Can wireless audio be that bad?

Can wireless audio be that bad?

It's not that hard to send 1.4mbit (at best) DIGITAL signal to some headphones with it's own built in dac.

How exactly is using a wire better?

Some data will be lost in the transfer, that is just physics.

>How exactly is using a wire better?
I don't have to charge it

>3D waifus
>>>/Facebook/

What are parity bits?

>riko
No.

>human species

Reminder that every speaker is also a microphone.

>Can radio be that bad?

Something that has a latency problem if data isn't buffered.

What is packet loss?
Check your Wi-Fi router's logs and see how many packets are lost in the transfer. And it's much much faster than Bluetooth, think like that.

What is parity bits?

Transfer rate higher than bit rate. Of course there is going to be loss of packets but at 3 feet the difference will be negligible.

i dno fahm, u tell me

You don't understand what that means. If the parity isn't right then only one of two things can happen; the client rejects the packet and waits again or the client sends a reply saying the packet was wrong and waits again. You still have to wait either way. And this is assuming there are enough parity bits that mistakes still can't get through.

>negligible
No. It'll be more than negligible. Wait and see lad.

I work in an industry that relies on Bluetooth for door sensing. I've talked with our engineers about the technology extensively. Coming from a computer networking background in college I feel as if I have a decent grasp on the idea of radio waves and Bluetooth. Please if you know something I don't clue me in. Not sarcasm. I am genuinely curious.

she does literally nothing in the show

also she's not as cute as riko-chan

TLDR: your waifu a shit

.01% even with 10% signal-to-noise
you'd think maybe someone could figure out this relatively basic thing

you'll lose them on your own or black people will run by and pluck them from your ears like a banana

so you're just supposed to carry 160$ "airpods" loose in your pocket with your phone and keys? Or are you supposed to always dangle them from your inner ears? Do they fall out when I bend over? This is especially an issue for macfags because they are bent over most of the time

I don't get this.

I can stream FLACS over my wifi network with 0 problem so why can't wireless headphones do the same?

>tiny bluetooth transmitters are anywhere near as powerful as giant brick routers

Nothing wrong with wireless audio. In fact, wireless audio has been around much longer than what aplel have been selling it. The problem is that you're forced to use it, and that wireless ear buds are a terrible, terrible idea.

This hasn't crossed my mind until Apple decided to go wireless, since it's an Apple product and everyone will own it. How are they going to handle wireless interference?

I doubt theyre weak or much smaller than the cpu or wifi nic.

ouch. I didn't see that one coming.

>3d
>waifu
Choose one, newfag

That is not true faggot.

What is information theory? What is redundancy? What is error correction encoding?

Ways to mitigate the impact of data loss dickhead

d-delet t-t-this

if you're anything like my friend doing CS on his senior year, you probably haven't learned jack shit except basic algorithms in Java

assuming you didn't go top tech school

Mitigate... not untrue bit it is more than that because it allows you to bring the error rate in the transmitted data to ZERO.

Bits losses on the communication channel (the Bluetooth radio) does not necessarily mean there ANY bit losses in the message (the audio) communicated over that channel.

Let me give you an example of how this works...

Say you want to sent the message
>010
over a noisy communication channel (eg Bluetooth). So you send it to me and a bit flip occurs and I receive 011 instead of 010. Shit!

Having encountered this problem we agree on an encoding scheme for our messaged. Now we encode 1 bit in 8 bits like so
>0 -> 00000000 and 1 -> 11111111
So you can see we have added lots of redundancy to our message. So now we try again to sent our message. You send
>000000001111111100000000
and I receive the message but now with noise too
>001000101111101100000001
I look at the message and know that message isn't possible under our encoding scheme so I correct it to the most likely possible message that is possible, i.e.
>000000001111111100000000
and finally I decode it to the original 010 message.

That is how you send error free messages over noisy channels (although they use far more well though out encoding schemes). Digital signals can always in principle be sent over noisy channels error free, hence what was said above

>Some data will be lost in the transfer, that is just physics.

is just not true. If it was an analogue signal then yes, but digital signals can be sent error free over noisy channels using redundant encoding schemes. This is why you bank doesn't accidentally think you have way more (or less) money in your account than you do.

>with it's own built in dac

This is the problem. Good luck fitting a good DAC inside a pair of wireless headphones. The sound quality on these things is going to be god awful.

> Implying a wire doesn't produce warmer tones

did you read his post?

>joosten
>3d

Cs != Networking/transmissions

For a fact RIT called my professor to ask him why his transfers are so much better than their 3rd year students.

>This is the problem

no it isn't.

the disparity between ultra-cheap and ToL audio DACs is basically now at a negligible level. has been for years.

the audible errors introduced by the driver itself completely swamps anything from the DAC. they probably will sound like hot garbage, but it won't be the electronics' fault.

Spotted the pedophiles.