|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Bluetooth discussion > October 2006 > Headset to headset?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Headset to headset?
|
|
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-22, 4:33 am |
| I want to use two identical (or I can obtain another) headsets to pair
together and use for remote communications.
How can I best do this?
Thanks
Nigel
| |
| Cavity Search 2006-09-22, 10:33 pm |
| "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eQLQg.25747$0i4.5640@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>I want to use two identical (or I can obtain another) headsets to pair
>together and use for remote communications.
>
> How can I best do this?
It'll work, but you have to speak real loud. You might even have to yell.
Since they'll both be Class III devices, the range will be about 30 feet or
so, allowing for interference. If there's a wall in the way, it gets even
worse.
This means you won't get much power to transmit, but the louder you yell,
the clearer your partner will hear you.
The good news is they automatically connect. In fact, you don't even have
to turn them on. They'll do this in standby mode.
I've tried this. It works.
Good luck!
CS
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-23, 7:33 am |
| CS,
Thanks for your reply.
I am pleased to hear that two headsets will connect, but I am puzzled by you
saying I will have to shout!
I wouldn't expect to shout if the headset was connecting to a mobile phone,
so why should I need to when the other headset is just another Bluetooth
device.
Nigel
"Cavity Search" < nothingvalidforyou@t
histime.com> wrote in message
news:12h94eikc2fk42@
corp.supernews.com...
> "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eQLQg.25747$0i4.5640@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> It'll work, but you have to speak real loud. You might even have to yell.
>
> Since they'll both be Class III devices, the range will be about 30 feet
> or so, allowing for interference. If there's a wall in the way, it gets
> even worse.
>
> This means you won't get much power to transmit, but the louder you yell,
> the clearer your partner will hear you.
>
> The good news is they automatically connect. In fact, you don't even have
> to turn them on. They'll do this in standby mode.
>
> I've tried this. It works.
>
> Good luck!
>
> CS
>
| |
| Thurman 2006-09-23, 10:33 am |
|
"Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EH7Rg.40204$WV2.14162@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> CS,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I am pleased to hear that two headsets will connect, but I am puzzled by
> you saying I will have to shout!
> I wouldn't expect to shout if the headset was connecting to a mobile
> phone, so why should I need to when the other headset is just another
> Bluetooth device.
With a 30 foot limit on connectivity, why not use two cans and some string.
Comes in varied decorator colors, one size fits all; works 24/7 without
battery loss.
| |
| VicTek 2006-09-23, 10:33 pm |
| > I am pleased to hear that two headsets will connect, but I am puzzled by
> you saying I will have to shout!
> I wouldn't expect to shout if the headset was connecting to a mobile
> phone, so why should I need to when the other headset is just another
> Bluetooth device.
I think saying you must shout is his way of pulling your leg.
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-23, 10:33 pm |
| Ah, well it might have been more helpful to a 'greenhorn' like me to at
least say it won't work!
But I'd still like to know why it won't, so I can understand more.
There is precious little free info available for end users that want to do
more with Bluetooth than just link to a mobile phone!
Nigel
"VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:OMjRg.3920$vJ2.1892@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I think saying you must shout is his way of pulling your leg.
>
| |
| Peter Pan 2006-09-23, 10:33 pm |
| That would have been wrong.. He said it WILL work, but only up to 30 Feet
away (or less)....any further than 30 feet apart you have to shout...
Nigel Andrews wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Ah, well it might have been more helpful to a 'greenhorn' like me to
> at least say it won't work!
> But I'd still like to know why it won't, so I can understand more.
> There is precious little free info available for end users that want
> to do more with Bluetooth than just link to a mobile phone!
>
> Nigel
>
>
> "VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:OMjRg.3920$vJ2.1892@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-24, 7:33 am |
| Well I am confused. Maybe someone is jazzing me (or perhaps you all are!).
Could someone point me to a good source that will confirm this idea of two
Buetooth headset working together (or even if needs be one Bluetooth stereo
headset and one Bluetooth stereo headphone (no mic). I would have thought it
should work and can't find a good reason why not, save that maybe it is just
blocked in the scheme tho' for no good reason.
I would appreciate your (honest) help.
Nigel
"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:E8WdnUEQsbc4a4j
YnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> That would have been wrong.. He said it WILL work, but only up to 30 Feet
> away (or less)....any further than 30 feet apart you have to shout...
>
>
> Nigel Andrews wrote:
>
>
| |
| VicTek 2006-09-24, 10:33 am |
| You made me cursious, so turned on my home headset and my car headset -
nothing. Neither device is aware of the other AFAICT. Considerable effort
has gone into making the link between a BT headset and a phone (or phone to
a computer, etc.) secure. They are not like walkie-talkies where everyone
on the same channel can hear everyone else. I don't have technical training
in BT technology though, so I'm only thinking/speculating out loud. It
would be great if a knowledgeable person could clarify how it works.
Meanwhile, why not buy a cheap pair of walkie-talkies from Radio Shack (or
where-ever). For $30 you can get a two-pack with a potential 5 mile range.
Of course, they would be difficult to wear on the ear 8^)
"Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GZjRg.27862$0i4.8333@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...[color=darkred]
> Ah, well it might have been more helpful to a 'greenhorn' like me to at
> least say it won't work!
> But I'd still like to know why it won't, so I can understand more.
> There is precious little free info available for end users that want to do
> more with Bluetooth than just link to a mobile phone!
>
> Nigel
>
>
> "VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:OMjRg.3920$vJ2.1892@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| VicTek,
Thanks for trying that out.
In your last sentence you have hit the reason why I am chasing the Bluetooth
line rather than picking up a cheap walkie talkie set.
The opportunity that BT provides to be able to switch one device between a
number of sources.
i.e., the headset I have with a BT USB dongle allows me to switch between
listening to stereo from the PC, to talking via the PC e.g., Skype. If I had
a Bluetooth mobile phone am sure I could switch to that aswell. I am now
looking to get a BT device that will connect to the headphone socket on a
hi-fi or TV so I can switch the BT headset to that too!
Where I am coming from is trying to provide a device for a hard of hearing
person. At the moment they have an ineffective deaf aid, but need to have
amplified sound from what ever source they want to listen to. The one BT
headset able to connect to so many sources is ideal for them and all I need
now is to provide the means for amplified voice i.e., from another BT
headset if that will work.
I am not looking for any fancy switching just the ability to cycle through
whatever devices are in range. Tho' if there is opportunity to auto switch
connections in the way a mobile phone can cause a switch, when a call comes
in, that'd be neat!
Thanks
Nigel
"VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:%sxRg.15713$IA.7882@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> You made me cursious, so turned on my home headset and my car headset -
> nothing. Neither device is aware of the other AFAICT. Considerable
> effort has gone into making the link between a BT headset and a phone (or
> phone to a computer, etc.) secure. They are not like walkie-talkies where
> everyone on the same channel can hear everyone else. I don't have
> technical training in BT technology though, so I'm only
> thinking/speculating out loud. It would be great if a knowledgeable
> person could clarify how it works.
>
> Meanwhile, why not buy a cheap pair of walkie-talkies from Radio Shack (or
> where-ever). For $30 you can get a two-pack with a potential 5 mile
> range. Of course, they would be difficult to wear on the ear 8^)
>
>
> "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GZjRg.27862$0i4.8333@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
>
| |
| Bill Kearney 2006-09-26, 10:33 am |
| > At the moment they have an ineffective deaf aid,
Then get a better one. Seriously, there are a lot of choices out there.
Mis-using a bluetooth headset is a poor excuse for not getting the right
sort of hearing aid.
> I am not looking for any fancy switching just the ability to cycle through
> whatever devices are in range.
I can't see how that would be anything other than way too confusing.
> Tho' if there is opportunity to auto switch
> connections in the way a mobile phone can cause a switch, when a call
comes
> in, that'd be neat!
That would be a better solution. Better to have control over the source
than to cycle, or at least have the ability to halt the cycling and stay
with a selectable source.
But before you bother inventing something more complicated that it needs to
be, just get a properly fitted hearing aid instead.
| |
| Bill Kearney 2006-09-26, 10:33 am |
| > There is precious little free info available for end users that want to do
> more with Bluetooth than just link to a mobile phone!
Like there's precious little info on using a bicycle to haul construction
debris? There's no info on it because it's entirely impractical, or at the
very least well outside the design goals of the devices.
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-26, 12:33 pm |
| Bill,
I don't understand why you consider trying to maximise the potential for a
system as "Mis-using" it!
I would see the advantage to a deaf person of wearing one device which
could, at their choice, connect to anyone of a number of audio (inc' two
way) devices as a positive boon. Maybe you are not a hearing aid user
yourself or know of others to understand the poor state of services
available to this community?
In the U.K. (forgive me I do not know from where you hail) the state
provided devices are currently analog, slowly changing to digital. The
controls to 'tune' the device to the wearers hearing capabilities are very
basic. Even the digital aids are only slightly better, tho' the hype would
have one believe otherwise! But these devices are still only intended to
amplify the sounds the ear would normal pick-up through the air. They do
nothing special to provide for listening to telephone, TV, hi-fi, theater or
lecture. Even the auxiliary services which provide commercially available
devices to enhance the abilities of the hard of hearing are both expensive
and of single use.
The opportunity that Bluetooth could provide, and I thought would provide,
is not a solution but is a good deal better than what is currently
available.
I am not sure if you are saying the headset to headset/headphone is not
possible or is possible with some difficulties.
I am prepared to workaround difficulties if someone can advise if the basic
function will work?
Nigel
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YbidnWP6O- SlqoTYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ
2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> Like there's precious little info on using a bicycle to haul construction
> debris? There's no info on it because it's entirely impractical, or at
> the
> very least well outside the design goals of the devices.
>
| |
| Cavity Search 2006-09-27, 4:33 am |
| "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GZjRg.27862$0i4.8333@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Ah, well it might have been more helpful to a 'greenhorn' like me to at
> least say it won't work!
> But I'd still like to know why it won't, so I can understand more.
> There is precious little free info available for end users that want to do
> more with Bluetooth than just link to a mobile phone!
I apologize. I was having a bit of fun.
If your within 30 feet of someone, it would be kind of silly to use
expensive bluetooth headsets to communicate. Actually, the 30 foot 'range'
of Class III bluetooth devices looks good on paper, but you've probably
noticed that you'll usually hear static at just a few feet, even with
nothing in the way of the signal. Even if you could pair two bluetooth
headsets together, the range would probably be so short that you'd hear each
other talking anyway.
I seriously doubt you can get two headsets to talk to each other. You'd
have to pair them and so forth, and there doesn't appear to be any way to do
that. There might be some undocumented feature that allows you to do this,
but I think that's highly unlikely, for the above reason.
I'm afraid bluetooth headsets are really only good for phones and computers,
if you want to record your voice or whatnot. The fact is, if these things
were complex enough to do more, they'd be too complicated to be easily used
with a phone. Nobody wants a huge hassle when using these things.
As far as doing other things with bluetooth, I suggest you don't get your
hopes up. I am pretty good with computers and gadgets, and I gave myself a
three day crash course in bluetooth. It was a huge pain to do anything
other than the most simple activities.
I use bluetooth for the headset, GPS, and tethering to a computer for
wireless internet. It works great for the first two, somewhat OK for the
third.
I tried wireless stereo headphones. They worked well, but had a short
range, and I returned them until better units come out.
I've used a bluetooth mouse, and it was more hassle than useful. I've tried
to sinc my phone and PDA with bluetooth, with no luck. I ended up with a
plain wireless mouse and a cable for my phone/PDA, and life is much easier.
In my opinion, bluetooth is, at best, an immature and poorly implimented
technology. As you said, there is practically nothing for an end user to go
on when working with bluetooth. Most bluetooth devices have no real
manuals, just quick start guides written by folks who's understanding of
English isn't quite so great.
It's unfortunate. The best thing about bluetooth is that it's a standard,
and any standard is nice to have in the computer/gadget world. Instead of
worrying about the correct cables, for the correct device, from the correct
manufacturer, which can get highly exciting with some of the oddball
hardware out there, you just fire up a bluetooth link and get the job done.
With all the pairing issues, non-standard functions (mostly by cell phone
companies), and a serious lack of software and information, bluetooth is
probably going to end up as a highly specialized technology, used only for
certain types of devices such as headsets.
CS
>
>
> "VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:OMjRg.3920$vJ2.1892@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
| |
| Cavity Search 2006-09-27, 4:33 am |
| "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YadSg.38497$SH2.14134@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Bill,
>
> I don't understand why you consider trying to maximise the potential for a
> system as "Mis-using" it!
>
> I would see the advantage to a deaf person of wearing one device which
> could, at their choice, connect to anyone of a number of audio (inc' two
> way) devices as a positive boon. Maybe you are not a hearing aid user
> yourself or know of others to understand the poor state of services
> available to this community?
> In the U.K. (forgive me I do not know from where you hail) the state
> provided devices are currently analog, slowly changing to digital. The
> controls to 'tune' the device to the wearers hearing capabilities are very
> basic. Even the digital aids are only slightly better, tho' the hype would
> have one believe otherwise! But these devices are still only intended to
> amplify the sounds the ear would normal pick-up through the air. They do
> nothing special to provide for listening to telephone, TV, hi-fi, theater
> or lecture. Even the auxiliary services which provide commercially
> available devices to enhance the abilities of the hard of hearing are both
> expensive and of single use.
>
> The opportunity that Bluetooth could provide, and I thought would provide,
> is not a solution but is a good deal better than what is currently
> available.
>
> I am not sure if you are saying the headset to headset/headphone is not
> possible or is possible with some difficulties.
> I am prepared to workaround difficulties if someone can advise if the
> basic function will work?
It is my understanding a properly set up computer or PDA can use a bluetooth
headset or headphones as a microphone and audio output. Eventually, I'll
know for sure, but right now I simply don't have the time or nerves to deal
with it.
Anyway, if this is the case, you may be able to pair both devices to the
same unit, or different units with a WiFi connection, and put them to use as
a high tech and very complicated walkie talkie.
You can also use a computer or PDA as a bridge of sorts between whatever
device and a bluetooth headset. Again, this appears to be a complicated
solution, and may even require some wiring skills.
I suggest you try browsing Amazon, Newegg, and other sites. At least this
way you'll see some of the possibilities.
CS
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-09-27, 10:33 am |
| CS,
Thanks for your sober and lengthy discussion on Bluetooth.
It is a real shame if the technology is being spoiled by conflicting
variations in the implementation.
I would have thought the Buetooth SIG might have applied some controlling
influence here?
It is also disappointing to hear that a range well below the declared 10m is
often a problem.
Indeed the working set I had (Bluetooth USB 'dongle' and stereo headset)
gave reception problems within less than a metre with only the arm of a
'comfy' chair in-between! The supplier has taken the dongle back as faulty
to exchange for another, but now I am wondering! I would have taken a dongle
with a declared 100m range but was persuaded by the supplier that it would
not be 100m with a 10m headset (!) (well I doubted that is true, but I need
them to agree a combo that will work).
I recognise that for normal people headset to headset within 30m is
pointless, but for a hard of hearing person it isn't. Bundle with that the
possible opportunity of changing between different audio sources without
needing to switch plugs and cables the advantage is increased tenfold. If
the pairing can be accomplished then I don't see the switching being an
issue. For example I had this headset paired with both the A/V service and
the headset service on the USB dongle. By pressing the 'control' button on
the headset I could switch from listening to stereo on the PC to
talking/listening over Skype. I am ordering a Bluetooth device to plug into
my hi-fi (or anything with a headphone connector) and expect to be able to
pair the headset with that and add that source to my selection.
I read this in the beginning as a brilliant way to provide wirefree
connection between data devices, but I am feeling somewhat let down!
Nigel
"Cavity Search" < nothingvalidforyou@t
histime.com> wrote in message
news:12hjvb0hg8ver16
@corp.supernews.com...
> "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GZjRg.27862$0i4.8333@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> I apologize. I was having a bit of fun.
>
> If your within 30 feet of someone, it would be kind of silly to use
> expensive bluetooth headsets to communicate. Actually, the 30 foot
> 'range' of Class III bluetooth devices looks good on paper, but you've
> probably noticed that you'll usually hear static at just a few feet, even
> with nothing in the way of the signal. Even if you could pair two
> bluetooth headsets together, the range would probably be so short that
> you'd hear each other talking anyway.
>
> I seriously doubt you can get two headsets to talk to each other. You'd
> have to pair them and so forth, and there doesn't appear to be any way to
> do that. There might be some undocumented feature that allows you to do
> this, but I think that's highly unlikely, for the above reason.
>
> I'm afraid bluetooth headsets are really only good for phones and
> computers, if you want to record your voice or whatnot. The fact is, if
> these things were complex enough to do more, they'd be too complicated to
> be easily used with a phone. Nobody wants a huge hassle when using these
> things.
>
> As far as doing other things with bluetooth, I suggest you don't get your
> hopes up. I am pretty good with computers and gadgets, and I gave myself
> a three day crash course in bluetooth. It was a huge pain to do anything
> other than the most simple activities.
>
> I use bluetooth for the headset, GPS, and tethering to a computer for
> wireless internet. It works great for the first two, somewhat OK for the
> third.
>
> I tried wireless stereo headphones. They worked well, but had a short
> range, and I returned them until better units come out.
>
> I've used a bluetooth mouse, and it was more hassle than useful. I've
> tried to sinc my phone and PDA with bluetooth, with no luck. I ended up
> with a plain wireless mouse and a cable for my phone/PDA, and life is much
> easier.
>
> In my opinion, bluetooth is, at best, an immature and poorly implimented
> technology. As you said, there is practically nothing for an end user to
> go on when working with bluetooth. Most bluetooth devices have no real
> manuals, just quick start guides written by folks who's understanding of
> English isn't quite so great.
>
> It's unfortunate. The best thing about bluetooth is that it's a standard,
> and any standard is nice to have in the computer/gadget world. Instead of
> worrying about the correct cables, for the correct device, from the
> correct manufacturer, which can get highly exciting with some of the
> oddball hardware out there, you just fire up a bluetooth link and get the
> job done. With all the pairing issues, non-standard functions (mostly by
> cell phone companies), and a serious lack of software and information,
> bluetooth is probably going to end up as a highly specialized technology,
> used only for certain types of devices such as headsets.
>
> CS
>
>
>
| |
| dold@XReXXHeads.usenet.us.com 2006-09-27, 12:33 pm |
| Cavity Search < nothingvalidforyou@t
histime.com> wrote:
> It is my understanding a properly set up computer or PDA can use a
> bluetooth headset or headphones as a microphone and audio output.
> Eventually, I'll know for sure, but right now I simply don't have the
> time or nerves to deal with it.
You should be able to do that with any BT headset and a BT adapter that
doesn't use the Windows XP drivers. Most adapters come with a driver of
their own. The Widcom stack is packaged with a lot of them.
I use a Motorola HS820 and a DLink DBT-120.
> Anyway, if this is the case, you may be able to pair both devices to the
> same unit, or different units with a WiFi connection, and put them to use
> as a high tech and very complicated walkie talkie.
You can't pair two headsets to the same BT adapter, but you can easily
Skype between two PCs.
I have used Skype, Ciscophone, Yahoo Voice and Google Voice.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
| |
| Cavity Search 2006-09-27, 3:33 pm |
|
"Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5LuSg.30751$0i4.23132@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> CS,
>
> Thanks for your sober and lengthy discussion on Bluetooth.
At first I thought you were just another weirdo trolling the newsgroups. My
mistake. You have pretty good ideas on how to use this stuff.
> It is a real shame if the technology is being spoiled by conflicting
> variations in the implementation.
> I would have thought the Buetooth SIG might have applied some controlling
> influence here?
It's fairly common with so called 'standards'. Sometimes it helps,
sometimes it doesn't. The power supply in a desktop computer, for instance.
According to specification, the fan is supposed to suck air into the case,
and blow it across the CPU. That was fine at the time, but quickly became
silly, as all it did was bring in more heat, and failed to cool the more
powerful CPU's that came along.
The WiFi standards are constantly fooled with, usually for greater speed and
range, but sometimes there are problems with devices from other
manufacturers. At least with Bluetooth, most companies have behaved fairly
well.
> It is also disappointing to hear that a range well below the declared 10m
> is often a problem.
> Indeed the working set I had (Bluetooth USB 'dongle' and stereo headset)
> gave reception problems within less than a metre with only the arm of a
> 'comfy' chair in-between! The supplier has taken the dongle back as faulty
> to exchange for another, but now I am wondering! I would have taken a
> dongle with a declared 100m range but was persuaded by the supplier that
> it would not be 100m with a 10m headset (!) (well I doubted that is true,
> but I need them to agree a combo that will work).
A class 1 bluetooth (100m) device will have no trouble talking to a class 3
(10m), but it won't be able to 'hear'. It's all about power requirements
versus size and weight. You wouldn't want to wear a class 1 device on your
ear.
Also, without a proper antenna, there's little chance of these devices
reaching their maximum range, even in the best of conditions. Antennas on
headsets are among the worst, because few people want to wear a bulky, weird
looking antenna on their ear. That's probably why I haven't heard of
anybody actually getting 10 meters away from their phone and still use their
headset.
Still, there might be some out there, but they won't be the tiny affairs
most often seen for phones.
> I recognise that for normal people headset to headset within 30m is
> pointless, but for a hard of hearing person it isn't. Bundle with that the
> possible opportunity of changing between different audio sources without
> needing to switch plugs and cables the advantage is increased tenfold. If
> the pairing can be accomplished then I don't see the switching being an
> issue. For example I had this headset paired with both the A/V service and
> the headset service on the USB dongle. By pressing the 'control' button on
> the headset I could switch from listening to stereo on the PC to
> talking/listening over Skype. I am ordering a Bluetooth device to plug
> into my hi-fi (or anything with a headphone connector) and expect to be
> able to pair the headset with that and add that source to my selection.
It sounds like you know more than me. A setup like that would be pretty
handy.
I doubt most headsets will do 'roaming', or changing sources and pairing
automatically. But who knows?
CS
> I read this in the beginning as a brilliant way to provide wirefree
> connection between data devices, but I am feeling somewhat let down!
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> "Cavity Search" < nothingvalidforyou@t
histime.com> wrote in message
> news:12hjvb0hg8ver16
@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
| |
|
|
"Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5LuSg.30751$0i4.23132@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...[color=darkred]
> CS,
>
> Thanks for your sober and lengthy discussion on Bluetooth.
>
> It is a real shame if the technology is being spoiled by conflicting
> variations in the implementation.
> I would have thought the Buetooth SIG might have applied some controlling
> influence here?
>
> It is also disappointing to hear that a range well below the declared 10m
> is often a problem.
> Indeed the working set I had (Bluetooth USB 'dongle' and stereo headset)
> gave reception problems within less than a metre with only the arm of a
> 'comfy' chair in-between! The supplier has taken the dongle back as faulty
> to exchange for another, but now I am wondering! I would have taken a
> dongle with a declared 100m range but was persuaded by the supplier that
> it would not be 100m with a 10m headset (!) (well I doubted that is true,
> but I need them to agree a combo that will work).
>
> I recognise that for normal people headset to headset within 30m is
> pointless, but for a hard of hearing person it isn't. Bundle with that the
> possible opportunity of changing between different audio sources without
> needing to switch plugs and cables the advantage is increased tenfold. If
> the pairing can be accomplished then I don't see the switching being an
> issue. For example I had this headset paired with both the A/V service and
> the headset service on the USB dongle. By pressing the 'control' button on
> the headset I could switch from listening to stereo on the PC to
> talking/listening over Skype. I am ordering a Bluetooth device to plug
> into my hi-fi (or anything with a headphone connector) and expect to be
> able to pair the headset with that and add that source to my selection.
>
> I read this in the beginning as a brilliant way to provide wirefree
> connection between data devices, but I am feeling somewhat let down!
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> "Cavity Search" < nothingvalidforyou@t
histime.com> wrote in message
> news:12hjvb0hg8ver16
@corp.supernews.com...
Most Bluetooth headsets will not "auto-cycle" round devices, you must select
them from the computer or phone IME. Neither are most headsets loud enough
for a partially deaf person, even normally hearing people complain that they
are not loud enough. The reason for this is to reduce feedback through the
mic. You may have better luck with the Bluetooth enclosed headphones.
Remember that Bluetooth was only ever designed to replace a short cable, end
of story.
Z
| |
| Nigel Andrews 2006-10-21, 10:33 pm |
| Zimmy,
Thanks for that. I appreciate what you are saying.
The headset I have allows me to select between running services on the PC. I
certainly wouldn't want it to auto cycle!
If I have a music player app using the AV service and Skype using the
Headset service, then I can select between them using a button on the
headset. So I am assuming that if have different devices paired with the
headset then the button will select, in turn, each device and the services
running on each.
I had hoped a Bluetooth audio adapter would be the second device for me to
try, but the one that came yesterday won't pair with the headset. That is
when I set it to search and also the headset to search, the audio adapter
discovers the headset but the headset carries on searching! I suspect the
transmit side of the audio adapter is broken as searching for devices from
the PC doesn't find it either.
My search goes on!
Nigel
"Zimmy" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:efvth9$au5$1$83
00dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Nigel Andrews" <nandrews2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5LuSg.30751$0i4.23132@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> Most Bluetooth headsets will not "auto-cycle" round devices, you must
> select them from the computer or phone IME. Neither are most headsets loud
> enough for a partially deaf person, even normally hearing people complain
> that they are not loud enough. The reason for this is to reduce feedback
> through the mic. You may have better luck with the Bluetooth enclosed
> headphones.
>
> Remember that Bluetooth was only ever designed to replace a short cable,
> end of story.
>
> Z
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|