Thoughts on wireless hardware

[Ian J]

As long as the P2 has decent wi-fi so that I can tether it to my phone I'm not too bothered about it having 3G/4G etc.

What I would like is more compatibility with software that requires a wi-fi signal, things like Skype, you-tube etc.

DAB+ would be a definite selling point for me, I listen to more Radio than I ever do TV.

Maybe it's time for a poll.

Something where we can vote for multiple items though as there are 2 from the initial list I would like to vote for.

 

[Binky]

Edit edit: Silicon Labs has an FM/FMHD/DAB/DAB+ receiver chip for which I've found online prices of $11. No AM though.

That would be awesome. Please can we have one of these.

Even for the people who wouldn't/couldn't use it, its only a few dollars extra for the DAB/DAB+/DMB

...and it does RDS too!

 

[Grench]

Doesn't anyone know anything about the costs?

IR would cost pennies.
AM/FM receiver chips seem to cost about $10 with a LOT of features packed into it. NXP sells a chip that looks like it may be an AM/FM receiver with fewer features (which means more interface work required) for about $7.


Edit: Yeah, $7 to $10 seems to be the range for AM/FM receivers.


Edit edit: Silicon Labs has an FM/FMHD/DAB/DAB+ receiver chip for which I've found online prices of $11. No AM though.


edit edit edit: DVB tuner chips are in the $5-$15 range, but I have no idea how this would interface with the rest of the system. The FM/DVB chips can communicate via i2c and digital audio, very easy to interface: these are entirely different beasts that would probably require a lot of extra work to make work, even if they can be had for cheap.

I'm not opposed to everyone spending an extra $11 to get the FM/DAB receiver - I just wish it could do ATSC as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television

Although the North American ATSC format has some serious weak points when trying to use it with a device in motion, tends to need antennas the size of people and has a noise floor that doubles whenever the sun is above the horizon, I'd still like the tuner to cover ATSC - but then we'd need an external coaxial port for an antenna.

 

[WizardStan]

Like the World wide TV tuner chips from SI? I can't find any suppliers with them in stock but the order pages list them at just around $3.

Again though, TV input is completely different from radio input. The receiver chip itself may be cheaper but there's a lot more required for it.

 

[Binky]

I can't see much point in having a built-in receiver that requires a large antenna..

If you've got a big antenna, use a USB receiver.

AFAIK all commonly used audio broadcasts can cope with headphone wires or a cheap telescopic antenna.

 

[Granitehead]

So we have:

GPS - ?

Cellular radio/3G/etc - ?

magnetometer/compass (especially useful in combination with GPS) - $5

FM/FMHD/DAB/DAB+ - $11 and easy to integrate (or with just FM/AM for similar prices. Do we need AM?)

DVB - $5-$15 but hard to integrate

IR - <$1

 

[comradekingu]

Considerations for PCB space is a greater concern. Also, certifications for FCC and CE aren't cheap, and it takes time.

Gwc-zero is delayed for euro delivery due to the latter.

The potential for interference increases as you cram more (non software defined) wireless radios in.

 

[Granitehead]

Considerations for PCB space is a greater concern. Also, certifications for FCC isnt cheap, and it takes time.

Gwc-zero is delayed for euro delivery due to the latter.

The potential for interference increases as you cram more (non software defined) wireless radios in.

Interferece: Are you sure? I'm quite sure that's only a problem when you broadcast, and of the suggested things only cellular radio and ir broadcast. IR certainly doesn't interfere with W-LAN or cellular radio (would be quite a lot on that). W-LAN and cellular radio can't be that difficult as every single smart phone has it and ED said something that it's likely cellular radio will be included optionally anyway.

PCB space - I don't know much about about PCB space. Do you? I think it can't hurt to find out what is possible in theory (that is, financially and interest-wise) and then you can check whether it's actually possible once you know that people want it.

I don't know much about FCC either (only that it's something American, so it's certainly not what's delaying European GCWs -  I think that's probably rather CE), do you know what it costs? As far as I know you need such a certificate anyway, do you know how much more it is when you put more wireless hardware in?

I think we should just be sure not to underestimate the costs in the survey and then ED can check whether it's possible to include popular stuff with the budget in the survey.

If it takes a little more time to add a popular feature, then I think it's worth it.

 

[comradekingu]

Its atleast electrical at some point, and all wireless devices are required not to interfere with others, generally. It just seems to me, if you start out with limited PCB space, FM radio and DVB tv is quite far down on the list of things to include.

FM is going away "sometime" in 2015+ and dvb uses mpeg2 in some areas and mpeg4 in others. And it sounds like royalties and restrictions and potential trouble.

 

[Granitehead]

@comradekingu:

Well, to me it seems that as we cannot know stuff like whether there is room enough on the pcb we should just evaluate whether there is even enough interest and leave the rest to ED instead of starting baseless discussions about whether it's doable or not.

You don't want FM and DVB, fine, vote against it in the poll. By the way I don't need those either. I'll probably vote against DVB too and I only want FM if it's on the same chip as DAB and can thus be had more or less for free. But I feel like you are trying to remove stuff from the list of possibilities before the vote, which is kind of undemocratic. I don't like it, anyway.

@All:

What do you think should the options in the poll be for each item? What about:

Want want want!

Would be nice if it's no trouble.

Don't care, why not? If it's absolutely no trouble...

No way!

 

[Binky]

I would be happy paying more than <estimated additional cost of feature> for <feature>

I would be happy paying less than <estimated additional cost of feature> for <feature>

I would not want to pay any extra for <feature>

I would be put off buying the Pyra if it had <feature>

 

[Null]

dvb uses mpeg2 in some areas and mpeg4 in others.

Or both if you live in the UK, (freeview uses mpeg2 freeviewHD uses mpeg4).

 

[WizardStan]

dvb uses mpeg2 in some areas and mpeg4 in others

That would probably be irrelevant. From the look of it, these chips can be tuned in and stream the raw data, whether it be mpeg2 or mpeg4 or anything else, and the CPU (or other decoder chip) needs to handle the actual rendering. I think that's how it works.

 

[fusion_power]

People already complain about how expencive keyboard light would be and now, you guys want even more expencive blingblings?  Well OK then,  as long as it doesn't add costs because I only need decent WiFi. And this time please no compromises in WiFi, not that crap that is in the current Pandora (even right next to the wifi router I don't get decent download rates - WTF?) P2 should have a real large WiFi antenna for max WiFi capacity.

 

[WizardStan]

Well OK then,  as long as it doesn't add costs because I only need decent WiFi

So far we're looking at adding maybe $5 to $20 to the cost. That really isn't a lot, even if you don't foresee yourself using the extra hardware.

 

[Granitehead]

I would be happy paying more than <estimated additional cost of feature> for <feature>

I would be happy paying less than <estimated additional cost of feature> for <feature>

I would not want to pay any extra for <feature>

I would be put off buying the Pyra if it had <feature>

Maybe your more money-oriented approach is better. I would like to suggest some minor changes. For clarification, mainly.


I would be happy even paying more than <estimated additional cost of feature> for <feature>

I would be happy paying <estimated additional cost of feature> or less for <feature>

I would not want to pay any extra for <feature>

I would be put off buying the Pyra even if it had <feature> for free

Changes in 1+2 made to make it clear which one people should choose who would be okay with about <estimated additional cost of feature> as a limit.

Changes in 4 made to further distinguish from 3; 4 isn't supposed to be about money.

It came to my mind that if we are making a nice poll about additional wireless hardware, why not include other types of hardware too, to have just one poll for all additional hardware? Say stuff like accelerometers, gyroscopes, cameras, etc.

(I would be in favour of the former two but option 3 against the latter)

 

[Titcher]

I like the idea of having the ability to decode many different types of radio data, the more features, the better. I wonder if a software defined radio would be a viable way of decoding many standards?

 

[WizardStan]

That would be pretty cool. I'll investigate to see if such a thing can be built without cannibalizing other hardware.

 

[Grench]

Like the World wide TV tuner chips from SI? I can't find any suppliers with them in stock but the order pages list them at just around $3.


Again though, TV input is completely different from radio input. The receiver chip itself may be cheaper but there's a lot more required for it.

OK - those are VERY cool.  Skip the FM radio & Euro-only TV and give us a worldwide TV tuner - with an external antenna connector please.

Of course I'd like to have an external antenna connector for the WiFi radio as well.  But that all may just be me.

I can't see much point in having a built-in receiver that requires a large antenna..

If you've got a big antenna, use a USB receiver.

AFAIK all commonly used audio broadcasts can cope with headphone wires or a cheap telescopic antenna.

Hey - if you know of a solid USB WiFi receiver that works with the Pandora and can connect to an external antenna, please let me know?   I'm actively looking for one for a project.

http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/15294-usb-wifi-stick-with-removable-antenna/

I like the idea of having the ability to decode many different types of radio data, the more features, the better. I wonder if a software defined radio would be a viable way of decoding many standards?

That is pretty interesting.  From what I can tell they have found a receiver chip that is capable of broad spectrum reception - which is very cool.  That's the first 1/2 of that puzzle though - there is more to it.

The 2nd half is the antenna.  In order to truly cover a broad spectrum, the antenna would need to be able to be tuned by the frequency - OR be able to switch between multiple antennas that each cover the center of interesting bands.

Antennas can be a tricky business.  Optimize an antenna to maximize a specific frequency and it looses it's ability to receive other frequencies.  Similarly, if you make an antenna so that it becomes more directional, it looses it's ability to receive as well from other directions (Gain).

Although you can create an actively tuned dipole (look up electric screwdriver Ham radio antenna), the high frequencies used in WiFi and digital TV are very unforgiving for design - it comes down to measuring in tenths of millimeters.

 

[Ian J]

DVB could be an issue in the UK as any device capable of receiving terrestrial TV transmissions has to notify the TV Licensing Agency of the buyers address so that they can get you to buy a TV licence.