I used the previous generation Roku 1001 Internet radios.
I put one of those (they're quite small), as well as a Decade FM transmitter, together in a weatherproof box, fed by a long, outdoor power coable. When it worked, it worked quite well to distribute a signal.
However, they're not as reliable as a direct connect. The wireless radio in these are quite weak (or, at least, they used to be) and it was relatively easy to lose the Internet connection (causing your transmission to drop out).
I had the weatherproof box up quite high, and was using an ordinary consumer D-link router (again, quite weak in terms of transmission power).
But there are a number of things you can do to improve it, including, a higher power router, a directional antenna, etc. If you can go with some sort of a direct connect (i.e., a CAT 5 ethernet cable), I'd certainly use them that way, although it sort of defeats the purpose of using them.
..and was using an ordinary consumer D-link router (again, quite weak in terms of transmission power). ...But there are a number of things you can do to improve it, including, a higher power router, a directional antenna, etc. If you can go with some sort of a direct connect (i.e., a CAT 5 ethernet cable), I'd certainly use them that way, although it sort of defeats the purpose of using them.
Well glad to hear someone has done this before Artisian!
Actually the use of an ethernet cable would not be necessarily defeating the purpose, since your going to have to run power for the unit anyway - and your right, the connection would be more stable with a direct connect to a router..
Perhaps opting for ethernet over wireless would be the better option.
I guess it's just a question of how accessible a router is in relation to the desired location of an installation
I'll keep this in mind.
I was actually in the situation, Rich, where power was accessible within 25-30 feet or so, and yet if I ran an ethernet cable, it would be several hundred feet or so in length. Hence the experiment.
However, I found that the signal dropped out far too often, due to interference from other devices most likely. The Roku would reconnect, but the damage was done (some silence, usually in the middle of a song that you REALLY want to hear).
And generally, that's the problem with wireless , hotspots, etc. Dropouts. With analog signals, you might get noise, but the signal is still basically there. With digital, it's either there, or not.
Unless you're able to go point to point with directional antennas and radios designed for that sort of application to minimize dropouts.
I really appreciate it because
I didn't have a clue.
I won't be doing this for a long
time, so I will be observing as
you all work with these.
This is a project for the very
distant future.
You guys were very kind to give me
all of that info.
Thanks again,
Bruce, W 60 HZ, AM 1020, Carrier Current
And....X-13, 13.560 MHz Experimental
Wireless USB audio links are also available. Never tried one, don't know anyone that has but they claim around 150 to 200 feet range.
Never considered usb Mram, but it wouldn't it only be useful as an audio feed if your transmitter was nearby, not at a remote location?
Out of curiosity I just looked at (google) several usb audio ranging from $25 to $165 and all of them claim "up to 30 feet line of sight".
But I'm sure there are some able to transmit 150 feet or more, after all, they are just using radio waves.. miniature part 15 transmitters are they not!?
I think the USB device I saw was advertised by MCM Electronics.
The early posts referenced a studio transmitter link, I thought, using WiFi for the link which is usually good for around 100 feet with a home wireless router.
I currently am doing that, linking my AM station to an FM transmitter out in the garage where I can put the transmitter up a little higher for better range. The separation between the wireless router and the garage PC is about 50 feet.
The FM runs it's own programming and switches to the STL audio (ZaraRadio automation) for some of the syndicated shows I run on the AM.
(I am somewhat new to LP broadcasting, but am well versed in wifi and networking)
I'd recommend highly avoiding any and all internet streaming and dependency on such for programming. It's fine as a pre-recorded pull mechanism - think of finding ways to record shows or download the show from the source when ended. Much like downloading a podcast and plugging it into your scheduler for later play with the file stored on drive in your studio.
That eliminates data blips, connectivity failures, changes to the stream that happens at whim of broadcaster, etc.
I see lots of talk about connecting broadcast gear via the internet or over the air via IP. Again, highly recommend against it for the above reasons, latency, interference, etc. Overcoming these with low power (802.xx) and non-light of sight is nearly impossible.
For the "rebroadcasting" of programming from your main location/mixer/board to multiple transmitters and doing this with near live time (no lag) you want to stick to broadcasting audio as audio (as opposed to audio as data packets that need arranged, converted, etc.).
You are looking for preferably a point to multipoint audio and perhaps often now audio and video kit. Stick to kits that advertise non-line of sight (NLOS). Why? Because they operate on frequencies that aren't so easily blocked by obstructions. These from what I've seen tend to be from 1.2Ghz and on down. Give Ebay a quick looksie to see what is out there. Tons of Chinese import items out there, check for FCC certs.
If you must use wifi based solutions, get out of the 2.4Ghz spectrum, it's totally hazardous. Tons of interference. 5.8Ghz is notably better, but lots moving there also.
RadioLabs has a 900Mhz point-to-point NLOS solution that is FCC part 15 compliant with advertised 18 mile range, cost $500
[see: http://www.radiolabs.com/products/wireless/900-mhz-wireless-bridge-link.php ]
Tons of other wireless data solutions out there. Avoid fancy meshes, as you won't likely get audio syncing.
As for folks pushing the Barix solutions for IP based audio, yawn. Nice stuff, but too pricey for the LP folks I think. Here's an idea for far more robust IP / computer solution that you can afford to bundle even with your remote transmitters.
The idea, RISC-based ARM computers (the same CPU family running in your Droid or I-Phone). Some really affordable low power things you can buy now:
1. Raspberry Pi, $25-50 base board + power supply + SD card = < $100
[see: http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs ]
[to order: http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?id=43W5302&Ntt=43W5302& ]
also, see Ebay.
2. Sheevaplug / Guruplug / Dockstar / PogoPlug / etc. $25-100 + USB audio + USB stick = < $100
[see: tons of these light / no use on Ebay. ]
------------
So, with the option #2, I've "built" complete units for under $50. Basically, you "root" the device, reflash the built in stuff with Debian Linux. Tons of free software, toys, audio processing, etc. available for Debian.
We run these complete via command line/text control. Very responsive and great for controlling over the air where bandwidth might be less than perfect.
Option #1, the Raspberry Pi's are rather neat, but limited supplies. Will end up a tad more costly at this point.
Back to Barix, nothing I am aware of that it does that one of these devices can't do. Tons of audio input options and soundcards out there that will work for fancier wants some have over USB. You can even run Shoutcast / Icecast and other broadcast servers on these devices.
Here's the results of my initial tests of using Ruko with the shoutcast channel and the reconnection capabilities in the case of losing the stream.
I should mention that during these test were done using wifi, and that my wireless router was in the same room as my Roku unit.
For these test I randomly selected a college station WKCR, as they showed as having currently almost 200 listeners. I left it on constantly and unattended for the last couple days.. (it apparently is a jazz station) Every time I checked in on it, it was still playing.
By the way, these Ruko boxes do not have a on/off switch, nor do they use much energy at all.
So tonight, I intentionally broke the wifi connection by disconnecting the router..
First I simply unplugged the power to the router for a moment and then plugged it back in.. The Ruko quit streaming for a few moments or so, but then it started back up all on it's own.
Next, instead of killing power to the router, I disconnected the comcast cable from it for about 5 seconds, then reconnected it.. The Ruko went silent for about 10 or 15 seconds, and then began streaming again.
Then I disconnected the comcast cable to router for a full five minutes (Ruko fell silent)... upon reconnecting comcast to the router, I used my count up timer to time how long it took for Ruko to reconnect on it's own.. it took exactly 3 minutes and 4 seconds.
I repeated the above steps a second time and it took Ruko 3 minutes and 8 seconds to reconnect.
At no time during these test did I make any kind of interaction with the Ruko, nor at anytime did the Ruko display any information (on the tv screen that I had it hooked up to) about losing the stream or requesting a user interaction.
Although it is my understanding that if your streaming a movie from Netflix or something and the stream is lost then it will display a dialog for a user interaction, but evidently this is not what happens when streaming shoutcast..
Based on my test, as described above; if Ruko loses the shoutcast stream, it simply will sit there and wait for it to return, then will resume playing it.
Therefore it appears that Roku is indeed self healing.
The Roku is a nifty little unit. Use one for general video viewing and sometimes for audio streaming.
Using the Roku's at remote sites would be a tad tricky and perhaps somewhat dangerous. What you've done is interesting with software-only built in solution.
The problem comes in when there is a change of the source station for some reason. How do you intend on "reprogramming" the Roku to pickup the new station feed?
I'll note that Roku players do have some control software for "remote" controlling these units. Namely, there are several Roku software remote controllers for Android. Have yet to see one that shows you where you are in the navigation or simulate the TV experience. It's just like using a remote 🙁
If you have the Roku sitting right where you always are, fine. If not, I advise the Linux based computer route instead (can control via SSH, setup some pretty powerful audio processing, play files locally or via stream).
I have been using the Barix Instreamer/Extreamer for our City TIS AM station STL.
The link has been in constant use for over 4 years without a hiccup.
They were pricey when we bought them.
Prior to that I used Shoutcast from a desktop PC to Winamp running on an old laptop. It worked well but the occasional Windows forced updates would usually drop the stream as it would not always restart after a reboot.
Can I pick your brain a bit about the Barix Streamers @mram1500?
Simple questions are what does the Barix truly do? Streams Shoutcast, assuming Icecast. Supports built in storage and playback of files?
Barix units look slick and people swear by them, but unclear what justifies their hearty price.
Our IS Department guy noticed when I put it on the City Lan. Being the evil IS LAN manager he "modified" the stream paramaters. I believe we had initially set it up for point to multipoint which he said was cluttering up his network with a lot of pinging.
I'd have to go back and read over the setup manual as it's been over 4 years since I started using it.
It simply streams audio in our application. The transmitter has audio inputs (stereo or mono use), ETHERNET connection, wall wart connection and headphone jack to monitor. The reciever has audio connectors, wall wart connection and ETHERNET connection.
There is a slight delay, less than a couple seconds, in the transmission.
The setup appears very complex but most parameters are optional. All adjustments are done from a web browser. There are no external controls.
Censoredship, I'm a tad confused by your comment:
"Using the Roku's at remote sites would be a tad tricky and perhaps somewhat dangerous."
What the heck you talking about? I don't see it being tricky, I see it being quite simple. And I'm really at a loss as to how you would ever consider it dangerous.. whatever do you mean!?
"The problem comes in when there is a change of the source station for some reason. How do you intend on "reprogramming" the Roku to pickup the new station feed?
Not that I foresee ever being a need to change the source station (considering that it would be my own), but if that were the case, there's really no reprogramming involved; you would simply enter the new stream address and add it, leave it and forget it.
If you have the Roku sitting right where you always are, fine. If not, I advise the Linux based computer route instead (can control via SSH, setup some pretty powerful audio processing, play files locally or via stream).
The whole point is that the Roku does not need to be sitting right were I am, it can be across the nation somewhere and it would still work for this purpose. It's a stand alone unit that only needs power and internet connection, wifi or ethernet - an initial setup, and it's set and done.
I'm not familiar with the Linux system you refer to, but I'm sure it's probably as efficient as you describe, but it sounds like it does require a computer at the remote site, eliminating the portability and considerably an increase in the power to run it.
Going the route of Barix units would undoubtedly be the preferred method, but it cost in the $500 range to do it, whereas the Ruko route total cost is in the $50 range
edited and reposted in my comment below.. bad formatting of a cite cut off the beginning of my post