Samsung May Bring Back the Headphone Jack

[Origami Cactus]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Because all bluetooth headphones suck, and if you can't tell, then your hearing is not as good as you think it is. 

 

Audio over analog headphones sounds ok on good headphones. Compressed audio (eg mp3, aac) has this distinct "underwater" warble to it, and when you listen to the same compressed audio on bluetooth of course it sounds no different, it's lossy compression being lossy compressed again. 

 

Here, try this. Find a song that you ripped yourself to ALAC/FLAC/WAV from an actual CD, and then listen to the same version on Spotify without a subscription. That's the difference between listening to a CD and listening to a CD with bluetooth headphones.

 

I have plenty of actual FLAC files, and i have listened both on wired, and wireless. Truth be told, my best headphones are the Sony WH-1000XM2, and i used it for both the wired and wireless test. Maybe true audiophile headphones sound 1000x better, haven't had the chance to test.

As i said, on 990kbps, the sonys are pretty close to lossless codecs, so i can hear the quality difference between FLAC and MP3 192/320kbps pretty clearly. 

[Vishera]

There are a lot of people that wont buy a phone without a headphone jack - including me

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, KenTees said:

If this is true and the next Note series device(s) follow suit, I believe we may have found Linus' next phone.

 

I'm just not exactly sure how he will overlook the Infinity-O display...

 

I too sense incoming happy Linus Sebastian noises.

[Doobeedoo]

That would be strange though. Why not just make it standard that every phone or adapter and Type-C buds have good DAC in the first place. It's like wh3n people see Type-C only they assume only wireless is the option, no, it's not. I'd never use Bluetooth trash. Though good DAC should be a thing, some did offer. But yeah needs to be standardized though. 

They keep adding useless cameras like those 2MP crap and now adding back this, wasting so much space for battery, the only thing that that actually needs revolutionary upgrade and every bit matters.

[TetraSky]

Love my headphone jack, it gives me access to Radio, without having to pay for data. Free music with ads in between, no data(compared to free music with tons of ads and have to pay for data when using things like iheartradio). Great stuff.

 

That said, considering how bluetooth headphones are being embraced so much these days (even though mine work just fine with nearly 10 meters of distance between the headphones and the phone, the moment I put my phone in my pocket, the music starts cutting... I'm starting to wonder if my skin and pants are made of effing Lead at this point), I'm not sure if the mainstream folks would still care.

[RejZoR]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

The thing is, there really is no reason to have "competing standards" when the existing standard is what everyone is using and "better" stuff only lines the pockets of the one with the better standard.

 

Hence some kind of "better toslink" that was a pure optical connection has all the same problems wireless has, except has higher bandwidth and thus requires less power to operate.

 

I looked up one of the multi-channel audio codec chips and it literately doubles the energy requirements to go from 48khz to 96khz in that chip, so I imagine the same is true in everything. So if you don't have to increase the energy use by sending it out digitially, and the amplifier is separate in the headphones or speakers, then it's just up to how good or bad the headphones are built. Running one LED for TosLink is a lot more energy efficient than running a radio for bluetooth and a compression codec in software on the device CPU.

 

Anyway the point wasn't to advocate for bringing back TosLink, but rather that USB-C doesn't solve anything for audio that wasn't already solved with TosLink, and wireless is only worse than TosLink because it requires more energy to compress and decompress the audio with crappy codecs that aren't necessary on TosLink, and even if you did compress TosLink you likely would only compress it with lossless codecs since that's what the equipment on either end would be looking for.

Then why not just make a better lossless wireless standard for audio then if you're already on a path of making a new standard that's not compatible with anything? The whole point of a jack was massive support. Making new wired port that's not compatible with anything makes no sense (and buying new earphones that support it don't really solve anything) and we can just stay with BT audio then...

[Commodus]

I'm skeptical.  Not necessarily of the source, but "considering" can mean a lot of things.

 

And remember: while Samsung pushes boundaries in many areas, it has a habit of taking cues from Apple. If Apple doesn't feel a need to bring back headphone jacks, Samsung won't be in a rush to follow suit.

 

I also have to giggle at the people Apple hoping will restore the headphone jack... you've never paid close attention to Apple, have you?  It's a company that very rarely looks back. If it ditches a port, that port is likely gone for all eternity. And it certainly doesn't have much incentive to look back when AirPods are hot sellers.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

8 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

8 hours ago, seapriestess said:

 

lmao good luck doing anything that requires processing power...

WDYM? That's basically the 10100.

[RedRound2]

People here claiming that they're never going to buy a device without a jack make me want to chuckle. Most people, especially among general consumers who make bulk of the sale, have moved onto wireless (popularaity of airpods, countless clones and rapidly falling prices are a testament to that) . And bluetooth, for many including myself is quite a liberating experiance compared to wired earphones. If you're insistant on wired, or you are an audiophile, you can still use a type c- to 3.5mm adaptor. Good quality ones exists You can leave it attached to your headphone and it's basically the asme experiance as plugging in headphone jack.

 

For phone manufacturers, I think the space gained by removing the headphone jack is a lot more valuable than probably the 5-10 percent who actually cares about it. Move on. Samsung may try it, but I doubt it will give them results they're looking for

[Letgomyleghoe]

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because all bluetooth headphones suck, and if you can't tell, then your hearing is not as good as you think it is. 

 

Audio over analog headphones sounds ok on good headphones. Compressed audio (eg mp3, aac) has this distinct "underwater" warble to it, and when you listen to the same compressed audio on bluetooth of course it sounds no different, it's lossy compression being lossy compressed again. 

This depends on device, the device manufactures during design will decide if they want to compress the audio further or not. This practice is actually falling out due to higher transfer rates and better battery life from newer versions of bluetooth.

[-ism]

I don't understand the obsession manufacturers have with making phones thinner and thinner. They've been thin enough for years and I would much rather have a larger battery. With how big the screens have gotten, there has to be enough room inside for a measly headphone jack. Admittedly, I almost never use mine anymore (Note 9) but it's nice to know it's there. 

[Sauron]

How nice for samsung to add back a feature people actually use instead of another meaningless gimmick

[Chett_Manly]

As a Samsung guy I honestly don't think its worth much. If I was going to be serious about listening to music on my phone I would get a good portable DAC/AMP for it. As it is I got a $15 adapter for my S20 and it sounds as good as what they were putting in the phones before. So for those rare times I want to plug in in a set, I can. It has wireless charging, so I can still listen and charge at the same time even. 

 

Removing the headphone jack really wasn't a big deal, and adding it back in doesn't do anything for me.

 

[BuckGup]

That's pretty stupid. The headphone needs to die and USB C is the future. Now that most if not all my devices use USB C its sorta silly having different kinds of ports

[Fasterthannothing]

Very excited headphone jacks are making a comeback. The new pixel phone has it and now the possibility of the Samsung flagship lineup getting it. I have refused to upgrade because no good phones have headphone jacks anymore not that I really need to I have an s9+ that is running well. However it is very nice knowing that headphone jacks are making a comeback for when I decide to upgrade.

[RejZoR]

13 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Wrong.

 

 

Since when is image signal processing measured in kilohertz? Just because it has "DSP" slammed in the name it's not a general purpose thing when we specifically talk about audio. And we have done so since the beginning in this thread about AUDIO. Unless you're somehow outputting photos through audio DSP logic into your headphones...

[The Torrent]

On 8/16/2020 at 6:57 AM, seapriestess said:

I will never ever buy a phone or any device that doesnt have a headphone jack. USB C headphones and earbuds are not a replacement,

They will keep making shitty thin and light phones and laptops with only USB C and thunderbolt that have 30 minutes of battery life. And I will sit here with my lineage OS Moto G7 Power that lasts 3 days, and my gen 1 i5 laptop that has firewire and a modded battery, and laugh at people wasting their money on locked down, less robust garbage.

 

Edit: My wording here was a bit strong, I dont actually care if you buy newer hardware, whatever makes you happy.

Why is usb c not a replacement? I’ve always used cable dac’s for better audio quality like the meizu hifi audio pro.

[HomeBoi]

Who cares about a port that you dont need, people need to get a shittier BT something and be pleased.

[starry]

27 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

Why is usb c not a replacement? I’ve always used cable dac’s for better audio quality like the meizu hifi audio pro.

I am not interested in carrying a dac with me while I listen to music, no matter how small it is. I have tried a USB C dac on my previous phone, it did not sound better enough to justify it for me, and I really really appreciate the backwards compatibility that the jack provides, I never have to worry about if my headphones will work with something, because I dont buy phones without the jack. It works with my older computer, and my older laptop, and I have ways to very cleanly use what I have to help my partner with their music recording. The 3.5mm jack is vastly superior in pretty much every situation to me, and I can rely on it meeting certain standards, that USB C doesnt always deliver on (different manufacturers using different stuff for every device and the likes). The jack is such a simple solution that works, it doesnt have 1 million different varients depending on who made the device, its (kind of) just a metal rod that transmits a frequency, and I will always take a simple solution thats tried and true over pretty much anything else. One of my main gripes though, is actually more simple than any of that, if phones came with 2 USB C ports, 1 for data and 1 for charging, my opinion would be a lot more positive. I do not appreciate the combining of power and data lines, it is not valuable to me, and I do not need it. USB C is designed to improve quality of life overall, but I find that having just 1 of them on these newer phones decreases the quality of life drastically, its annoying, I want to charge my phone while I sleep but also listen to music on my headphones, and a dongle isnt a solution, its extra convoluted weight that I dont need, because I have a phone with a jack. I really really appreciate USB C, I understand its merit, I think it would be pretty neat if all my USB ports were type C, and if both my monitors ran off it, and if every device I owned had all USB C with thunderbolt ports, I just dont think it should be the only standard that exists, because trying to do too many things makes USB C more convoluted and difficult to work with, especially since the 3.5mm jack does its job way better than a USB standard ever could. (If USB C had a mandetory standard that had it carry an analouge 192hz audio signal, seperately from the data lines, I might change my mind, and if they started putting 2 of them on phones, but thats not very feasible atm)

 

To be clear, Im glad you have a solution that works for you, I just find USB C to be less convenient overall at the moment, and complex solutions that do effectively the same thing dont make much sense to me.

[LAwLz]

On 8/16/2020 at 9:54 AM, Kisai said:

LC3 codec - the low-energy codec, designed for hearing aid use

This is wrong.

LC3 was NOT designed for hearing aid use. Hearing aid use is one of the areas where it will be used, but that does not mean it was specifically designed for that and nothing else.

 

LC3 offers 3 times higher audio quality than SBC at the same bit rate and power usage.

 

160Kbps LC3 sounds better than 345Kbps SBC.

 

 

I think LC3 is the future for Bluetooth audio. It offers near transparent transcoding quality, and it is an open standard pushed by Bluetooth SIG. So we shouldn't have any problems like the ones we have with AptX or LDAC.

 

 

  

On 8/16/2020 at 10:16 AM, Kisai said:

Audio over analog headphones sounds ok on good headphones. Compressed audio (eg mp3, aac) has this distinct "underwater" warble to it, and when you listen to the same compressed audio on bluetooth of course it sounds no different, it's lossy compression being lossy compressed again. 

You can make lossy compression sound transparent to human ears. I seriously doubt you can hear the difference between lossless audio and a high quality lossy encode.  And I think you can make Bluetooth sound near if not fully transparent even to some self-proclaimed audiophile using only the technologies and standards available today.

 

Besides, we have to consider where Bluetooth audio is being used. It's in mobile devices. I doubt many people sit at home with their 5,000 dollar headphone, DAC and AMP setup with their phone plugged in. If the Bluetooth audio standard is good enough to not have noticeable audio artifacts in places where mobile devices are being used for music playback, such as on an airplane, public transport, in a school coordinator etc, basically places with lots of background noise, then it's good enough even though it might on a technical level not be as good.

 

 

 

 

  

19 hours ago, Commodus said:

I'm skeptical.  Not necessarily of the source, but "considering" can mean a lot of things.

I like how many layers of uncertainty this news topic has.

1) It's a leak, so it might not be true.

2) It's from an unknown leaker who feels the need to boost confidence in him by listing things like "Note20 series will be controversial for some ppl" and "The Galaxy S20 Ultra will be available in white" as his "successful leaks". He also lists things which haven't even been confirmed as "confirmed leaks", such as there will be a foldable iPhone.

3) The leak is only that they "consider" it, so even if it turns out they don't bring the headphone jack back he can just go "well I was right in that they considered it but they just didn't go with it".

[The Torrent]

20 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

I am not interested in carrying a dac with me while I listen to music, no matter how small it is. I have tried a USB C dac on my previous phone, it did not sound better enough to justify it for me, and I really really appreciate the backwards compatibility that the jack provides, I never have to worry about if my headphones will work with something, because I dont buy phones without the jack. It works with my older computer, and my older laptop, and I have ways to very cleanly use what I have to help my partner with their music recording. The 3.5mm jack is vastly superior in pretty much every situation to me, and I can rely on it meeting certain standards, that USB C doesnt always deliver on (different manufacturers using different stuff for every device and the likes). The jack is such a simple solution that works, it doesnt have 1 million different varients depending on who made the device, its (kind of) just a metal rod that transmits a frequency, and I will always take a simple solution thats tried and true over pretty much anything else. One of my main gripes though, is actually more simple than any of that, if phones came with 2 USB C ports, 1 for data and 1 for charging, my opinion would be a lot more positive. I do not appreciate the combining of power and data lines, it is not valuable to me, and I do not need it. USB C is designed to improve quality of life overall, but I find that having just 1 of them on these newer phones decreases the quality of life drastically, its annoying, I want to charge my phone while I sleep but also listen to music on my headphones, and a dongle isnt a solution, its extra convoluted weight that I dont need, because I have a phone with a jack. I really really appreciate USB C, I understand its merit, I think it would be pretty neat if all my USB ports were type C, and if both my monitors ran off it, and if every device I owned had all USB C with thunderbolt ports, I just dont think it should be the only standard that exists, because trying to do too many things makes USB C more convoluted and difficult to work with, especially since the 3.5mm jack does its job way better than a USB standard ever could. (If USB C had a mandetory standard that had it carry an analouge 192hz audio signal, seperately from the data lines, I might change my mind, and if they started putting 2 of them on phones, but thats not very feasible atm)

 

To be clear, Im glad you have a solution that works for you, I just find USB C to be less convenient overall at the moment, and complex solutions that do effectively the same thing dont make much sense to me.

1 - So your point 1 - inconvenience. Ive never understood this - can you not just leave it plugged into your earphones and stick it in ur pocket when u dont need it? 

2 - different models - if you have high end iem's go meizu hifi pro ultimate dac rn otherwise just get something cheap.

chargin while listening - i believe you can get connectors that do stuff like this. I understand once again its something else to carry around but can u not just leave it plugged into your earphones.

3 - meizu hifi gives out a aux signal (as does every usb c to aux adapter so it will work with no matter what) so it will work with any pair of earphones/headphones. Also i dont know if you realise this, but 'the jack' is not all the same thing. All manufacturers dont use the same 'the jack', an external one is simply what phones with aux have inside, and they come in all different models giving all different gradients of sound quality. so

3.5 - An external dac is as simple as an internal one. They do the exact same thing, its just outside so theres more space in the phone for other stuff.

4 - addressed earlier - you can get dongles to charge and listen to music. Also with fast charging literally 10 minutes and your at 60 percent. So charging overnight is a thing of the past. 

5 - a 3.5mm jack does not do anything better than usb c. You can not compare the two. If you do want to compare them sure lets go. A built in 3.5mill jack will sound attrocious compared to external adapters such as meizu hifi audio (pro), most of them dont even have their own intergrated dac and work off the phones cpu. You wont hear the difference on 5 quid earphones however, but there is a massive difference, being that external dacs are much much better. But you can't really compare the two.

6- Why would you want audio coming specifically from the phone? Why do you want this so much? You dont have to code a dac every time u plug it into ur phone u plug it in and it works. How is this convuluted? Usb c thingy go into usb c plug. ezpz. Its not complicated at all.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is wrong.

LC3 was NOT designed for hearing aid use. Hearing aid use is one of the areas where it will be used, but that does not mean it was specifically designed for that and nothing else.

 

LC3 offers 3 times higher audio quality than SBC at the same bit rate and power usage.

 

160Kbps LC3 sounds better than 345Kbps SBC.

 

 

I think LC3 is the future for Bluetooth audio. It offers near transparent transcoding quality, and it is an open standard pushed by Bluetooth SIG. So we shouldn't have any problems like the ones we have with AptX or LDAC.

Literately, everything that LC3 shows up for, pushes the hearing aid angle, so don't tell me it was not designed for hearing aid use.

https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/bluetooth-technology/le-audio/

It's designed specifically to enable this functionality.

https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/bluetooth-technology/le-audio/hearing/

 

Since it's a new technology, it will require people to throw out their existing devices, yet again. A device requires Bluetooth 5.2 support for it, which means nothing out there supports it right now.

 

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

  

You can make lossy compression sound transparent to human ears. I seriously doubt you can hear the difference between lossless audio and a high quality lossy encode.  And I think you can make Bluetooth sound near if not fully transparent even to some self-proclaimed audiophile using only the technologies and standards available today.

 

Look, I've tried using expensive bluetooth headphones on the mobile phone and the desktop, and it's an awful experience just to pair the thing, let alone use it. It sounds awful, every time. In literately a "I can't believe anyone can stand this" way. Also the signal dropped if I walked more than 15' away from it. It's quite unusable, and I don't know why anyone would go with wireless headphones. Let's not even get into the poor battery life.

 

The difference between a lossless audio and a high bitrate encode doesn't matter if the device is going to transcode it to a lower quality codec. You might not be old enough to have experienced the some of the first generations of mp3's but I assure you they are quite rubbish, and a lot of music released since then is dynamic range compressed to sound louder because that's what they feel the market wants, just like a lot of singers are auto-tuned because that's what the recording studio thinks the market wants.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Besides, we have to consider where Bluetooth audio is being used. It's in mobile devices. I doubt many people sit at home with their 5,000 dollar headphone, DAC and AMP setup with their phone plugged in. If the Bluetooth audio standard is good enough to not have noticeable audio artifacts in places where mobile devices are being used for music playback, such as on an airplane, public transport, in a school coordinator etc, basically places with lots of background noise, then it's good enough even though it might on a technical level not be as good.

 

If you're using bluetooth headphones, or rather, ear-buds, where you can actually hear the outside noise, then you already get an inferior listening experience but that might just be good enough for your commute, but wired earbuds are cheaper and sound better, even the crappiest $15 earbuds end up sounding better than $300 bluetooth headphones by that metric.

 

One of the best purchases I ever made on my trip between seattle and boston was buying some crappy ear buds to use with the ipad to listen to music because I wasn't going to find a place to charge two devices on the train, and had to swap between the ipad and the nokia phone for charging and both had 3.5mm jacks for audio.

 

This is important why wired headphones need to exist, and companies removing the headphone are extremely short-sighted, if not blissfully unaware about how people actually use their devices to save a few pennies.

 

Where are you going to charge your mobile phone if it only has wireless charging? Now you have to bring a big expensive wireless charger with you everywhere. If it only has a charging port and no headphone jack, now you need a dongle to charge+listen. If you are traveling on a train or a plane, you're not going to bring a power strip with you to plug in all your battery-operated devices for several hours, you're only going to to get to use one. On a trans-continental trip or trans-Atlantic/pacific flight you're not going to have access to multiple outlets.

 

The 3.5mm TRRS headphone jack probably could have been replaced with a 2.5mm TRRS jack and that would have resulted in less complaining and even maybe push 2.5mm connectors over 3.5mm connectors as laptops would benefit from that as well. It's not like a passive 2.5mm to 3.5mm adapter isn't possible to keep using it on 3.5mm equipment, and a dongle in this situation for connecting a 3.5mm headset to a 2.5mm one is entirely mechanical.

 

[BuckGup]

19 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Silly is completely throwing away backwards compatibility in favor of dongle life.

Change is good though and we are just in a transition era. In 5 years no one will be talking about 3.5mm

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Literately, everything that LC3 shows up for, pushes the hearing aid angle, so don't tell me it was not designed for hearing aid use.

"It can be used for hearing aids" does not mean "it was designed for hearing aids".

 

Like I said, it also offers 3 times the audio quality at the same bitrate as SBC. LE Audio also has features specifically designed for multi-streams, which is to say you can stream audio from one smartphone to one or more speakers at once. Does that mean "LE Audio was specifically designed for multiroom speakers"? No, it just means that's one more thing it can do, just like it can be used for hearing aids.

 

The hearing aid portion on that page is like 1/5 of the page. Another fifth of the page is LE Audio broadcasting, which has nothing to do with hearing aids. Another 1/5 of the page is multi-stream, which yet against has nothing to do with hearing aids. Another 1/5 of the page is specifically about audio quality and how it can deliver higher quality audio over existing Bluetooth standards.

 

Don't confuse "our standard can do this among other things" for "our standard was specifically designed for this particular use case"

 

 

So I will tell you again, LE Audio was not designed specifically for hearing aid use. It was designed for a wide range of use cases including but not limited to hearing aids (which is the narrative you are trying to push for some reason). Another use case is high quality audio streaming to headphones, another one is multi-room speakers, a third use case is true wireless earphones. The list goes on.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Since it's a new technology, it will require people to throw out their existing devices, yet again. A device requires Bluetooth 5.2 support for it, which means nothing out there supports it right now.

No it won't. A Bluetooth 5.2 device will be backwards compatible with already existing Bluetooth headphones. If you want the best quality then yes you will need new gear, but that's how it is for everything, including your solution you mentioned earlier. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Look, I've tried using expensive bluetooth headphones on the mobile phone and the desktop, and it's an awful experience just to pair the thing, let alone use it. It sounds awful, every time. In literately a "I can't believe anyone can stand this" way. Also the signal dropped if I walked more than 15' away from it. It's quite unusable, and I don't know why anyone would go with wireless headphones. Let's not even get into the poor battery life.

Well maybe that's problems with the devices you have used? I haven't had any problems with my Bluetooth audio devices (Sony WH-1000XM3, Galaxy Buds, Jaybird X3).

Pairing has been very straight forward. Battery life in those particular ones ranges from good to really good. I think you are suffering from nocebo if you think it sounds bad. Range can be an issue but I mean, it's not like a cable has less issues with ranges, right? So it's not really a negative for Bluetooth.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The difference between a lossless audio and a high bitrate encode doesn't matter if the device is going to transcode it to a lower quality codec. You might not be old enough to have experienced the some of the first generations of mp3's but I assure you they are quite rubbish, and a lot of music released since then is dynamic range compressed to sound louder because that's what they feel the market wants, just like a lot of singers are auto-tuned because that's what the recording studio thinks the market wants.

What's your deal with constantly calling me young? I am flattered but you seem to try and do it in a condescending way.

Not sure why you bring up the loudness war and I fail to see how it's relevant to this conversation.

 

Also, you do know that it is possible to transmit audio through Bluetooth without doing a transcode, right? I don't have my music transcoded when I use my Sony 1000xm3, Galaxy Buds or Jaybird X3 for example. The file that is streamed over Bluetooth is exactly the same as if I had some toslink or other digital cable wired to my Bluetooth audio device. At least not for music.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

If you're using bluetooth headphones, or rather, ear-buds, where you can actually hear the outside noise, then you already get an inferior listening experience but that might just be good enough for your commute, but wired earbuds are cheaper and sound better, even the crappiest $15 earbuds end up sounding better than $300 bluetooth headphones by that metric.

I don't believe you when you say a pair of 15 dollar earbuds will sound better than 300 dollar Bluetooth headphones. I think that's a ridiculous generalized statement to make. I do agree that you will tend to get better quality when comparing wireless to wired in equal price ranges. I mean, it would be weird otherwise.

Not sure what metric you are referring to though.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

This is important why wired headphones need to exist, and companies removing the headphone are extremely short-sighted, if not blissfully unaware about how people actually use their devices to save a few pennies.

Totally agree. I agree with you 100% and I am very happy that my Galaxy S10 has a headphone jack. You can find lots and lots of posts from me on this forum where I argue with people trying to reason why the headphone jack should disappear.

What I disagree with you on is:

1) You seem to think Bluetooth audio is shit for various reasons and I don't agree.

2) You seem to think that LC3 was designed specifically for hearing aids and therefore writes it off as not suitable for music or anything else, which is completely wrong.

Those are the only two points I disagree with you on.

[Kisai]

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

"It can be used for hearing aids" does not mean "it was designed for hearing aids".

 

Like I said, it also offers 3 times the audio quality at the same bitrate as SBC. LE Audio also has features specifically designed for multi-streams, which is to say you can stream audio from one smartphone to one or more speakers at once. Does that mean "LE Audio was specifically designed for multiroom speakers"? No, it just means that's one more thing it can do, just like it can be used for hearing aids.

You're reading more into than what I'm saying. I didn't say "only for hearing aids". Hearing aids do not have huge batteries in them, so previous bluetooth versions would not work very well or at all without additional power to power the bluetooth radio. Just like headphones.

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

No it won't. A Bluetooth 5.2 device will be backwards compatible with already existing Bluetooth headphones. If you want the best quality then yes you will need new gear, but that's how it is for everything, including your solution you mentioned earlier. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Garbage in, garbage out. My headphones from the 1970's, if I still had them, would still work on a home stereo released this year with the 1/4" audio jack, and playing a LP will sound the same as it did every time, provided the stereo/surround receiver doesn't do it's own DRC. Bluetooth headphones meanwhile are garbage after a year or two.

 

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

Well maybe that's problems with the devices you have used? I haven't had any problems with my Bluetooth audio devices (Sony WH-1000XM3, Galaxy Buds, Jaybird X3).

Pairing has been very straight forward. Battery life in those particular ones ranges from good to really good. I think you are suffering from nocebo if you think it sounds bad. Range can be an issue but I mean, it's not like a cable has less issues with ranges, right? So it's not really a negative for Bluetooth.

I've tried other devices and it's always awful. You can't possibly tell me that a bluetooth car mode is supposed to sound as awful as it does when you can directly compare it by plugging in the USB port. By all accounts a car audio system is usually 10x better than the bluetooth hardware you can buy. And that is without getting into those aftermarket audio systems that can knock out the passengers with audio pressure alone.

 

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

What's your deal with constantly calling me young? I am flattered but you seem to try and do it in a condescending way.

Not sure why you bring up the loudness war and I fail to see how it's relevant to this conversation.

Because making music louder hides the compression artifacts. https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=High-frequency_content_in_MP3s

Quote

MP3 encoders typically "lowpass" their input, cutting off the highest frequencies. There are several reasons for this:

• Human hearing tends to drop off sharply somewhere between 16 and 20 KHz, usually toward the low end of that range.
• The input to the encoder is unlikely to have much, if any, audible, musical (non-noise-like) high-frequency content.
• Even if the source does have audible musical content above 16 KHz, preserving it would take away valuable space that could be used by the lower, more important frequency bands.
• The MP3 format has difficulty storing content above 16 KHz without sacrificing quality and increasing the bitrate requirements of the lower frequency bands.

http://soundexpert.org/home

http://soundexpert.org/encoders-320-kbps

http://soundexpert.org/encoders-128-kbps

Take note of where the drop off is. 

 

https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/

https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/

 

 

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Also, you do know that it is possible to transmit audio through Bluetooth without doing a transcode, right? I don't have my music transcoded when I use my Sony 1000xm3, Galaxy Buds or Jaybird X3 for example. The file that is streamed over Bluetooth is exactly the same as if I had some toslink or other digital cable wired to my Bluetooth audio device. At least not for music.

Nope, not at all. The only audio that is not transcoded is AAC audio, and only if your headphones support it. That's a plus for iTunes music, but a negative for things like Discord. https://support.spotify.com/us/article/high-quality-streaming/

so 24, 96 and 160 go back up to that link above with the audio quality perception

http://soundexpert.org/encoders-96-kbps - all below 5.0 which means that most people can perceive the quality loss. I know I can. 

 

I can also hear the difference between a CD from 1996 and an MP3/AAC made from the same disc. My guess is that many people can not or they wouldn't put up with this crap.

 

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I don't believe you when you say a pair of 15 dollar earbuds will sound better than 300 dollar Bluetooth headphones. I think that's a ridiculous generalized statement to make. I do agree that you will tend to get better quality when comparing wireless to wired in equal price ranges. I mean, it would be weird otherwise.

Not sure what metric you are referring to though.

Do you know how loud it is on an airplane normally? Or on a train? Not even a subway tunnel (which is louder), but an actual commuter/cross-country train? The background noise is typically at a level that you can hear it over all ear buds, so your $15 earbuds are no better than wireless ones, and you're less likely to lose them. Ear-covering headphones are a completely different audio profile, and even crappy ones will sound better wired than wireless when both options exist on the same headphones.

 

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Totally agree. I agree with you 100% and I am very happy that my Galaxy S10 has a headphone jack. You can find lots and lots of posts from me on this forum where I argue with people trying to reason why the headphone jack should disappear.

What I disagree with you on is:

1) You seem to think Bluetooth audio is shit for various reasons and I don't agree.

2) You seem to think that LC3 was designed specifically for hearing aids and therefore writes it off as not suitable for music or anything else, which is completely wrong.

Those are the only two points I disagree with you on.

You only read what you wanted read about LC3. The entire BLE audio is designed for point-to-multi-point/point-to-point audio to allow broadcasts to be received, in a one-way direction. Also solving one of the most obnoxious parts of bluetooth, pairing. Stuff that was long solved with FM Radio, and patent-licencing basically killed any adoption of HD Radio to be used this way.