4 ms·

I think that, as is often the case, it depends on what you want to achieve and what you're ready to put up with. In my case, when I have to work with whatever

I think that, as is often the case, it depends on what you want to achieve and what you're ready to put up with. In my case, when I have to work with whatever computer my client provides me with, wired headphones make me dependent on the computer's audio quality. And random HP laptops are really not great. Also, I sometimes have to work travel, so I prefer limiting the number of items I have to cart around, especially expensive personal ones (like an external DAC). A BT pair of headphones solve this problem. I currently have a Sony XM3 that I mostly bought for the sound isolation and I'm very happy with them. Are they as good as some other similarly priced analog headphones? Probably not. My old Shure 840 had a better sound for 1/3 the price. But I actually like not being encumbered with wires and having the headphones suppress the air conditioning hum and other random noises around the office. The ambient hum would go through my old Shure, despite being closed-back. I often like having the Sony on my ears just for the noise-cancelling, with no audio coming through. The issue with bluetooth is the lag, though. I don't really care about that as I mostly listen to music or watch movies, but if lag is important to you (say for video-conferencing or games) then the usb-wireless may be a better route. But I get the feeling that those models don't really attempt to address high audio quality.

exged 6y ago
Totally agree that most PCs have terrible analog sound quality, often plagued with EMI noise and other distortions. I still find BT to be a pain on Linux and Windows (unlike Mac / iOS, where Apple has really figured out the experience). I ended up buying a bunch of Apple USB-C to 3.5mm adapters for $9 each. Fantastic audio quality and tiny enough to leave permanently attached to headphones. The only catch is they aren't great with very high impedance headphones unless you add an external amplifier.
- trabant00 6y ago
  > Totally agree that most PCs have terrible analog sound quality, often plagued with EMI noise and other distortions. This hasn't been the case for many many years. Most decent motherbords come with on board sound on par with 200 usd external DACs. Thinkpad laptops as well. Did blind tests with coworkers who owned DACs - they could not tell.
  - vladvasiliu 6y ago
    I think this is highly dependent on how high-end the computer is or at least who their target user is. My (old) MBP sounds great to me. My (much newer!) HP ProBook has hissing and various random noises when I move the mouse, and I can hear this even with cheap headphones tailored for conferencing. Don't know how "accurate" either one is, but no hissing wins for me every time. I think you nail it with most decent motherboards. There are a lot of computers on the market, especially laptops, that are just cheap and try to get away with whatever low quality components and engineering they can. In particular, I'm thinking about HP "enterprise" models which are just awful. Their target audience doesn't really care about audio quality, so why would they? Most people don't have a choice when it comes to their work computers, so they may end up stuck with something mediocre. Then again, most people don't care, so there's probably not much hope to see any improvement on this front...
ekianjo 6y ago
> The issue with bluetooth is the lag, though. I don't really care about that as I mostly listen to music or watch movies, but if lag is important to you (say for video-conferencing or games) then the usb-wireless may be a better route. But I get the feeling that those models don't really attempt to address high audio quality. Is there any benchmark out there for bluetooth audio lag vs usb-wireless?
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  I'd be curious to see one. I never really looked because when I bought my headphones I wanted to have noise-cancelling and for them to be compatible with phones without any additional gear, so BT was pretty much the only choice. However, I remember some fifteen years ago a friend of mine had a pair of wireless headphones that had no perceptible lag when playing games. They weren't USB, they would plug in a standard audio output, though. I also have a Jabra kit with a base that connects to the computer via USB and a wireless headset. This seems to have much less lag than BT, but I don't know how the two communicate nor how little lag there actually is. I expect the "gaming" USB models to work similarly.

exged 6y ago

Totally agree that most PCs have terrible analog sound quality, often plagued with EMI noise and other distortions. I still find BT to be a pain on Linux and Windows (unlike Mac / iOS, where Apple has really figured out the experience). I ended up buying a bunch of Apple USB-C to 3.5mm adapters for $9 each. Fantastic audio quality and tiny enough to leave permanently attached to headphones. The only catch is they aren't great with very high impedance headphones unless you add an external amplifier.

trabant00 6y ago
> Totally agree that most PCs have terrible analog sound quality, often plagued with EMI noise and other distortions. This hasn't been the case for many many years. Most decent motherbords come with on board sound on par with 200 usd external DACs. Thinkpad laptops as well. Did blind tests with coworkers who owned DACs - they could not tell.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  I think this is highly dependent on how high-end the computer is or at least who their target user is. My (old) MBP sounds great to me. My (much newer!) HP ProBook has hissing and various random noises when I move the mouse, and I can hear this even with cheap headphones tailored for conferencing. Don't know how "accurate" either one is, but no hissing wins for me every time. I think you nail it with most decent motherboards. There are a lot of computers on the market, especially laptops, that are just cheap and try to get away with whatever low quality components and engineering they can. In particular, I'm thinking about HP "enterprise" models which are just awful. Their target audience doesn't really care about audio quality, so why would they? Most people don't have a choice when it comes to their work computers, so they may end up stuck with something mediocre. Then again, most people don't care, so there's probably not much hope to see any improvement on this front...

ekianjo 6y ago

> The issue with bluetooth is the lag, though. I don't really care about that as I mostly listen to music or watch movies, but if lag is important to you (say for video-conferencing or games) then the usb-wireless may be a better route. But I get the feeling that those models don't really attempt to address high audio quality. Is there any benchmark out there for bluetooth audio lag vs usb-wireless?

vladvasiliu 6y ago
I'd be curious to see one. I never really looked because when I bought my headphones I wanted to have noise-cancelling and for them to be compatible with phones without any additional gear, so BT was pretty much the only choice. However, I remember some fifteen years ago a friend of mine had a pair of wireless headphones that had no perceptible lag when playing games. They weren't USB, they would plug in a standard audio output, though. I also have a Jabra kit with a base that connects to the computer via USB and a wireless headset. This seems to have much less lag than BT, but I don't know how the two communicate nor how little lag there actually is. I expect the "gaming" USB models to work similarly.