Against infrared receivers
The traditional kit: emitters in the room and a receiver with headphones for every attendee. It works, and it has a cost almost nobody counts in full.
Infrared and radio systems solve distributing the audio, not translating it: somebody still has to be speaking on that channel. They get compared with this anyway, because from the organiser's side they are the same budget line.
Where each one stands
Where receivers win
They need no coverage and no data. In a crypt, a bunker, a mine or anywhere without signal, they are still the only thing that works.
Where this wins
Nothing to hand out, collect, charge or wipe down. Everybody uses their own phone and their own earphones, and the cost does not grow with the number of attendees.
The hidden cost
A receiver is cheap; the staff handing them out and counting them, the batteries, the ones that go missing and the storage are not. At an event of three hundred people that is one person full time.
What receivers do not give you
An infrared channel needs somebody translating into it. This brings the translation; that only carries it.
When they still win
With no mobile coverage and no wifi for the audience, this does not work and there is no way round it. Nor with an audience that carries neither phone nor earphones — which exists, and at events for older people is more common than it looks from an office.
Questions people ask
- Can I use both?
- Yes, and it is reasonable: receivers for whoever has no phone, a link for everybody else. The output audio is the same.
- What if the room's wifi is poor?
- Translated audio is light but needs stability. If the room wifi is doubtful, it is better to tell the audience to use their own data.
- How many listeners does it take?
- There is no listener limit and no cost per listener: what is billed is the speaking, not how many are listening.