info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: behavior of docking station speakers
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Jolly Roger
Jan 22, 2015, 12:20:21 PM1/22/15
to
On 2015-01-22, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> do all the docking stations work mor or less the same?
>
> I got an iPod touch 2/3 which I want to use as an alarm clock with about
> 10 times a week. And I do need an amplifier or speaker for the loudness.
No need for a dock (though a speaker with a dock would work fine I
suppose). I use a portable Bluetooth speaker for this. It sits on the
table next to the bed connected to power most of the time, but has an
internal battery for times when I'd like to take it somewhere without a
power connection. I pair it with my phone so that any time I turn it on,
it pairs with the phone automatically. I could keep it turned on 24/7,
but choose to turn it off during the day when not in use so my phone
isn't paired with it and it doesn't consume as much electricity. At
night when I retire to bed, I flip the switch to turn it on, and it
automatically pairs with my phone, which I keep beside the bed or on the
corner of the bed. Before I fall asleep, I start a sleep monitoring and
alarm app on the phone that plays white noise or music tracks of my
choosing and monitors my sleep patterns during the night, waking me up
during a specified window at the lightest point of my sleep cycle so
that I wake up feeling as refreshed as possible to an alarm sound/track
of my choosing. Works great.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
> Hi all,
>
> do all the docking stations work mor or less the same?
>
> I got an iPod touch 2/3 which I want to use as an alarm clock with about
> 10 times a week. And I do need an amplifier or speaker for the loudness.
No need for a dock (though a speaker with a dock would work fine I
suppose). I use a portable Bluetooth speaker for this. It sits on the
table next to the bed connected to power most of the time, but has an
internal battery for times when I'd like to take it somewhere without a
power connection. I pair it with my phone so that any time I turn it on,
it pairs with the phone automatically. I could keep it turned on 24/7,
but choose to turn it off during the day when not in use so my phone
isn't paired with it and it doesn't consume as much electricity. At
night when I retire to bed, I flip the switch to turn it on, and it
automatically pairs with my phone, which I keep beside the bed or on the
corner of the bed. Before I fall asleep, I start a sleep monitoring and
alarm app on the phone that plays white noise or music tracks of my
choosing and monitors my sleep patterns during the night, waking me up
during a specified window at the lightest point of my sleep cycle so
that I wake up feeling as refreshed as possible to an alarm sound/track
of my choosing. Works great.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
Message has been deleted
Jolly Roger
Jan 22, 2015, 5:03:46 PM1/22/15
to
On 2015-01-22, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2015 17:20:19 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> No need for a dock (though a speaker with a dock would work fine I
>> suppose). I use a portable Bluetooth speaker for this. It sits on the
>> table next to the bed connected to power most of the time, but has an
>> internal battery for times when I'd like to take it somewhere without a
>> power connection.
>
> Wireless is nice. But why use wireless when a wired solution is as good.
>> No need for a dock (though a speaker with a dock would work fine I
>> suppose). I use a portable Bluetooth speaker for this. It sits on the
>> table next to the bed connected to power most of the time, but has an
>> internal battery for times when I'd like to take it somewhere without a
>> power connection.
>
Because it's not as good. For one, it's missing all of the wireless
features, and is nowhere near as convenient. : )
> What's the power consumption of a wireless solution? Usually it's much
> higher.
My Kill-A-Watt P3 meter shows the following for my Bluetooth speaker
during normal operation:
RMS Voltage: 120 V
RMS Output Current: 0.01 Amps
Active Power: 1 Watt
Apparent Power: 1 VA
Frequency: 59.9 HZ
Power Factor: ~.22 PF (W/Vrms Arms)
In comparison, I have a powered speaker with iPhone dock that reads much
higher during normal operation:
RMS Voltage: 120 V
RMS Output Current: 0.04 Amps
Active Power: 2 Watts
Apparent Power: 5 VA
Frequency: 59.9 HZ
Power Factor: ~.52 PF
> So that's why I asked for a wired one - especially here, where the iPod
> should have its permanent parking lot.
Fine by me.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jolly Roger
Jan 23, 2015, 9:35:36 AM1/23/15
to
On 2015-01-23, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> * additional radiation (ok, no one cares any more)
> * loss of transmission (works fine most of the time)
> * more energy (your numbers show a reasonable implementation)
> this should be improved by Bluetooth 4.0
> * less quality (which I do not mind for an alarm)
> this should be ok with A2DP
Please. You're obviously struggling to come up with negatives in order
to prove something. Use whatever you wish. I care not.
> .. so several questions, all of them solved more or less.
> But no need to ask for them for a wired transmission.
Yes, I know. My wireless solution doesn't consume more power, which is
opposite of what you said.
> So I'm more interested in the standby consumption. If it was 1 W, it
> would drain a battery with 5 Wh within 5 hours. But I suppose it would
> be too low to measure with your P3 meter. That's good to know. I've seen
> much worse, draining > 5 W in standby.
Not here. Must be your poor choice in hardware.
Anyhow, since you are apparently set in your ways and have already made
up your mind, there's no reason to continue this conversation. Have a
good one. : )
> On 22 Jan 2015 22:03:44 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-01-22, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On 22 Jan 2015 17:20:19 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >> No need for a dock (though a speaker with a dock would work fine I
>> >> suppose). I use a portable Bluetooth speaker for this. It sits on the
>> >> table next to the bed connected to power most of the time, but has an
>> >> internal battery for times when I'd like to take it somewhere without a
>> >> power connection.
>> >
>> > Wireless is nice. But why use wireless when a wired solution is as good.
>>
>> Because it's not as good. For one, it's missing all of the wireless
>> features, and is nowhere near as convenient. : )
>
> wireless features could be
>> On 2015-01-22, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On 22 Jan 2015 17:20:19 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >> No need for a dock (though a speaker with a dock would work fine I
>> >> suppose). I use a portable Bluetooth speaker for this. It sits on the
>> >> table next to the bed connected to power most of the time, but has an
>> >> internal battery for times when I'd like to take it somewhere without a
>> >> power connection.
>> >
>> > Wireless is nice. But why use wireless when a wired solution is as good.
>>
>> Because it's not as good. For one, it's missing all of the wireless
>> features, and is nowhere near as convenient. : )
>
> * additional radiation (ok, no one cares any more)
> * loss of transmission (works fine most of the time)
> * more energy (your numbers show a reasonable implementation)
> this should be improved by Bluetooth 4.0
> * less quality (which I do not mind for an alarm)
> this should be ok with A2DP
Please. You're obviously struggling to come up with negatives in order
to prove something. Use whatever you wish. I care not.
> .. so several questions, all of them solved more or less.
> But no need to ask for them for a wired transmission.
>
>> > What's the power consumption of a wireless solution? Usually it's much
>> > higher.
>>
>> My Kill-A-Watt P3 meter shows the following for my Bluetooth speaker
>> during normal operation:
>
> great, glad you got one of those
>> > What's the power consumption of a wireless solution? Usually it's much
>> > higher.
>>
>> My Kill-A-Watt P3 meter shows the following for my Bluetooth speaker
>> during normal operation:
>
>
>> RMS Voltage: 120 V
>> RMS Output Current: 0.01 Amps
>> Active Power: 1 Watt
>> Apparent Power: 1 VA
>> Frequency: 59.9 HZ
>> Power Factor: ~.22 PF (W/Vrms Arms)
>>
>> In comparison, I have a powered speaker with iPhone dock that reads much
>> higher during normal operation:
>>
>> RMS Voltage: 120 V
>> RMS Output Current: 0.04 Amps
>> Active Power: 2 Watts
>> Apparent Power: 5 VA
>> Frequency: 59.9 HZ
>> Power Factor: ~.52 PF
>
> Not exactly the numbers I was looking fori
>> RMS Voltage: 120 V
>> RMS Output Current: 0.01 Amps
>> Active Power: 1 Watt
>> Apparent Power: 1 VA
>> Frequency: 59.9 HZ
>> Power Factor: ~.22 PF (W/Vrms Arms)
>>
>> In comparison, I have a powered speaker with iPhone dock that reads much
>> higher during normal operation:
>>
>> RMS Voltage: 120 V
>> RMS Output Current: 0.04 Amps
>> Active Power: 2 Watts
>> Apparent Power: 5 VA
>> Frequency: 59.9 HZ
>> Power Factor: ~.52 PF
>
Yes, I know. My wireless solution doesn't consume more power, which is
opposite of what you said.
> So I'm more interested in the standby consumption. If it was 1 W, it
> would drain a battery with 5 Wh within 5 hours. But I suppose it would
> be too low to measure with your P3 meter. That's good to know. I've seen
> much worse, draining > 5 W in standby.
Not here. Must be your poor choice in hardware.
Anyhow, since you are apparently set in your ways and have already made
up your mind, there's no reason to continue this conversation. Have a
good one. : )
Jolly Roger
Jan 23, 2015, 9:38:04 AM1/23/15
to
> BTW, how far is the standard for wireless video? That's something I'd
> like much more, for beamers and TV sets from my MacBook. WHDI? WiHD?
> WiDi? WiGig? Miracast? I'm afraid that wireless is not a real option for
> video yet.
Your fear is unwarranted. I stream video from Macs and iOS devices to my
television set all the time through WiFi with an AppleTV, and it's
lovely.
> like much more, for beamers and TV sets from my MacBook. WHDI? WiHD?
> WiDi? WiGig? Miracast? I'm afraid that wireless is not a real option for
> video yet.
Your fear is unwarranted. I stream video from Macs and iOS devices to my
television set all the time through WiFi with an AppleTV, and it's
lovely.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jolly Roger
Jan 23, 2015, 2:48:14 PM1/23/15
to
On 2015-01-23, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2015 14:38:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-01-23, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > BTW, how far is the standard for wireless video? That's something I'd
>> > like much more, for beamers and TV sets from my MacBook. WHDI? WiHD?
>> > WiDi? WiGig? Miracast? I'm afraid that wireless is not a real option for
>> > video yet.
>>
>> Your fear is unwarranted. I stream video from Macs and iOS devices to my
>> television set all the time through WiFi with an AppleTV, and it's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> On 2015-01-23, Martin Τrautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > BTW, how far is the standard for wireless video? That's something I'd
>> > like much more, for beamers and TV sets from my MacBook. WHDI? WiHD?
>> > WiDi? WiGig? Miracast? I'm afraid that wireless is not a real option for
>> > video yet.
>>
>> Your fear is unwarranted. I stream video from Macs and iOS devices to my
>> television set all the time through WiFi with an AppleTV, and it's
>> lovely.
>
> yet another prorietary solution. I'm glad that bluetooth audio is not
> that limited.
If streaming whatever I want to my television and effortlessly playing
music wirelessly is your definition of "limited", then so be it. To me,
your definition is laughable.
nospam
Jan 23, 2015, 2:58:51 PM1/23/15
to
In article <slrnmc58uu....@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
your own codec?
and there are third party products that reverse engineered it anyway.
?rautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > > BTW, how far is the standard for wireless video? That's something I'd
> > > like much more, for beamers and TV sets from my MacBook. WHDI? WiHD?
> > > WiDi? WiGig? Miracast? I'm afraid that wireless is not a real option for
> > > video yet.
> >
> > Your fear is unwarranted. I stream video from Macs and iOS devices to my
> > television set all the time through WiFi with an AppleTV, and it's
> > > BTW, how far is the standard for wireless video? That's something I'd
> > > like much more, for beamers and TV sets from my MacBook. WHDI? WiHD?
> > > WiDi? WiGig? Miracast? I'm afraid that wireless is not a real option for
> > > video yet.
> >
> > Your fear is unwarranted. I stream video from Macs and iOS devices to my
> > television set all the time through WiFi with an AppleTV, and it's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > lovely.
>
> yet another prorietary solution. I'm glad that bluetooth audio is not
> that limited.
who gives a shit, as long as it works. were you planning on writing
> > lovely.
>
> yet another prorietary solution. I'm glad that bluetooth audio is not
> that limited.
your own codec?
and there are third party products that reverse engineered it anyway.
Message has been deleted
nospam
Jan 23, 2015, 4:10:40 PM1/23/15
to
In article <slrnmc5cce....@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
nobody said you couldn't do that. non-apple products work with apple
products since apple uses standard protocols where appropriate but goes
beyond them when needed.
what's more important? getting the results you want or having some
specious open protocol that doesn't actually provide a tangible benefit
to the end user?
?rautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > > yet another prorietary solution. I'm glad that bluetooth audio is not
> > > that limited.
> >
> > who gives a shit, as long as it works. were you planning on writing
> > your own codec?
>
> I plan on using not only Apple technology.
> > > yet another prorietary solution. I'm glad that bluetooth audio is not
> > > that limited.
> >
> > who gives a shit, as long as it works. were you planning on writing
> > your own codec?
>
nobody said you couldn't do that. non-apple products work with apple
products since apple uses standard protocols where appropriate but goes
beyond them when needed.
what's more important? getting the results you want or having some
specious open protocol that doesn't actually provide a tangible benefit
to the end user?
0 new messages