What's exactly the difference between wireless and cable? should i bother getting wireless?

[GrizzlyBear0]

What's exactly the difference between wireless and cable? should i bother getting wireless?

[jaslion]

Big it depends.

 

Wireless can be as good as cable IF it is a direct connection that isn't bluetooth. Then you also get the advantages of wireless but most likely need a dock for the headset.

 

Cable is well cable direct connection and all nothing to worry about (except if it is usb those headsets are usually a big pain in the butt).

[pythonmegapixel]

Given that you're in the audio section I guess you're asking about headphones. Do you find the cable to be an annoyance, and do you need to use them with a device without an audio jack? If no to both, no need to buy wireless ones.

 

It really is as simple as that, unless you still believe that Bluetooth degrades the audio quality - which unless you have very high-end equipment or are using a very old version of the standard for some reason is not noticeable. It is less reliable and results in more latency though.

 

You can also get wireless headphones which use technologies other than bluetooth - can't comment on those as I've never used one.

[Kisai]

34 minutes ago, GrizzlyBear0 said:

What's exactly the difference between wireless and cable? should i bother getting wireless?

Context.

 

Wireless headphones, are worse than wired ones. Period. No exceptions. Yes, you can get decent wireless headphones and yes you can get decent battery life from some headphones, but you don't get both usually in the same headphones and much cheaper wired ones will outperform the wireless ones every time.

 

For the very same reason, WiFi, Bluetooth and Wireless phones are inferior to Wired Ethernet, USB, and Landline phones.

 

All wireless devices are subject to interference. If you are in a relatively quiet area (eg there isn't another room in the same building using the same/similar wireless devices) you will get away with wireless technology. On the other hand if you live in a city, your neighbors which will be less than 100m away are all within your signal. So they can interfere with you, and you with them. In order for the radios to "speak louder" to overcome that noise they burn more energy.

 

What I suggest, in general, is that users always used the wired option unless there is a reason for it to be wireless. An example of this is where you are using VR kit, VR trackers are wireless and safer than wired options since you can trip and fall over cables.

 

Wireless options always have latency, and thus it's usually really weird to see people complain about not being able to get 144fps in a game, yet picking wireless options which will have up to 500ms of latency, and would clearly be detrimental to such gameplay.

 

 

 

[H713]

Trying to do full bandwidth audio with good dynamic range wirelessly is difficult and costly to implement. Cheap solutions will inevitably use sub-optimal solutions like bluetooth. Unless you have very good reason to need wireless, it's best avoided. 

 

I myself have never found wired headphones to be objectionable. Troubleshooting wireless headphones that don't work right, on the other hand, is.

[Stahlmann]

The only wireless headphone i ever had was the Sennheiser GSP 370. And it was terrible in terms of interference. As soon as i was 2m or so away from the transmitter, i got crackling audio, dropouts and other issues. So basically i was also limited to be close to the transmitter, eliminating the advantage of being wireless. I don't know if that's normal for most wireless headphones, but for this one it seemed like it is judging by other peoples experiences with it.

 

Now i just don't bother with it anymore. Seeing as you also pay a premium for the worse experience i just go wired now.

[Roswell]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:54 AM, Kisai said:

Wireless headphones, are worse than wired ones. Period. No exceptions.

Wrong.

 

This is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, not fact. You have this OPINION because you value the benefits of wired headphones more than you do the benefits of wireless headphones.

 

Just because you like something more than another thing does not magically make your preference objective fact.

 

On another note, I’m not sure where you get the impression that wireless devices are crippled in a city… we’re not in the 80s anymore. Digital transmission and channel switching exists. I live in the middle of one of the most populated cities in the country and have never once had an issue with interference… on anything.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Roswell said:

Wrong.

 

This is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, not fact. You have this OPINION because you value the benefits of wired headphones more than you do the benefits of wireless headphones.

Nope, it's an objective fact. Why would you spend so much money on a much worse experience by every measure. You'll be hard pressed to find a review of wired vs wireless headphones, networking equipment or pretty much anything else that will say the wireless beat out the wired version.

 

Battery life? Measured in hours, often single digits. Wired headphones? Infinite.

Range? 100 meters line-of-sight for DECT and Class 1 Bluetooth, more typical at power levels that won't overload the batteries, 3 meters.

Speaker quality? Compromised for weight due to battery.

Weight: Batteries add weight

 

Ever since analog AM radio, nothing defeats signal loss over range, and nothing solves line-of-sight issues. If you want your wireless headphones to be as close to wired headphones as possible, you can't leave the sight of base station.

 

All bluetooth headphones universally are terrible.

 

 

 

Quote

Just because you like something more than another thing does not magically make your preference objective fact.

 

On another note, I’m not sure where you get the impression that wireless devices are crippled in a city… we’re not in the 80s anymore. Digital transmission and channel switching exists. I live in the middle of one of the most populated cities in the country and have never once had an issue with interference… on anything.

Digital transmission doesn't erase errors, it just masks it. Those pizza dish DTH receivers suffer from rain fade and solar outages. So will Starlink.  HDTV transmitters have multipathing issues to deal with as they bounce off tall buildings. Indoor 3G/4G/5G is utter garbage inside malls, gym's, convention centers, rapid transit stations, etc.

 

With wireless you are fighting capacity issues the more people are nearby, regardless of the wireless thing you are using. That applies to both bluetooth and wireless headphones equally to WiFi and 3G/4G/5G ISP's. I was in walmart earlier today, and as soon as I got 10 ft away from the doors, Cell phone signal went good-bye. I turned around and went and shopped at the other grocery store in the mall.

 

By any objective observation, all wireless offers is cableless convenience at a massively inflated price, while creating eWaste in short usable life due to short-lived batteries and chargers. There are places where perhaps wireless is "the least worst solution" to a problem (such as network connectivity on ships and small islands) where otherwise a wired solution is impractical or astronomically expensive for the amount of useful life it will have.

 

As an example, your mobile phone is a lot less useful if you have to go find a plug in a wall every hour because you use it to listen to music or watch movies on transit. So would it be better to tow around a 3000wh battery pack that makes it last 4 times longer, or would you rather try to conserve the battery? I've been on the ferry a few times where every single outlet is occupied with people plugging in their phones and laptops. If I'm not the first in line when I get on the boat, I'm not getting an outlet to charge the phone. At least trains are generous with electrical outlets.

 

For everything that jumps on the wireless bandwagon, there is something lost from the portability of the thing that went wireless in the first place. An example here is the mobile phone, which easily replaces $10,000 in journalist's equipment, laptop computers, photo, video and audio recording equipment to the batteries, chargers, lenses, and so forth that airlines would undoubtly destroy if you didn't take it in the cabin. I know so, I used to carry around all that stuff. Now I just take the iphone, wired headphones and charger, and maybe a laptop computer if it's going to be more than a few days. If you however have a wireless keyboard, mouse, headphones, networking and so forth, you're now towing an extra 3-4 batteries and chargers for these devices. 

 

Headphones are one of the least-necessary things to be wireless. For all practical purposes sound devices are still treated like third-class citizens when it comes to computers, and that is very much because people's listening experiences are SUBJECTIVE. I personally can tell the difference, and it just is bizarre seeing people try to promote wireless headphones or speakers that all have latency, pairing issues, and signal dropouts as "better"

 

The bluetooth headphones, the last set I bothered with, the signal was gone as soon as I went into the next room, which is 10 meters away. People at the office who all wanted wireless headsets for whatever reason, which are DECT 6.0 sets. They have super-tiny batteries and a 300ft range, which is roughly the length of the building. Yet these are often subject to user errors that result in the pairing or failure of the PC to recognize it.

 

So no. Objectively wireless is worse, every time. People get obsessed with convenience and not having "cables" for aesthetic reasons, but they trade that with a lot of hassles getting it to work and  the latency induced by the radios. Pro gamers would never use wireless equipment because it puts them at a disadvantage to the competitor that uses all wired equipment, even if that wired equipment is maybe cheaper.

 

[Roswell]

39 minutes ago, Kisai said:

-snip-

 

It’s kind of apparent you don’t understand the difference between the words subjective and objective…

 

Again, you value one thing more for certain features. Other people value a different thing for other features. Neither are best because the value placed on said features varies from person to person.

 

Thus, subjective opinion, not fact. It’s a simple concept. If you have trouble understanding that then I would suggest using a dictionary.

[pythonmegapixel]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

So no. Objectively wireless is worse, every time. People get obsessed with convenience and not having "cables" for aesthetic reasons, but they trade that with a lot of hassles getting it to work and  the latency induced by the radios. Pro gamers would never use wireless equipment because it puts them at a disadvantage to the competitor that uses all wired equipment, even if that wired equipment is maybe cheaper.

In your first sentence, you claim that what you are saying is an objective fact.

In your second sentence, you immediately tell us why you are wrong. It is a subjective opinion because some people do genuinely put convenience and aesthetics above the overall quality of the experience.

And in your third sentence, you seem to label "Pro Gamers" as something we should all strive to live up to. Just... no.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general sentiment that you shouldn't choose wireless headphones if wired ones would fit your needs. But there are many cases where you could easily argue wireless headphones are better. The example that immediately springs to mind is running. You're probably keeping your phone no more than a couple of metres away anyway, and if you use wired headphones then there is the potential for the cable to catch on things or for you to accidentally pull the cable and knock the headphones off your head.

[Kisai]

11 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general sentiment that you shouldn't choose wireless headphones if wired ones would fit your needs.

That's the entire argument. Wireless, everything, is just more expensive, get's less useful life, and is overpriced for what you get. When people get uppity and go "well that's just your opinion" and don't follow it up with anything disproving it, all that does is show they have nothing. You don't need to defend your purchasing decisions, buy whatever you want, but just realize that marketing is about convincing you "this thing better than the thing you already have (or have not yet invested in)", and this annoys me very much, particularly with wireless audio and wireless networking.

 

11 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

But there are many cases where you could easily argue wireless headphones are better. The example that immediately springs to mind is running. You're probably keeping your phone no more than a couple of metres away anyway, and if you use wired headphones then there is the potential for the cable to catch on things or for you to accidentally pull the cable and knock the headphones off your head.

You're more likely to lose the wireless headphones if you go running with them to begin with. Someone going running with $600 headphones, pretty much is asking to break them.

[rice guru]

In terms of sound wired headphones sound better for cheaper. Wireless I'm general will sound worse than a good wired headphone. For example the airpods pro while it's a good sounding headphone. It struggles to beat a wired closed back much cheaper than it the akg k371 for roughly $150 but the airpods or is better than anything wired or wireless I e heard from Bose,beats,skull Candy, and most Sony things sub Sony mdr1am2. It's all about context and what you are comparing. Wireless also has to use bluetooth or extra tech like 2.4 GHz and have to have batteries which is stuffed usually beind the driver which causes the headphone itself to be more congested sounding and sound will have less room to breathe so large soundstages are often very hard to accomplish. The Audeze Penrose and mobius are the exception to his rule. The thing with wired is you gen get a pretty awesome sounding setup for pretty cheap and depending on the headphone will sound better than anything wireless above its price point. 

[CTR640]

Wireless is fine but it will never be as good as wired in terms of quality and delay.

Aside the 3.5mm audiojack there is 6.3mm, 4.4, 2.5 and XLR jacks.

 

I have wired and wireless. I use wireless like the Airpods 2, Sony WF XM3 and Amiron Wireless for if I want to watch series and movies on portable devices on my bed at night for example. And for PC use, I use wired. Despite the Amiron Wireless, it can be used wired and sound is just the same. But wireless will never be good because battery will degrade over time.

[Roswell]

9 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

In your first sentence, you claim that what you are saying is an objective fact.

In your second sentence, you immediately tell us why you are wrong. It is a subjective opinion because some people do genuinely put convenience and aesthetics above the overall quality of the experience.

And in your third sentence, you seem to label "Pro Gamers" as something we should all strive to live up to. Just... no.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general sentiment that you shouldn't choose wireless headphones if wired ones would fit your needs. But there are many cases where you could easily argue wireless headphones are better. The example that immediately springs to mind is running. You're probably keeping your phone no more than a couple of metres away anyway, and if you use wired headphones then there is the potential for the cable to catch on things or for you to accidentally pull the cable and knock the headphones off your head.

Another important factor for a lot of people including myself is ANC. If you limit your choices to wired ANC headphones you’re pretty much stuck with the ancient QC 25 or cheap economy brand stuff AFAIK.

 

As far as aesthetics, I really don’t care one way or another. My AirPods are for walking or cooking or cleaning or whatever it may be that would be a royal pain in the ass with wired headphones.

[pythonmegapixel]

8 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Another important factor for a lot of people including myself is ANC. If you limit your choices to wired ANC headphones you’re pretty much stuck with the ancient QC 25 or cheap economy brand stuff AFAIK.

True, though "proper" on-ear wireless headphones generally let you plug a wire in and still use the ANC

 

8 minutes ago, Roswell said:

As far as aesthetics, I really don’t care one way or another. My AirPods are for walking or cooking or cleaning or whatever it may be that would be a royal pain in the ass with wired headphones.

I really don't get the appeal in AirPods. I don't usually care too much about aesthetics, but I think I draw the line above something which looks like I had a mishap while trying to clean the wax out of my ears with an electric toothbrush.

 

But that's just my opinion, and I can see why you would want wireless headphones in general. You do you.

[Roswell]

2 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

True, though "proper" on-ear wireless headphones generally let you plug a wire in and still use the ANC

 

I really don't get the appeal in AirPods. I don't usually care too much about aesthetics, but I think I draw the line above something which looks like I had a mishap while trying to clean the wax out of my ears with an electric toothbrush.

 

But that's just my opinion, and I can see why you would want wireless headphones in general. You do you.

Yes, but ANC headphones are almost always Bluetooth. Therefore if you need ANC, you’re getting wireless. The wired functionality is an aside.

 

AirPods Pro integrate well. Unlimited multi device support with instant switching, pressure ventilation and pretty much unrivaled ANC and sound quality at their price point. The new XM4 from Sony sound a bit better to some people at the cost of accuracy but lack the unlimited pairing and pressure vents. 

[CTR640]

@pythonmegapixelYou probably mean the AirPods Pro?

Why I got the Airpods 2: they are earbuds. Another very good (and totally unexpected) is you can use them while your head is on the cushion for example. This is the best wireless earbuds for me to use when I want to watch movies and series in bed, I can't feel them at all. And I use those foam to keep them protected.

 

I never take my earphones and headphones outside and no reason too. Full-size headphones do have a very good passive NC too. I got two of them but they are not really cheap. Anyway, i have them for any purpose.

 

And oh yes, DT770 does have a good passice NC too.

[pythonmegapixel]

1 hour ago, CTR640 said:

@pythonmegapixelYou probably mean the AirPods Pro?

Nope... all of the AirPods look like a broken-off end of an electric toothbrush to me.

 

I just don't find their appearance attractive at all.

[CTR640]

Just now, pythonmegapixel said:

Nope... all of the AirPods look like a broken-off end of an electric toothbrush to me.

 

I just don't find their appearance attractive at all.

Agreed. Very hideous too lol.