The FM stereo sampling rate is 38 Khz. You can get frequency response up to about 40% of this i.e. 15 Khz.
CBFalconer wrote:
>
> Bob Horvath wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
> > On 13 May 2007 18:13:44 -0700, Bob Horvath wrote:
> >
> ... SNIP ...
> >
> >> I've looked into FM transmitters and they are notorious for poor
> >> quality, especially if the signal has to travel far from the
> >> transmitter since the output power is very low (compared to
> >> radio station transmitters). I was personally looking for
> >> something that transmits at higher frequencies (ie 900 Mhz, 2.4
> >> Ghz) as the sound quality is better and can travel ****her
> >> without degrading. Although if the receiver was not that far
> >> away (ie 10ft) the FM transitters should do.
> >
> > I have a Belkin Tunecaster ll that works great for that purpose.
> > There is a mod on the i-net that I did and it transmits about
> > 150 feet now.
>
> The FM standards can handle mono and sterio up to about 19 kHz. If
> you get appreciably worse you have a bad system.
On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:57:07 -0400, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bob Horvath wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
>> On 13 May 2007 18:13:44 -0700, Bob Horvath wrote:
>>
>... SNIP ...
>>
>>> I've looked into FM transmitters and they are notorious for poor
>>> quality, especially if the signal has to travel far from the
>>> transmitter since the output power is very low (compared to
>>> radio station transmitters). I was personally looking for
>>> something that transmits at higher frequencies (ie 900 Mhz, 2.4
>>> Ghz) as the sound quality is better and can travel ****her
>>> without degrading. Although if the receiver was not that far
>>> away (ie 10ft) the FM transitters should do.
>>
>> I have a Belkin Tunecaster ll that works great for that purpose.
>> There is a mod on the i-net that I did and it transmits about
>> 150 feet now.
>
>The FM standards can handle mono and sterio up to about 19 kHz. If
>you get appreciably worse you have a bad system.
>
The problem is the low output power, prevalence of other
signals on FM, and generally poor transmitter (device)
quality to make it cheap. If one were to spend a lot on a
high quality transmitter, at that point they might as well
just go digital. Seems a high expense to avoid a 10' wire,
especially when there are also emerging audio devices that
can use wifi to transmit which have now dropped under $50.
Mike Walsh wrote: *** AND top-posted - fixed ***
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Bob Horvath wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
>>> On 13 May 2007 18:13:44 -0700, Bob Horvath wrote:
>>>
>> ... SNIP ...
>>>
>>>> I've looked into FM transmitters and they are notorious for poor
>>>> quality, especially if the signal has to travel far from the
>>>> transmitter since the output power is very low (compared to
>>>> radio station transmitters). I was personally looking for
>>>> something that transmits at higher frequencies (ie 900 Mhz, 2.4
>>>> Ghz) as the sound quality is better and can travel ****her
>>>> without degrading. Although if the receiver was not that far
>>>> away (ie 10ft) the FM transitters should do.
>>>
>>> I have a Belkin Tunecaster ll that works great for that purpose.
>>> There is a mod on the i-net that I did and it transmits about
>>> 150 feet now.
>>
>> The FM standards can handle mono and sterio up to about 19 kHz.
>> If you get appreciably worse you have a bad system.
>
> The FM stereo sampling rate is 38 Khz. You can get frequency
> response up to about 40% of this i.e. 15 Khz.
You are correct. IMHO that is not appreciably worse.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:
Re: Wireless comp to stereo device? 
Linear Mode
