4 ms·

Reliability, too. I don't trust bluetooth at all. And price: a jack is dumb tech and cheap (cheap anough that I always had about 10 extra jacks of all kinds wi

Reliability, too. I don't trust bluetooth at all. And price: a jack is dumb tech and cheap (cheap anough that I always had about 10 extra jacks of all kinds with me when I was doing a gig). But to be fair, wireless transmitters/receivers do exist for musicians. They don't use bluetooth ofc, but that means that the latency can be bearable with wireless. It's made for live playing though (freedom of movement), no point using that in studio

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Yup. It's not the radio that causes the latency, but the software stack. You absolutely can make low-latency and just-works wireless solution for musicians, but it's name will not be Bluetooth.
Spooky23 8y ago
Reliability is huge. The bluetooth implementations all suck. My $40k car is about as reliable and predictable from a bluetooth perspective as Chinese knock-off Jawbone copycat from 2007.
- falcrist 8y ago
  WHY is this still the case? I mean, Bluetooth is fundamentally just a communications protocol broadcast with some kind of antenna. Yet I don't have these kinds of issues making wifi or cell service work. Who decided to use such a flaky protocol for audio and such, and then remove the reliable connection?
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    It’s like many things designed by committee of stakeholders with very different needs. Everyone gets what they want, except for the end user!
  - tjohns 8y ago
    The problem with Bluetooth is the stack is too complex. Too many application-specific profiles baked directly into the protocol, which in turn need to be dealt with by device manufacturers. Bluetooth basically handles everything from OSI Layer 1 through 6 at the same time. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles Add to that great complexity at Layer 1, and constantly changing specs. Bluetooth 1, 2, and 4 are all radically different than each other. Compare with WiFi, which only has to do one thing (Layer 1-2). Cellular is much more complex, but that's why releasing a new phone involves endless rounds of (usually mandatory and very strict) carrier certification.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      The RJ-45 connector is an open standard that can carry basically anything—internet, video, audio, low-level data, etc—at a high bandwidth and with low latency. Why can't we have a wireless standard that does that? I want non crappy Bluetooth mice that don't require a separate USB dongle. :( Edit: To be clear, I'm sure ethernet cables are an entirely different thing and there's actually a very good reason why wireless makes everything more complicated. But, well, maybe that's one of the reasons people would like to stick with wires.
Frondo 8y ago
I do like wireless, for a different kind of reliability: never ever having to worry that I'm going to snap off the plug in my phone, pull the jack off the circuit board from sitting on it wrong, whatever. When I sit down on the train, last thing I want is to sit on my phone wrong and wreck the phone and the headphones at the same time. Moving parts and physical connections are fragile. Wireless connections solve that fragility. Agreed that pairing sucks, but that's a solvable problem.
- mcdevilkiller 8y ago
  Why are you sitting on your phone, in the first place?
  - Frondo 8y ago
    While I'm not the most careful person in the world, I'm also not the most incautious; I think it's probably not an uncommon experience for people who do regularly ride trains--e.g. those of us living in big cities where you commute by train instead of your car--that you sit and you realize you're sitting on your coat in an odd way that's got your phone in the pocket underneath you where you're sitting. I mean, at some level, come on and use your imagination. People riding the metro don't always have total control over getting their belongings situated properly when the train's packed and there's a lot of bustling around. I assure you this experience is not unique to me.
    - _Tev 8y ago
      That's weird, it took me half a year (commuting daily) to go from "carrying phone in jeans' back pocket is practical" to "I have to take out phone from the pocket _every time_ before I sit". No problems ever since. But I guess I learn fast ... Unless it's setting up some wireless crap.
      - Frondo 8y ago
        Hey that's great. You know what? With the wireless earbuds, I never have to think about that again. I can throw my phone in my pocket, any pocket, and leave it there while I get crammed into a metro car. So, I guess there are tradeoffs -- and fixing pairing means everyone can enjoy freedom from one more wire, while keeping on using a wire means we keep adapting our behaviors around a wire.
soundwave106 8y ago
Yeah, it's all for freedom of movement at shows. Even though wireless transmitters have gotten a lot better than previous times (in the 1980s one of the Spinal Tap spoofs was getting radio interference in their wireless guitar system if I recall correctly), now using similar frequency bands wi-fi does with proprietary protocols from what I see (definitely not Bluetooth!)... you still see reviews of reliability problems in some circumstances. You'd definitely want to carry around a standard guitar cable as a backup if you have one.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Yup. It's not the radio that causes the latency, but the software stack. You absolutely can make low-latency and just-works wireless solution for musicians, but it's name will not be Bluetooth.

Spooky23 8y ago

Reliability is huge. The bluetooth implementations all suck. My $40k car is about as reliable and predictable from a bluetooth perspective as Chinese knock-off Jawbone copycat from 2007.

falcrist 8y ago
WHY is this still the case? I mean, Bluetooth is fundamentally just a communications protocol broadcast with some kind of antenna. Yet I don't have these kinds of issues making wifi or cell service work. Who decided to use such a flaky protocol for audio and such, and then remove the reliable connection?
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It’s like many things designed by committee of stakeholders with very different needs. Everyone gets what they want, except for the end user!
- tjohns 8y ago
  The problem with Bluetooth is the stack is too complex. Too many application-specific profiles baked directly into the protocol, which in turn need to be dealt with by device manufacturers. Bluetooth basically handles everything from OSI Layer 1 through 6 at the same time. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles Add to that great complexity at Layer 1, and constantly changing specs. Bluetooth 1, 2, and 4 are all radically different than each other. Compare with WiFi, which only has to do one thing (Layer 1-2). Cellular is much more complex, but that's why releasing a new phone involves endless rounds of (usually mandatory and very strict) carrier certification.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    The RJ-45 connector is an open standard that can carry basically anything—internet, video, audio, low-level data, etc—at a high bandwidth and with low latency. Why can't we have a wireless standard that does that? I want non crappy Bluetooth mice that don't require a separate USB dongle. :( Edit: To be clear, I'm sure ethernet cables are an entirely different thing and there's actually a very good reason why wireless makes everything more complicated. But, well, maybe that's one of the reasons people would like to stick with wires.

Frondo 8y ago

I do like wireless, for a different kind of reliability: never ever having to worry that I'm going to snap off the plug in my phone, pull the jack off the circuit board from sitting on it wrong, whatever. When I sit down on the train, last thing I want is to sit on my phone wrong and wreck the phone and the headphones at the same time. Moving parts and physical connections are fragile. Wireless connections solve that fragility. Agreed that pairing sucks, but that's a solvable problem.

mcdevilkiller 8y ago
Why are you sitting on your phone, in the first place?
- Frondo 8y ago
  While I'm not the most careful person in the world, I'm also not the most incautious; I think it's probably not an uncommon experience for people who do regularly ride trains--e.g. those of us living in big cities where you commute by train instead of your car--that you sit and you realize you're sitting on your coat in an odd way that's got your phone in the pocket underneath you where you're sitting. I mean, at some level, come on and use your imagination. People riding the metro don't always have total control over getting their belongings situated properly when the train's packed and there's a lot of bustling around. I assure you this experience is not unique to me.
  - _Tev 8y ago
    That's weird, it took me half a year (commuting daily) to go from "carrying phone in jeans' back pocket is practical" to "I have to take out phone from the pocket _every time_ before I sit". No problems ever since. But I guess I learn fast ... Unless it's setting up some wireless crap.
    - Frondo 8y ago
      Hey that's great. You know what? With the wireless earbuds, I never have to think about that again. I can throw my phone in my pocket, any pocket, and leave it there while I get crammed into a metro car. So, I guess there are tradeoffs -- and fixing pairing means everyone can enjoy freedom from one more wire, while keeping on using a wire means we keep adapting our behaviors around a wire.

soundwave106 8y ago

Yeah, it's all for freedom of movement at shows. Even though wireless transmitters have gotten a lot better than previous times (in the 1980s one of the Spinal Tap spoofs was getting radio interference in their wireless guitar system if I recall correctly), now using similar frequency bands wi-fi does with proprietary protocols from what I see (definitely not Bluetooth!)... you still see reviews of reliability problems in some circumstances. You'd definitely want to carry around a standard guitar cable as a backup if you have one.