1020
Fairphone Fairbuds launch with replaceable batteries, titanium drivers and ANC
(www.notebookcheck.net)
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1020 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
35121 readers
41 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
> only support AAC and SBC codecs
> available for 149
Eh.
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.
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 4.0Nothing 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 4.0Why 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 4.0Yeah, 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.
I'm not a bluetooth absolutist, but I think is depends on the bluetooth transmitter in your phone (or laptop or other).
My phone, a 7 year old low end phone has multiple times better signal strength than the only dongle I could find for my PC. That fast forward like things is also the quirk of a specific bt adapter, I think, or maybe the OS, but I haven't noticed such a thing to happen, even though I have experienced too audio drops from me being too far away.
I've had multiple phones and tried two bluetooth headsets but the fast forward and bad signal happened with all of them. I've experienced bad signal with the phone in my pocket too. Also had it happen on a plane multiple times which forced me to switch to cable. WiFi has never had these kinds of problems, but bluetooth consistently has.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0It'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.
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.
Sorry, what? They are obliged to buy them, if not today, they will be when their phone stops working and they have to buy a new one, because that won't have a jack connector.
Except of course if they don't use a smartphone.
I had at least hoped for FastStream. (Essentially bidirectional SBC for good quality audio while using the microphone)
Hang on, is THAT why call quality is abysmal with practically every bluetooth device?
Yes. and why it's wildly complicated on Windows machines where you have an audio output device for headphones and for headset, and once something starts using the mic the output device itself changes.
So joining team chat in a game will either make audio sound horrible or break it entirely if you had specified the output device instead of using default device.
How in the fuck is bluetooth even a competing standard? If it’s “good enough” than so is SD video and VHS tapes.
Bluetooth turns twenty-six this year, maybe we’ll be closer to good integration once it hits it’s thirties.
There's a lot of things that make the Bluetooth experience better.. it's just almost all focused on mobile phones, maybe apple laptops if you stay in their walled gardens, but definitely not stock windows.
I say stock because if you do use windows and want to use Bluetooth you can improve things with a third party driver https://www.bluetoothgoodies.com/a2dp/ it's still not great but at least you can use better codecs than default
I mean even Sony didn't get it working on my XM4s, I don't know why people expect it from $150 earbuds.
Starting to notice a trend with these "specialty" device companies, crap specs and high (relatively) prices.
The FP5, released last year has a SoC that performs worse than the Tensor. The TENSOR, a chip widely regarded as shitty, and can be had on a phone 200$ cheaper. :/
The high prices at least should be obvious, a product using fairly sourced components will always be more expensive.
Mmm, ok....
The workers literally get paid bonuses for each phone that gets made. The phone's parts all get certified for sustainability. They need to find manufacturers willing to fulfill their requirements, for which they will obviously charge more.
I'm not saying that they're for everyone or should be free from criticism. I personally decided against buying one due to the size, performance and camera. But if you're complaining about a sustainable product costing more than a regular one, you're missing the point and were never in the target audience in the first place.
Other's make it cheaper because they don't care about "fair". How do you think cheap products become cheap? Think about it for a second.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0You can be "fair" and pricey, just put a better competitive SoC, rn it's near budget tier for upper mid range money
And then they expect someone to use it for 10 years? LMAO, that thing is gonna be sluggish AF in another 1 or 2 tops, can't imagine trying to use it in 10 lolol
That's the thing, fair SoC's aren't cheap because they aren't available everywhere nor is a fair supply chain easy to setup. Do you think somebody just snapped their fingers or trusted the words written in a contract? "This supplier says they're fair and ethical, so I'll believe them 🤷 "
Who do you think has to verify suppliers claims? Do you think they are free? Do you think a manufacturer will simply throw out an unfair supplier to be ethical and fair if that meant loss of business or revenue?
Think about it from the extreme: are slaves cheaper than paid employees? Then continue the thoughts from there and the impacts they have on the cost and availability of products. Just walk through the logistics yourself and compare the cost of doing business ethically vs not. Maybe even write it down to get a better picture.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0