- Thread Starter
- #21
How about headphones?For the car primarily, and for use with cell phones. Anything else should be using wifi. BT range is limited and for good reason. This eliminates conflicts with other devices.
How about headphones?For the car primarily, and for use with cell phones. Anything else should be using wifi. BT range is limited and for good reason. This eliminates conflicts with other devices.
How about battery life? Have you ever seen a Wi-Fi headphone?Wifi is better....
The AptX Lossless press release I've already linked to, which I quoted above.Source?
How about battery life? Have you ever seen a Wi-Fi headphone?
I see that but you said:The AptX Lossless press release I've already linked to, which I quoted above.
the phrase now solved means they managed something which they couldn't before. It looks to me that they simply have changed the compression rate to slide up to mathematically lossless. I can't see anything there to be solved.* - an issue Qualcomm have (claimed) to have now solved (or at least minimised) by optimizing the codec.
The vast majority of headphones on sale are wireless. It is a $45 Billion industry. Even Mark Levinson introduced a wireless headphone.Forgot about BT headphones, but personally can't imagine wanting headphones at all...and I'd go wired over BT. There could be dlna headphones out there, don't know.
I see that but you said:
the phrase now solved means they managed something which they couldn't before. It looks to me that they simply have changed the compression rate to slide up to mathematically lossless. I can't see anything there to be solved.
* - an issue Qualcomm have (claimed) to have now solved (or at least minimised) by optimizing the codec.
How about battery life? Have you ever seen a Wi-Fi headphone?
That's nice but I don't use or need headphones. If I were still working and travelling a lot by air I possibly would get a pair of noise cancelling headphones but generally not my thing. Levinson, meh.The vast majority of headphones on sale are wireless. It is a $45 Billion industry. Even Mark Levinson introduced a wireless headphone.
No it can't. It's a lossy codec. Stereo 16 bits/44.1kHz has a bit rate of 2 x 16 x 44100= 1,411 kbps. LDAC tops out at 990 kbps.LDAC codec can stream lossless 16 bits/44.1kHz over Bluetooth.
No it can't. It's a lossy codec. Stereo 16 bits/44.1kHz has a bit rate of 2 x 16 x 44100= 1,411 kbps. LDAC tops out at 990 kbps.
It’s not Wi-Fi.JBL's Gaming Earbuds Come With a 2.4GHz Dongle to Eliminate Lag
Bluetooth introduces irritating latency while gaming, so JBL is offering a clever way around it with its new gaming earbuds.gizmodo.com
Technically no, but colloquially such non-Bluetooth RF headphones are sometimes called wi-fi headphones. The point is non-Bluetooth wireless headphones exist, some of which are lossless.It’s not Wi-Fi.
But can still go above 990 kbps depending on the audio content being compressed.But FLAC is lossless and operates in that area....
Well they shouldn’t be. Nor that I saw any example. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and proprietary wireless all work at the 2.4GHz band. Their names are the only thing that separates them to the user.Technically no, but colloquially such non-Bluetooth RF headphones are sometimes called wi-fi headphones. The point is non-Bluetooth wireless headphones exist, some of which are lossless.
It’s not a rumour. They announced it in 2019. It’s an extension called HDR which supports up to 8Mbit/s.I read a rumour that Apple is also getting into the lossless wireless audio with the upcoming AirPods Pro 2.
No it can't. It's a lossy codec. Stereo 16 bits/44.1kHz has a bit rate of 2 x 16 x 44100= 1,411 kbps. LDAC tops out at 990 kbps.