Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Why is there no simple, passive, analog wireless audio standard?
Something completely different from me this time!
After struggling repeatedly with the many shortcomings of the digital wireless audio standards that exist today (latency, reliability, complicated setup, audio quality, etc.), I've been wondering:
Why is there no simple, analog short-range audio standard that works the same as FM radio, but with a higher bandwidth and dynamic range?
The advantages would be enormous:
- No latency, apart from the one-way light-speed delay of approx. 0.000006 milliseconds at a distance of 2 meters.
- Much easier and cheaper to implement for manufacturers. A simple low power analog FM transmitter in the device, a simple FM tuner in the receiver. No digital bullshit.
- No radio waves frying your brain, as is the case with digital headphones (all digital protocols are two-way). The FM receiver in the headphones would be completely passive.
- Multiple speakers can be "connected" to the same source, with no additional overhead.
Audio quality could be as high as one could ever wish for by just arbitrarily increasing the bandwidth of the signal. Surely there must be a few channels of unused frequencies in one of the many now-abandoned analog TV / ISM bands?
There could simply be a fixed set of 10 standardized channels (frequencies), one of which is automatically chosen by the sender device (OK, this adds the complication of it requiring an extremely simple receiver as well, which probably costs an additional $0.01). Thus, no manual fussing is required by the user. Everything will "just work" -- even for live music production!
Why is there no such thing?
EDIT: I know that you can buy small FM transmitters that plug into the headphone jack and that there's headphones with FM receivers etc., but they're low-quality, require manual setup, and are not integrated into your very iPhone/iPad!
Comments
it’s probably a conspiracy. Can’t just have people doing whatever they want with the air waves
Because your neighbors could tune in and listen to what porn you are watching. That’s the main reason.
HUMOR INTENDED:
Yes! and can we by-pass the ears and make this a brain implant.
The ears are a flawed design for true hi-fidelity.
HUMOR OFF:
The standards process often produces compromised results like the solutions we have today. Sometimes a great design becomes a defacto standard and just by passes the committee or one "approves" it later. Standards are sometimes driven by the big vendors. Apple does this a lot.
Whatever approach "wireless in ear monitors" use is probably the best approach with specs like this Shure product:
awesome
I would have expected the discussion to be taken slightly more seriously, given the fact that the problem comes up time and time again in every pro-audio related forum and my proposal is technically totally feasible and just plain awesome 😂
It’s a good idea except for governmental restrictions on who can operate a transmitter (except in unregulated countries, where anyone can do what they like apparently). However, if you’re modulating linear audio onto an RF carrier, the RF power amp stage will chew through a lot of battery power compared to digital modes.
Thanks for the first serious reply
Valid points, but I think neither of them is a big problem, given the tiny amount of RF output power required. If you want the same range as current Bluetooth audio (RELIABLY? 5 meters at best!), 100 mW should be plenty!
Those tiny FM transmitters that plug into the headphone jack (for connecting smartphones to car radios) are a good reference, and seem to cause no regulatory trouble.
Oh, and if we want to conserve battery, we could use AM or even SSB, though that'll be a lot noisier of course
Could be that you're asking a fairly technical question on a not specifically technical forum?
https://www.hamradioforum.net/threads/4143-Build-FM-Transmitter-Output-Amplifier
You're right of course. Part of my intention is to lobby for the idea a bit on a forum that has lots of people on it for whom the issue is relevant
(and yeah, I'm actually a radio amateur
)
Cool. Research - > Prototype -> Kickstarter seems like a logical way to go. There’s definitely the need. Bluetooth isn’t cutting it at the mo, it seems.
I wonder whether Bluetooth can get better or is there some physical bottleneck of that particular method?
You’d still have to be a bit careful in case you inadvertently cause interference picked up by neighbours: https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2055978/small-fm-transmitters
It would be perfectly possible to
The problem will be that most applications (BT headset use) simply don't require that and there are too few guys who really want it.
@SevenSystems:
Why don't you simply use a powerful IR transmitter and use S/PDIF between your transmitter and your headphones? Latency should be low enough
Haha. I actually saw a blog post the other day where someone used a TV range extender set to transmit the wired S/PDIF, worked a treat for him
But this thread is not about myself, but selflessly improving the world for everyone, for cheap
(there's a reason why everyone exclaimed "Ewering saves the world!" when I entered the classroom back in college...)
Rightly so!
The world won't change if we ever stop doing, or at least trying that.
👍🏼
Common FM transmitters and receivers can sometimes be hacked for more power and higher bandwidth, at the cost if leaving the legal zone
That will improve quality and reduce noise.
Actually, the best FM quality is still the one provided by my ancient AKG infrared model.
This is a one to one transfer, isn’t it, not one to many?
More or less, depending on how many guest listeners behind your living room window wear IR headphones...
Yes, but you're right, one-to-many is an additional benefit over Bluetooth at no additional cost!
Well, if it were one to one, and if the whereabouts of the destination were always knowable, there’s the opportunity to prevent ‘broadcasting’ and eschew the stupidly wasteful inverse square law of radiation, and get directional about things.
For an interesting but slightly irrelevant parallel, pringles cantennas (which if you’re a radio ham you’ll no doubt be familiar with): http://www.turnpoint.net/wireless/has.html – except not for 802.11 but for your ministry of s your analogue radio carrier.
Haha, the Pringles antenna. Lovely! Actually to improve my wireless reception at home (I'm on LTE), I put a spare oven tray behind the LTE router. Improves reception by a whole bar!
Yeah but let's not get too complicated. I have that $10 car FM transmitter from DOOSL (straight from China) and the car radio still makes perfect noise even when I'm already in the house.
Hushhh! You shouldn't have published this cool idea. Now it's time to rush and hire an IP Attorney and file a patent for it. Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Dell, HP and other vendors would be all over you to pay you royalties to license your patent for the next 20 years for the life of the patent!!
@SevenSystems
imagine 10 people close to each one somewhere in bus ... how ypu can ensure with one way FM sender that one will not hear audio of other ? with digital transfer (bluetooth, wifi) many devices can share same frequency because data packets are signed so both devices know which packets should be received and which should be ignored...
with FM, to avoid mix together signals for 2 different devices yiu need simply use different frequencies... with millions of phones there is not enough range in FM spectrum, and there will be high probability you meee somewhere perdon witch headphones using same frequency like yours
only way is to make bluetooth low latency. No idea what is core peoblem of current big latency, if it is just overlooking this issue from BT standard developers, or there is some deeper issue in BT technology.. Hope it's first case..
https://www.natus.one
Keeping Bluetooth turned on is like keeping Background Audio on - it drains battery.
On another note, a streaming radio consumes more power than terrestrial radio. A streaming device needs to be charged at least once a day (or more) while a terrestrial radio will go on for months with a single set of batterie(s).
Reception yes, transmission is a different situation
The more I think about it, the more I wish this was possible.
Watch out, here comes the almighty Sonic Stumbler
lower latency - higher cost... but latency only matters for that 1 'producer', while 999 listeners don't even notice it exists
That looks very interesting...<16ms latency, 48KHz 16 bit quality, 30ft range, 24 hours of use per charge, $125 MSRP upon release, but the campaign appears to have ended in October unsuccessfully. That’s a bummer.
Did you back it, do you know if they’re still planning on developing this?
16ms is huge.
I think a friend of mine has those cheap car audio FM transmitters and will test on an old portable FM radio (hoping it has stereo headphone jack !
16ms would mess up any sort of guitar or keyboard playing