4 ms·
> In a cheaper smartphone, you are probably better off with bluetooth/aptx Even a cheap phone’s DAC is going to sound better than any BT codecs.
by ghusto 2y ago
> In a cheaper smartphone, you are probably better off with bluetooth/aptx
Even a cheap phone’s DAC is going to sound better than any BT codecs.
- Kirby64 2y agoNot true, modern BT codecs can be essentially transparent, and cheap 3.5mm jacks can have all sorts of issues. Bad noise performance, bad interchannel isolation, pop click issues, etc. don’t underestimate how badly you can design a 3.5mm jack especially if the phone only costs like $50 total.
- brnt 2y agoDespite what audiophiles believe, DACs are a relatively solved problem and quality does not correlate with price.
- Kirby64 2y agoAs a non audiophile who designs this stuff for a living, you’re correct it’s not difficult or even particularly expensive. But it’s also surprisingly common to do it poorly.
- noisem4ker 2y agoThe only truly, audibly lousy Bluetooth codec is low-bitrate SBC. Anything better than that is going to be transparent to most ears. The awfulness of cheap/low-power DACs, on the other hand, knows no limit.
- brnt 2y agoThere is going to be a DAC somewhere, and somehow putting it in the headphones doesn't speak for quality. Power budget, if nothing else.
- Kirby64 2y agoIt’s much easier to make a headphone output that is tailored to a very specific driver than it is to make a generic headphone driver that can drive any conceivable headphone plugged in.