Technology

34853 readers

18 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

1011

Fairphone Fairbuds launch with replaceable batteries, titanium drivers and ANC (www.notebookcheck.net)

submitted 7 months ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

373 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

asfasf

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] Zpiritual@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 7 months ago

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?