My Experience with Wireless Headphones

[daddyflea]

I started off buying this Transmitter https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NP9MYFM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Bright tech with apt-X. This transmitter was recommended by other Detectors who tried it and liked it. I also bought a apt-X receiver. While waiting for the Transmitter to come in I bought a set of Auvio Bluetooth Headphones.

When these were delivered, I first tried the receiver with my Headphones. Latency was bad and there was no way I was going to be happy with this setup.

I then tried the Bluetooth Headphones with the Transmitter. Latency was tolerable and much better than the Receiver with my Headphones. Tones were changed and were noticeably different. I was not sure about length of tone. I tried hunting with it and quickly trashed this idea.

My opinion is get used to the cord. I could hunt with this setup but this is just not equal to the good headphone setup.

 

[sprchng]

Users continue to try and push the Bluetooth tech while detecting unsuccessfully. There are multiple examples of it not working because of the lag and just as many examples (or more) of 2.4 ghz tech working just fine,,,,why keep fighting it? The Deteknix , Rapoo and Auvio 2.4 set ups all work fine especially on a slow recovery detector like an etrac. Now you have new entrees with the Garrett z-link and the Minelab WM wireless which to the best of my knowledge are not Bluetooth either.

 

[Dave_E]

I gave up on Bluetooth too. Even though the lag is small I notice it.
I don't mind the speed of the 2.4gHz as it's fast, but it does not sound as good as my wired cans.
Get a wired pair and make sure the cable is not only long enough, but also heavy enough and it will stay out of the way.

 

[mrwilburino]

I've tried a bunch of them. The ones that were made for the machine (deus, ctx) work great. The rest have been either too laggy or just too much sound distortion, particularly on my Fisher-Tek machines. Haven't tried the Deteknix yet. Waiting on the Garretts......

 

[ironsight]

Do not go with blue tooth anything far as detecting head phones!

I've used the Rapoos headphones for years now and never looked back.

 

[still looking 52]

Never tried wireless headphones and after reading the above post I'll stick with my ultimate grey ghost corded, they work great.

 

[sprchng]

Never tried wireless headphones and after reading the above post I'll stick with my ultimate grey ghost corded, they work great.

Wireless is easy , it's liberating , just don't waste your money on bluetooth.

 

[Tom Slick]

Love the Makro wireless headphones I have for the Racer 2 and Gold Racer. They work every bit as well as the White's V3i set I had. I didn't care for the time lag on any of the bluetooth phones. Rapoos worked OK but I thought the sound or tone wasn't good enough for me.

 

[John-Edmonton]

It was back about 20 years and called the "OMEGA" Sound Sender. It ran on 2 x AA batteries and the system was mounted on the outside arm cuff of the detector. The receiver was a free Chatelaine am/FM radio. It was challenging setting a FM frequency on the "OMEGA" and trying to get the radio to lock on to the same frequency. It eventually worked....sort off. I often times lost my frequency, having to then try lock on to it again. There was a lag in audio, and the audio sounded tinny. I only used it twice, opting to just continue using the non-wireless headset.

 

[Jackpine Savage]

I have the TDK 2.4Ghz on ear 'phones and they work fine. I do plan on getting the Z-Lynk when they become available so I can use my favorite headphones.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Years ago, I had a bluetooth for my cell phone. And when detecting, I would just wear my full-cup headphones (Grey ghosts) over the top of my bluetooth. One day while turf hunting, my wife called. While she was yacking at me, I decided to keep detecting as I talked to her. Because after all: It was a hands-free call !

During that phone call, where the bluetooth was active, I got a signal. It was scratchy, questionable, but .... something I was going to investigate further as soon as I got off the phone call. I stopped and waited for the call to be over with, so I could pursue this signal. When the call ended , and the bluetooth connection was therefore over, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: THE SIGNAL CLEANED UP and sounded better. Hmmmm. That told me then and there that there was subtle cross-talk going on. Not enough that a person could notice it, but enough that it did affect depth.

So I began to wonder if other signals from wireless, that are THAT close to your detector, might not also cross-talk (albeit imperceptible in actual audio) as well ? I realize people have said this isn't the case, so long as the frequencies aren't the same. But .... after that experience, I decided I didn't want to chance it .

For those of you with systems where you can alternate back and forth, try this: Find a deep whisper. Mark it. Make a mental note of how it sounds with your wireless system. The switch to standard chord phones and try again. Does it clean up a bit ? Lock on a tad better ?

 

[ironsight]

Tom, thats interesting. The rapoos i use are not blue tooth but do transmit RF energy as with all wireless headphones....maybe enough to interfere with the detector?
I'd suspect the 1st fatality would be TID accuacy at depth if there is any interference.
Gonna try your experiment next time out...unfortunately that would be next Spring!:sad:

If it turns out there is an interference issue affecting my detector's performance, i'd sure hate going back to my 'dog leash' headphones.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Let us know how the flagged whisper signal test goes.

Another time I was hunting with a buddy, to teach him how to do turf silver hunting. I took him to a park that I knew still had a few "classic" turf deepie signals. He had the same machine as me (so perhaps this example doesn't hold water ?). I told him I'd flag a few suspected deep wheatie or silver type signals, so that he could swing over them for training purposes.

We separated ourselves in this park, to a distance beyond all cross-talk range. And for the next 30 minutes I tried like heck to find a classic deep silver-type signals. But to no avail, even though I knew for a fact the park still "produces". FINALLY I got a questionable one, that .... ok, I'd chase it. I motioned to my friend across the park to come over.

When he saw my hand motion, he turned off his machine and started heading my way. An interesting phenomenon then happened: The signals that I was about to show him, cleaned up when he turned off his unit. Now it sounded more like the classic deep turf coin. Hmmm. So it immediately became apparent to me, that EVEN THOUGH WE WERE BEYOND CROSS -TALK range, that was only the AUDIBLE range. Apparently there is still an additional distance you must move, to totally get outside of any subtle interference (which can rob depth). It was a real eye-opener. Because prior to that, when hunting with buddies, we would tend to separate ourselves just far enough that we heard no more chatter from each other.

SO TOO do I wonder if .... even though any interference from wireless may not be apparent (ie.: audible) I would wonder if there's not something on the subtle scale of things ?

I brought this up before and was told it doesn't apply, as long as the two aren't on the same frequency. I dunno.

 

[ironsight]

Tom, i think a lot depends on the frequency of the wireless transmitter and of course the detector at hand. Certain detectors might be immune to a particular wireless transmitter frequency while others might experience interference issues.

I have no idea off hand what the typical carrier frequencies are with these wireless headphones but i assume they're likely high enough not to interfere with the detectors transmit frequencies which are relatively low. But and its a big but, even if they're transmitting at a hi enough carrier frequency there might be lower frequency harmonics low enough to cause interference issues.
No way to tell one's setup for sure than to experiment.

I run an eTRAC which does have robust noise cancelling options, namely EMI noise . However, because of the nearness of the wireless transmitter to the detector, the transmit energy could be high enough to saturate the noise cancelling circuitry and then all bets may be off.

The reason you caught my interest with your posts, over the years i noticed less deep finds with my eTRAC and maybe since i've been using the wireless option.
For a while there a few year ago, foot+ keepers were the norm at certain sites. But i can't remember when or if i was using wireless at the time. All one big blur.
Of course i mighta found all those deep keepers.