5 ms·
Evidence seems hard to come by on this subject, but a web search yields a lot of results along these lines: https://www.quora.com/Which-uses-less-battery-for-a
by lambda_lover 9y ago
Evidence seems hard to come by on this subject, but a web search yields a lot of results along these lines:
https://www.quora.com/Which-uses-less-battery-for-a-car-audio-Bluetooth-or-AUX https://www.quora.com/Which-uses-less-battery-for-a-car-audi...
It's hardly a scientific study, but it reinforces my prior belief that aux doesn't inherently require any electricity, while bluetooth is sending information over radio waves which of course has to use electricity.
I'm not sure about the difference when it comes to fancy, high-powered headphones, but my (anecdotal) experience with bluetooth vs. analog certainly supports the idea that bluetooth uses more power. I'd appreciate some citations if you have some other information about this subject.
- WillPostForFood 9y agoAUX has to send electricity down the wire to drive the speakers in headphones. The Quora article you link to is weirdly written but confirms this, "the signal is from your phone and your phone uses it's battery to make it." I.e., headphones work by taking electricity from your phone and converting it to sound.
- criddell 9y agoThe Quora article also mentions car audio. In a car, Bluetooth uses more power than a 3.5 mm cable plugged into an AUX port on the head unit.
- WillPostForFood 9y agoYes, it is saying the car uses more power for the bluetooth connection, than receiving the AUX in from the phone. Not that the phone uses less power.
- coob 9y ago> aux doesn't inherently require any electricit Yes I'm sure those headphone drivers magically shake themselves.
- aforty 9y agoWhat on earth do you need a scientific study on? There are speakers in the headphones that produce audio. Where do you think the power for that comes from?