Re: OT: wireless headphones
- From: Chuck Riggs <chriggs@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:43:33 +0000
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:26:48 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:08:41 +0000, Nick Spalding <spalding@xxxxxx> wrote:
John Varela wrote, inNot in BrE.
<0001HW.C54F0701000868A8B01AD9AF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:11:29 -0500:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:04:43 -0500, TsuiDF wrote
(in article
<1ff49db1-ef5b-4e68-ab9c-c380cb378a10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
wireless headphones
Shouldn't that be "cordless" headphones?
I know that "wireless headphones" greatly outGoogles both "cordless
headphones" and "radio headphones"; I'm asking not about what is but
about what should be.
I assume it refers to the means of transmission, all same wireless
router, though I see William says some use IR.
I suspect that the term "wireless" is a recent coining: "wire less", and is
not necessarily derived from the original BrE "wireless" (radio). As such it
is not limited to any particular wire-free communication technology.
ObWaves: Radio waves and IR waves are all electromagnetic. They just differ in
wavelength.
The advantage of radio waves, which the Sennheiser headphones use,
being that you needn't be in line of sight of the transmitter, nor do
the objects found in the average house obstruct the signal.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
.
- References:
- OT: wireless headphones
- From: TsuiDF
- Re: OT: wireless headphones
- From: John Varela
- Re: OT: wireless headphones
- From: Nick Spalding
- Re: OT: wireless headphones
- From: Peter Duncanson (BrE)
- OT: wireless headphones
- Prev by Date: Re: Picture-rail
- Next by Date: Re: Does this name sound correct?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: wireless headphones
- Next by thread: Re: OT: wireless headphones
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
