4 ms·
> They sound awesome – on par with pairs that cost around $200 I don't know. The problem is that $20 pairs often sound on par with ones that cost around $200.
by pxx 4y ago
> They sound awesome – on par with pairs that cost around $200
I don't know. The problem is that $20 pairs often sound on par with ones that cost around $200. But the ones that cost around $200 have much better ANC than the $20 ones. You can definitely tell on an airplane. And these don't have noise cancelling at all.
- willcipriano 4y agoBluetooth audio isn't fantastic in my experience. I prefer wired if I'm looking for sound quality. Still you'll enjoy something you made yourself more than the $200 version you just bought.
- marcinzm 4y ago>Still you'll enjoy something you made yourself more than the $200 version you just bought. That's not the case for me. I enjoy the process of making something but in terms of day to day usage I enjoy the better version more.
- iasay 4y agoSimilar. I enjoy the effort someone else has put in to work all the bugs out.
- codethief 4y ago> Bluetooth audio isn't fantastic in my experience. I had been thinking the same but then I still gave it a shot and bought some new headphones with Bluetooth (and aptX support), in my case the Sennheiser Momentum True Wireless 2 (in-ear), and the Sennheiser Momentum 3 (over-ear). Turns out they can easily compete with (or are even better than) the cable-bound ~$250 in-ears I used to have.
- bosie 4y agoDoes the momentum 3 sound better when you use the cable for it?
- blangk 4y agoI would say the difference is not easily noticeable but I haven't done exhaustive testing as I've only really used the cable when FPS gaming on them
- codethief 4y agoDo you play on team / communicate using your microphone? Man, was I bummed out when I realized that the microphone only works over Bluetooth and neither via USB or the audio cable. :( Such a mindblowingly stupid product decision – it makes my blood pressure rise every time I think about it.
- codethief 4y agoI haven't noticed a difference to be honest.
- erdewit 4y agoWhen playing FLAC music over aptX HD, the next step for improvement is to avoid any resampling. The music is generally at 44.1 kHz and the default for Android is 48 kHz. It requires root to change the audio config file to 44100, and it's also necessary to change the bluetooth settings (in the developer options). Something similar goes for Linux. The resampling shouldn't matter much in theory, but in practice it's pretty noticeable. It seems to be optimized for CPU usage instead of audio quality.
- userbinator 4y agoIt seems to be optimized for CPU usage instead of audio quality. Presumably on an Android phone, it makes sense to lower CPU usage (and thus prolong battery life) rather than go for the best audio quality.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y agoYou can get OEM bluetooth in-ear buds straight from China quite easily these days. They are cheap and punch well above their weight. My wired ear buds are subjectively better sounding to me. My wired ear buds connected to a BT receiver also sound better. But the OEMs cost on the order of 50AUD/35USD...
- cunidev 4y agoStandard aptX (not HD) sounds just as good as older codecs, and keeps a similar bandwidth, so the advertised improvement is mostly marketing
- jefftk 4y agoIf you don't care about latency, like listening to music or watching a movie, Bluetooth audio can be as good as wired. The maximum bandwidth for Bluetooth audio is 576kbps (aptX HD) which is way above the point at which you can tell the difference. On the other hand, if latency is important, like on a call, then you can get kind of reasonable latency if you almost give up on quality (34ms from aptX Low Latency) But you're much better off sticking with wired (low single digit milliseconds) since latency matters so much for good conversation.
- netr0ute 4y ago> The maximum bandwidth for Bluetooth audio is 576kbps (aptX HD) 100% pure unadulterated USDA-certified Prime grass-fed gluten-free all natural organic free-range BS, as the LDAC codec for BT comes in 330, 660, and 990kbps flavors and has even lower THD than aptX HD and an even wider frequency response (essentially to 20KHz). The catch is, only a few really recent and expensive chips have support for it, so almost nobody has heard (of) it, literally.
- MayeulC 4y agoSBC sounds really good too if you negociate a higher bitrate than the "high quality" profile. Sometimes called SBC- XQ, and most receivers support it.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoSBC is practically transparent at these bitrates anyway, or at least on the level of other 320kbps codecs. The differences are so inaudible that even listening tests have a hard time telling the different codecs apart. http://soundexpert.org/encoders-320-kbps http://soundexpert.org/encoders-320-kbps https://habr.com/en/post/456182/ https://habr.com/en/post/456182/ These talks about replacement, higher-bitrate codecs always have always been very dubious.
- netr0ute 4y agoThe trick is, though, even though SBC is only marginally worse than lossless, because it's the lowest common denominator codec, you tend to see it with worse DACs that also have to do with the end audio quality. When you use codecs like LDAC, you tend to also see them with high quality components that would make it seem like it's LDAC that's doing the work, but it's in reality just a bonus.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]