7 ms·

I have high end sennheisers and airbuds. The only time I pull out my sennheisers is when im doing recording or live sampling. Bluetooth is opensource, it's not

I have high end sennheisers and airbuds. The only time I pull out my sennheisers is when im doing recording or live sampling. Bluetooth is opensource, it's not overly complicated it's just new to you. This technology was already being used in live performances with no one complaining.

userbinator 8y ago
it's not overly complicated it's just new to you Download the Bluetooth specification and try to read it. How is that not "overly complicated" compared to three copper wires?
- TheJoYo 8y ago
  Specifications are used to reference in conjunction with an implementation. There are many specifications I could point to that would overwhelm most engineers yet they use those standards just fine.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    The point I'm making is that it is a very complex standard whose use-case goes far beyond carrying audio from a device on a person to the headphones in his/her ears. To give another example, GSM is also a very complicated standard (or more precisely, set of standards) but no one would really advocate for all landlines in buildings to be replaced with non-mobile GSM phones attached to the wall.
    - derefr 8y ago
      ISDN and SIP are complicated standards, but telecom engineers do advocate to their customers, whenever possible, to drop POTS in favour of VoIP softphone service run over the same lines. VoIP-over-ISDN solutions are far easier to wire a large building for (it's just the existing ethernet drops, coming from the same switches the building already has, now carrying an additional VLAN); it removes many potential sources of interference; it increases voice quality; and it's just plain easier to deliver. All that despite being, in pretty much every way, "more complicated."
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    Bluetooth is definitely not one of those "uses those standards just fine" cases... if a user has just a dozen peripherals, a even a 99% success rate starts failing on you pretty often On a more personal note, I have to keep a mental map of which bluetooth devices will work with which bluetooth receivers... the tech is not NEARLY as universal as people like to think it is. Generally speaking, devices of the same vintage (or make) will talk to each other, but it is a crapshoot as to whether my a v2 headset will talk to a v4 USB receiver, or be seen by a new laptop/ipad/whatever.
- 13of40 8y ago
  This. Bluetooth is 24 years old, but it's still a crapshoot whether two brand new devices will talk to each other.
- derefr 8y ago
  "Three copper wires" understates the complexity of physical audio standards a lot. Most modern audio components can (still) deliver/accept SPDIF, for example, over the same wires that they deliver/accept analog audio. Many modern audio reproduction components can recognize TRRRS control signals. The headphone-jack audio path is a loose de-facto standard with a mess of variably-supported extensions. Also, especially in consumer hi-fi systems, those "three copper wires" found on phono connectors can create ground loops, which is why the favoured standard for audio for most of the reproduction chain isn't the plain-jane analog audio path, but rather either digital, or analog-over-optical, or just analog with opto-isolation (and thus separate reference domains, requiring separately-powered active components); and why the audio production chain uses balanced analog. (And nobody has ever stuck a mini-XLR connector onto a smartphone, so they're not what we're talking about by "losing the audio jack" here. That'd be cool, though.) To put all that another way: the classical analog-audio model, where you have a single current running all the way from a high-impedance microphone through an amp to a loudspeaker, is just not how modern audio chains look. There's a lot more active components, a lot more digital logic, a lot more circuitry. It's complex, just like Bluetooth is. (Which is not to say Bluetooth is good or better somehow; just that your smartphone's headphone connector doesn't win when measured on the axis of "simplicity of implementing the signalling standard interoperably with all devices the user would expect to plug it into." There are a lot of active components in a smartphone's headphone-jack audio path—just as many as in its Bluetooth audio path!) Also, regardless of Bluetooth, headphones themselves have been gaining features requiring active components, like noise-cancelling, for years now. For such headphones, making them into wireless Bluetooth headphones comes at a cost of just one additional radio chip, connected to what was already a pretty complex on-board microcontroller. (Hell, many modern headphones have firmware. Wireless or not.)
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    Ground loops have never been a problem for headphones. And SPDIF over optical (presumably you mean ADAT) is considered vintage now. The favoured standard for professional digital audio these days is some variant of Thunderbolt or USB, with Firewire for the old timers. At the high end you'll see Audio-over-Ethernet (e.g. Dante), although it's not used much for low-end amateur or semi-pro production because it's not a cheap technology, and it only starts to make sense when you have tens or hundreds of channels going from one place to another - e.g. from a stage box to a front-of-house mixer. https://www.audinate.com/node/128 https://www.audinate.com/node/128 Analog copper wire between microphones, guitars, synthesizers, FX pedals, and digital interfaces is still absolutely standard equipment in studios at every level. Hum is avoided by using balanced three-wire balanced connections, which are almost as old a technology as mini-jacks. Analog has zero latency compared to digital, it's at least as reliable, and it "just works". Bluetooth is simply not a professional audio technology. It's not enough of a standard, and not reliable enough even when it's implemented correctly.
jcelerier 8y ago
> This technology was already being used in live performances with no one complaining. nah, in live situation it's 99% FM radio used for transmission
- archagon 8y ago
  Yeah, BT is literally impossible to use live. Every ms counts, and here we’re on the order of 50-150. Even native drivers often aren’t good enough for wired equipment, forcing users to upgrade to ASIO drivers! I know I couldn't use my guitar interface or keyboard without them during my Windows days, though the situation is admittedly much improved on the macOS side.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dfox 8y ago
    Another thing is that primary thing you want to do wirelessly in live situation are mics and maybe instruments. That implies relative large dynamic range on input (certainly more than 16b samples), which is hard to do digitally in sane way.
tomc1985 8y ago
Bluetooth's implementation complexity contributes to the high cost of its peripherals Also (at least for Sennheiser) the non-bluetooth (2.4ghz) wireless headphones are pretty stellar. Personally I prefer that approach over Bluetooth
- mattkevan 8y ago
  I bought a decent set of Bluetooth Anker earbuds for £14. Better sound than the last set of wired earbuds that I got for £20. I still use an iPhone 6S, but I’m not going back to wired headphones.
vuln 8y ago
"not overly complicated" seems like the security aspect is since most companies glance over it.
smolder 8y ago
Can you cite examples of people using Bluetooth in live performances? 20ms is intolerable for a band playing live together. Any hickups in signal for a major performance would also obviously be a problem.

userbinator 8y ago

it's not overly complicated it's just new to you Download the Bluetooth specification and try to read it. How is that not "overly complicated" compared to three copper wires?

TheJoYo 8y ago
Specifications are used to reference in conjunction with an implementation. There are many specifications I could point to that would overwhelm most engineers yet they use those standards just fine.
- userbinator 8y ago
  The point I'm making is that it is a very complex standard whose use-case goes far beyond carrying audio from a device on a person to the headphones in his/her ears. To give another example, GSM is also a very complicated standard (or more precisely, set of standards) but no one would really advocate for all landlines in buildings to be replaced with non-mobile GSM phones attached to the wall.
  - derefr 8y ago
    ISDN and SIP are complicated standards, but telecom engineers do advocate to their customers, whenever possible, to drop POTS in favour of VoIP softphone service run over the same lines. VoIP-over-ISDN solutions are far easier to wire a large building for (it's just the existing ethernet drops, coming from the same switches the building already has, now carrying an additional VLAN); it removes many potential sources of interference; it increases voice quality; and it's just plain easier to deliver. All that despite being, in pretty much every way, "more complicated."
- tomc1985 8y ago
  Bluetooth is definitely not one of those "uses those standards just fine" cases... if a user has just a dozen peripherals, a even a 99% success rate starts failing on you pretty often On a more personal note, I have to keep a mental map of which bluetooth devices will work with which bluetooth receivers... the tech is not NEARLY as universal as people like to think it is. Generally speaking, devices of the same vintage (or make) will talk to each other, but it is a crapshoot as to whether my a v2 headset will talk to a v4 USB receiver, or be seen by a new laptop/ipad/whatever.
13of40 8y ago
This. Bluetooth is 24 years old, but it's still a crapshoot whether two brand new devices will talk to each other.
derefr 8y ago
"Three copper wires" understates the complexity of physical audio standards a lot. Most modern audio components can (still) deliver/accept SPDIF, for example, over the same wires that they deliver/accept analog audio. Many modern audio reproduction components can recognize TRRRS control signals. The headphone-jack audio path is a loose de-facto standard with a mess of variably-supported extensions. Also, especially in consumer hi-fi systems, those "three copper wires" found on phono connectors can create ground loops, which is why the favoured standard for audio for most of the reproduction chain isn't the plain-jane analog audio path, but rather either digital, or analog-over-optical, or just analog with opto-isolation (and thus separate reference domains, requiring separately-powered active components); and why the audio production chain uses balanced analog. (And nobody has ever stuck a mini-XLR connector onto a smartphone, so they're not what we're talking about by "losing the audio jack" here. That'd be cool, though.) To put all that another way: the classical analog-audio model, where you have a single current running all the way from a high-impedance microphone through an amp to a loudspeaker, is just not how modern audio chains look. There's a lot more active components, a lot more digital logic, a lot more circuitry. It's complex, just like Bluetooth is. (Which is not to say Bluetooth is good or better somehow; just that your smartphone's headphone connector doesn't win when measured on the axis of "simplicity of implementing the signalling standard interoperably with all devices the user would expect to plug it into." There are a lot of active components in a smartphone's headphone-jack audio path—just as many as in its Bluetooth audio path!) Also, regardless of Bluetooth, headphones themselves have been gaining features requiring active components, like noise-cancelling, for years now. For such headphones, making them into wireless Bluetooth headphones comes at a cost of just one additional radio chip, connected to what was already a pretty complex on-board microcontroller. (Hell, many modern headphones have firmware. Wireless or not.)
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Ground loops have never been a problem for headphones. And SPDIF over optical (presumably you mean ADAT) is considered vintage now. The favoured standard for professional digital audio these days is some variant of Thunderbolt or USB, with Firewire for the old timers. At the high end you'll see Audio-over-Ethernet (e.g. Dante), although it's not used much for low-end amateur or semi-pro production because it's not a cheap technology, and it only starts to make sense when you have tens or hundreds of channels going from one place to another - e.g. from a stage box to a front-of-house mixer. https://www.audinate.com/node/128 https://www.audinate.com/node/128 Analog copper wire between microphones, guitars, synthesizers, FX pedals, and digital interfaces is still absolutely standard equipment in studios at every level. Hum is avoided by using balanced three-wire balanced connections, which are almost as old a technology as mini-jacks. Analog has zero latency compared to digital, it's at least as reliable, and it "just works". Bluetooth is simply not a professional audio technology. It's not enough of a standard, and not reliable enough even when it's implemented correctly.

jcelerier 8y ago

> This technology was already being used in live performances with no one complaining. nah, in live situation it's 99% FM radio used for transmission

archagon 8y ago
Yeah, BT is literally impossible to use live. Every ms counts, and here we’re on the order of 50-150. Even native drivers often aren’t good enough for wired equipment, forcing users to upgrade to ASIO drivers! I know I couldn't use my guitar interface or keyboard without them during my Windows days, though the situation is admittedly much improved on the macOS side.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dfox 8y ago
  Another thing is that primary thing you want to do wirelessly in live situation are mics and maybe instruments. That implies relative large dynamic range on input (certainly more than 16b samples), which is hard to do digitally in sane way.

tomc1985 8y ago

Bluetooth's implementation complexity contributes to the high cost of its peripherals Also (at least for Sennheiser) the non-bluetooth (2.4ghz) wireless headphones are pretty stellar. Personally I prefer that approach over Bluetooth

mattkevan 8y ago
I bought a decent set of Bluetooth Anker earbuds for £14. Better sound than the last set of wired earbuds that I got for £20. I still use an iPhone 6S, but I’m not going back to wired headphones.

vuln 8y ago

"not overly complicated" seems like the security aspect is since most companies glance over it.

smolder 8y ago

Can you cite examples of people using Bluetooth in live performances? 20ms is intolerable for a band playing live together. Any hickups in signal for a major performance would also obviously be a problem.