll for me. Al went 7-5 in the last round of bowls and is 5-5 in the playoffs. Now, if we drop both of our best and worst week of the NFL regular season, I am now a combined 138-125-7 and Al is 126-136-7. If we include all picks, I’m 153-139-7, or +14 for the season and Al is 136-142-7, or -8 for the season. So, no matter how you slice it, the Super Bowl won’t be the deciding factor, I’ve got the season locked up.

Nonetheless, we should still pick the big game.

Arizona Cardinals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers(-6.5)
Obviously, the big story is the Cardinals’ big-play offense vs. the Steelers’ top-ranked defense. Frankly, my take on this is that those two factors will mostly cancel each other out; I don’t think the Steelers will stop ‘em, but nor will the Cards roll it up big, I see the Cardinals scoring a pretty normal total, somewhere in the high teens to low 20s. So, how much will the Steelers score? Well, frankly, I’m not that impressed with the Cardinals defense. It’s certainly not better than the Ravens’ defense or the Chargers’ defense, and the Steelers did OK against both of them. Yes, they got a special teams TD against the Bolts and an interception return against Baltimore, but overall I just like the Steelers’ offense better than the Cards’ defense.

Plus, there’s the Willie Parker rule. I mean, really, why stop now?