General Forum

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

TripEnglish — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:34:26 GMT

I have to agree here. I remember that as dealers we hemmed and hawed that we wanted this solution and when it finally came, it didn't take long for us to shrug and wonder, "Is this what we waited so long for?"

I agree with other posters here that the "wireless kit" should be less an extra box and more a built in feature. It would significantly reduce the cost of the hardware to build in a wireless module into a BeoSound rather than hanging one off the back via ML that has to be seperately built, packaged, shipped, stored, etc.

The biggest practical reason I can think of to implement this ASAP is BeoPort. Most of my clients want the ability to stream music, but don't want a physical ML run back to the PC. This would be such an easy solution!

Here's hoping there are more revolutions in the year to come on this.

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Stan — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:38:39 GMT

Chrisreunion:

Indeed a Masterlink wireless would have been a right step forward, this would have enabled products like the BeoLab 3500 to be connected with a single cable instead of the cable mess we have to deal with (Powerlink, + another separate IR eye).

This is no longer true with the latest software release. Please see this thread: http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/thread/91361.aspx

Stan

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

burantek — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:35:08 GMT

has anyone implemented the "beolink wireless 1" yet?

any further thoughts?

thx in advance,

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Jez — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:11:27 GMT

New BeoSound 5 should come with a link transmiter inside it. Digital out/Power link for main speakers, then built in wireless for other rooms. Guess we'll find out soon. Fingers crossed.

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Dave — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:13:03 GMT

Oh you should get a beolink and have the BL4000's or BL6000's in another room to enjoy or even computer speakers? Otherwise your missing out on them eh? How do you rate the BL4000's with the BL2? I didn't like the sound with the lower frequencies cut from the 4000's. That should be really nice with the BL3's and the BL2 though.

Nice nice choice for the BL2500 and Beosound, i couldn't think of a better CD system for the bedroom!

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Chrisreunion — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:57:16 GMT

I also think BeoLink Wireless is used at 10% of its capacities.

Indeed a Masterlink wireless would have been a right step forward, this would have enabled products like the BeoLab 3500 to be connected with a single cable instead of the cable mess we have to deal with (Powerlink, + another separate IR eye).

I also think the audio signal transmission should be digital: all audio sources are digital nowadays, except for FM radio).

Having the receiver built in the speaker would be logical to me, maybe not for main speakers, but at least for the BeoLab 3500 and for a new range of BeoLink Wireless speakers: instead of launching a BeoVox 1, why on earth didn't they design a Wireless BeoLab , like a BeoSound 3 with built-in Wireless & infra-red receivers, a different control panel on top of it, a large display like BeoCenter 2's, and complete portability to use the wireless options everywhere you go?

I use wireless speakers in my bathroom & kitchen, both use the 900 Mhz technology which is much less jammed than this 2.4 Ghz everybody uses, I get excellent sound without wires, and just need to put a B&O IR receiver in the rooms where I want to control sources.

The 2 speakers cost me EUR 99...and you can use them as mono speakers like on BeoSound 3.

I also believe they should integrate the Wireless transmitters in the main systems, this would help reduce the cable mess that these "wireless" systems eventually produce!

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Sal — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:20:32 GMT

David, no worries! Thanks for asking... well, just because I have a few Beolabs, doesn't mean I have them set up (unfortunate for me...) I have yet to find my "perfect" set up and I have a habit of moving things around. Currently: I have the Beolab 4000s (on a full wall wide bookshelf) and Lab 2 as my main audio set up connected to a BS9000 (hung on a wall). (I used to own an Avant which I sold to a good friend recently, where my Lab3's were L and R fronts, and 6000 backs). The 4000s will soon be replaced in the bookshelf with the Lab 3's in the next week when I receive my long MKIII powerlink cables. The Beolab 2500s are sitting astride a Beosound 4000 in the bedroom. I will soon be masterlinking all of it (which is why I ranted about the wireless 1's shortcomings).

My place is rather small, so the Beolab 6000s and 4000s will have to stay idle in storage.

-Sal

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Dave — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:53:23 GMT

Sorry i'm a little off topic Sal, but i look at your signature and think wow you have a fair few Beolabs! Out of curiosity, how do you have them setup?

Cheers

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Sal — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:50:55 GMT

Jez:
Even go a step further and build the wireless unit into the systems, true wireless.

Great point! I think I was so entrenched in the ways of B & O I forgot to step out of the box...

--Sal

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Jez — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:16:32 GMT

Even go a step further and build the wireless unit into the systems, true wireless.

Re: Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

The Stig - ver. 1.7 — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:50:10 GMT

Sal:

The ideal solution would be true Wireless Masterlink (we all know that video signals can't be transmitted via masterlink, but sound and sourcedata can), so why NOT create a wireless solution where the wireless 1 boxes can be true wireless masterlink. Connect your A/V master from the living room via masterlink cable to a WL1 box, and then in the bedroom connect your Beosound3200 via masterlink to another WL1 box. The boxes should be able to be programmed correctly to the units they are connected to (I would imagine that they can have peoper option programming, just like masters do), and viola! Masterlink in the home without wires.

-Sal

Yes thats the one thing not possible, to connect to masters together wireless but in most cases thy are in the same room.

Beolink Wireless 1 (IMHO - still less than what it could be)

Sal — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:33:23 GMT

In the Torben interview thread, I posted a question about why Wireless 1 was crippled, and was pointed to this thread: http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/thread/29733.aspx, which spoke of the differences between Wireless 1.0 and 2.0.

Myself and many others have stated that a true wireless masterlink solution would sell like hotcakes, but the wireless1 is more of a wireless beolink active, and continues to be so.

One unit will be a transmitter, and multiple units connected to speakers via powerlink will be receivers. Hence on the reciever end, the masterlink socket is useless. Unless I am mistaken, this continues to be so with the Mark II or 2.0 version.

The ideal solution would be true Wireless Masterlink (we all know that video signals can't be transmitted via masterlink, but sound and sourcedata can), so why NOT create a wireless solution where the wireless 1 boxes can be true wireless masterlink. Connect your A/V master from the living room via masterlink cable to a WL1 box, and then in the bedroom connect your Beosound3200 via masterlink to another WL1 box. The boxes should be able to be programmed correctly to the units they are connected to (I would imagine that they can have peoper option programming, just like masters do), and viola! Masterlink in the home without wires.

Maybe its simpler the way WL1 is engineered right now, but it can be so much more.

-Sal