With completely wireless earbuds, the rule is: when the battery fails, they have to be disposed of. Not so with the Fairbuds, that allow you to replace batteries in just a few seconds. Combined with a repairable design, the earbuds should therefore have an extremely long lifetime.
deleted by creator
Hard disagree that earbuds negate codec importance. I love open-back over-ears, but one of my best pairs of headphones are Moondrop IEMs, and I can hear differences in audio quality more noticeably on them than a lot of speakers. I very often plug them into a Bluetooth receiver for semi-wireless convenience, and I can absolutely hear the difference between LDAC and SBC.
However, yeah definitely agreed that $150 is fair for what’s being offered here. Limited codec support is common (if unfortunate) enough in similarly priced gear without the other benefits these bring, so I’d say it’s fair enough unless the drivers themselves are bad.
deleted by creator
In-ear phones have the potential of having the highest fidelity of all headphone types. So, no, being a “codec snob” is completely justified. Though I personally won’t be using BT phones before we get lossless connection as a standard. Wired are cheaper, last longer and have less environmental impact during production and after EOL.
How so? Isn’t converting from digital to analog better than from digital to digital to analog?
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Nothing to do with ADA conversions (and digital-to-digital, eg SRC or bitdepth conversion, is completely transparent if done even remotely adequately). Small drivers close to eardrum with good seal just seem to be easier to manage when it comes to frequency response and distortion. Most open circumaural headphones, for example, seem to have deficiencies in lower end no matter the price.
Are you saying the length of the cable from my phone to my ears has an impact on audio quality?
Also, is there no loss when converting from the digital audio format to whatever bluetooth uses?
This seems unrelated to jack vs bluetooth.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Why of course that is why OP only buys the finest MONSTER Vibranium-Plated Unobtanium-Engraved Analog Audiophile Cables.
No, they’re saying accurately reproducing sounds for people to listen to has much more to do with the vibrating membrane to eardrum interaction than anything that happens between the source material and the vibrating membrane.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, bluetooth has been way funkier than cable ever has for me. It drops, loses packets, and sometimes tries to catch up on whatever shit it was doing to suddenly have the audio sound like it’s fast forwarding. My ears aren’t the best, but that’s the kind of shit I do hear. Membranes can’t protect you from that.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Yeah, they don’t protect you from shorted cables or dirty controls either.
The person you were replying to was saying that contrary to what the person they were replying to said, in ear headphones can have reproduction quality that merits being a “codec snob”, not that we shouldn’t care about wireless versus wired.
They even say that they don’t use wireless headphones.
It’s not just about quality (AAC is perfectly fine quality-wise), it’s IMHO more about the extreme latency, and the fact that they have to to drop down to terrible-sounding HSP/HSP when using the microphone, since A2DP is monodirectional. Sucks that they don’t support LE Audio.
Turning your nose up at SBC isn’t being a codec snob; it’s having functioning ears.
And if you’re on Android, AAC is not well implemented compared to on iOS / MacOS. Maybe this has changed in the past couple years but it was immediately noticeable to me when I upgraded from the WH-1000XM3s to the XM4s, I could immediately tell that the audio was worse if they weren’t using LDAC. And these don’t have LDAC.
Unlike with competent compression codecs (mp3 vs AAC vs FLAC), where most people genuinely cannot tell the difference between a well-compressed song vs a lossless one, many people can immediately tell the difference between AptX and AAC or SBC on Android.
There are plenty of true wireless headphones out there that support LDAC or AptX for less than $100. It’s not surprising to me that people in their target audience would think $150 for something that sounds terrible to them isn’t reasonable.
Running sbc at higher bitrates than default sound subjectively better than most existing codecs. I use 552 kbit/s regulary and it sound great. Unfortunately the support for higher sbc bitrates is terrible.
I’ve not been able to listen to high bitrate SBC myself, but that tracks with my understanding, too. I read this article - https://habr.com/en/articles/456182/ - recently, when trying to confirm my understanding of why there’s such a huge difference in sound quality from codec to codec.
What setup do you have where you’re able to listen to 552 kbps SBC?
asfasf
You don’t think the Bluetooth codec makes a difference when you’re using Bluetooth headphones? When else would it make a difference?
I feel like you’re just confusing the codec used for compressing audio for storage and wireless transmission with the codec used for transmission via Bluetooth. That or you’ve just never experienced a setting where a better codec was being used.
SBC can sound okay, but see here for a breakdown of why it almost never actually does. Basically, it’s capped at only using a fraction of the available bandwidth, even though it could use more if not for arbitrarily imposed limitations.
Bluetooth headphones are unusable for videos and games if they only support high latency codecs.
deleted by creator
My most expensive earbuds were $75.
At $150, I’d rather buy multiple “lesser” ear buds and not worry about battery lifespan.
I have 2 pairs of hang-on-ear type I use for the gym/exercise, that were $35 each. That’s less than 1/4 the price of these.
Then these aren’t for you and that’s fine. You don’t value what they offer, and you’re not obligated to buy them. Some of us do.