3 ms·

I'll argue that an device meant for phone calls (which is where bluetooth audio started out!) should aim for low latency by default. I also understand that the

I'll argue that an device meant for phone calls (which is where bluetooth audio started out!) should aim for low latency by default. I also understand that the CPU/Latency/Memory trade offs made over a decade ago are not the same one's we'd make now. Doesn't change the fact that the same device can have a 3x latency difference between platforms with the same codec. Google went and developed VP9 as a royalty free codec in the AV space, they should do something similar for Bluetooth. Right now if I'm on a video call with someone and we both have BT headsets, it is very possible that there is a 500ms audio latency!

cout 6y ago
Latency on calls over cellular networks is already very high (my subjective experience). But we humans are good at working around it when it's just two people - wait for the other person to finish speaking before you speak, and the other person might have a little longer delay before hearing your response. If there are multiple parties on the call, this breaks down, because if two people want to speak, they both start talking and don't realize it for a little while. On video calls this also breaks down, because either video and audio get out of sync (like with zoom) or you get odd artifacts in either the video or audio as they are kept in sync.
izacus 6y ago
> I'll argue that an device meant for phone calls (which is where bluetooth audio started out!) should aim for low latency by default. I also understand that the CPU/Latency/Memory trade offs made over a decade ago are not the same one's we'd make now. It turns out that the device that's meant for phone calls has to, first and foremost, make sure that there are no dropouts, crackles and other buffer underrun articles. Latency comes afterwards.