>With Bluetooth becoming increasingly important in our computer hardware these days, general improvements to the wireless standard directly impact products like the iPhone, Apple Watch, and more than ever wireless headphones. The Bluetooth SIG will officially announce Bluetooth 5 next Thursday at a London press event.
>Bluetooth 5.0 will be four times as fast as Bluetooth 4.2 LE, say its developers - that means a maximum throughput of 2Mbps by our quick maths. You're not likely to get up to those speeds out in the real world but it should still be a significant speed jump.
>The other major improvement is a doubling of the range from earlier versions, so theoretically you could be 660 feet (200 metres) or so away from your Bluetooth speaker and still beam a song to it. The exact distance limits depend on the hardware you're using.
Hope this means bluetooth headphones will finally transmit stereo 40.1Khz sample rate 1.4mbps WAV audio instead of encoding music to 96kbps bluetooth audio codec.
Ayden Williams
*44.1Khz
Isaiah James
It must happen for the wireless headphone revolution to happen.
Henry Wood
What about lossless encoding?
Josiah Murphy
That's what WAV is ya dingus. FLAC is not possible for real time audio transmission because it requires too much processing power to compress the audio.
Michael Walker
Beats are dogshit. Not sure why anyone would purchase these turds over a pair of audio technica headphones.
Isaac Roberts
beats are more comfy, look better, don't have proprietary connectors, and have better bass
Jace White
ATH-WS99BT Solid Bass Wireless Over-Ear Headphones with Built-in Mic & Control
>look better Subjective opinion heavily influenced by aggressive marketing campaigns and celebrity endorsements
>don't have proprietary connectors As do 99.999 percent of high-quality headphones
>and have better bass The whole point of studio headphones is to provide a 1:1 reproduction of the audio the way it was intended to be heard. Beats are extremely bassy but that's actually a bad thing because you're not hearing what the musicians intended, just an awful noise.
Tyler Collins
>protip: they don't They're just a chink pair of $5 headphones with a logo on them.
Austin White
>FLAC is not possible for real time audio transmission because it requires too much processing power to compress the audio.
actually because it's a non-stream compressor, plenty of audio FPGAs and DSPs can handle the format no problem
Real issue: you need to transmit the entire file, 100% of its size in bytes, before you can play a single sample. Also have a correspondingly large buffer (many MBs) on the receiving device which is incredible impractical for headphone. This is because the entire file is encoded at-once instead of in blocks or stream. Contrast mp3, wav, etc where you can look at the first 1% of a file only and that is enough to play it.
Jayden Johnson
eventually this would be ideal though (when transmission speeds are fast enough) because bulk transferring a file from the source device to the headphones all at once would mean that both could turn off the transmitter/receiver module more quickly (race to sleep)
Julian Scott
>have better bass
What is this even supposed to mean? Do YOU even know what you mean?
Samuel Jones
nothing subjective at all... m50x are literally clamps
they do look better, any sane person will tell you that
why do you need a proprietary connector for a 3.5mm jack? that's just pure greed
>The whole point of studio headphones is to provide a 1:1 reproduction of the audio
then all headphones would sound the same.. do a blind-eye test and i guarantee you more people will prefer beats over m50x
Samuel Turner
>he doesn't feel the oomph
Brody Sanders
You can't enjoy a good drop if you ain't got DAT BASS.
Joshua Gray
Aww he's retarded
Camden Morales
bluetooth eats battery
Robert Long
...
Christian Price
>what is an equaliser
Either you want headphones that reproduce what was recorded or get some shitty meme phones that color the sound to no end.
Jaxon Smith
>better bass
You must be trolling.
Christopher King
Yeah but what if you have an entire album in a single ~600MiB file? It would take a lot of time before you can start playing it, and you may run out of buffer. Also if you switch between a lot of tracks, because you're looking for a song and you don't recall its name or something, that +0.5 sec it takes to transfer the file becomes annoying really fucking quick. Streaming in wav is better, and an average flac is 60-70% the size of a wav so the difference is basically nothing.
Jace Rodriguez
Bluetooth 4.1 can already transmit around 800kbps
Landon Jackson
in the end it'll just use even more power, and you'll end up microwaving your brain inb4 >non-ionising radiation doesn't cause brain cancer
Ryan Morales
wait, the FLAC COMPRESSOR is non-streaming but the audio stream certainly is
if your audio was in WAV (who does this), then just stream WAV
if your audio is losslessly compressed, just stream the compressed file since there's nothing to be gained by streaming in wav or flac
if your audio is in FLAC you can stream the file no problem
the only issue is if you are encoding or transcoding to FLAC on-the-fly, in which case the entire file will need to be encoded before you can start streaming it to headphones
Lincoln Peterson
Bluetooth 4.1 already uses less power than 4.0 and has higher transfer rates
Gavin Brooks
>tfw there will never be a BB10OS BlackBerry with Bluetooth 5
Dylan Miller
>falling for the "cell phones cause cancer" meme
In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region.
