Most audiophiles ignore bluetooth headphones due to sound quality + latency, so we (audiophiles) stick to wired at home and we also have dedicated headphone amps since the pissy sound card D/A convertors are incredibly bad. Bluetooth only when I’m doing yard work. Sadly, modern music is tuned to crappy headphones, crappy car systems, crappy speakers … I miss the 80’s audiophile obsession, the equipment had heart, and mixing and mastering was generations ahead of current (mainstream) music production.
- Apple has a lossless codec for wireless, ALAC that can do up to 24bit/192khz
- aptX can do 44/16 in other devices, Sony has LDAC at 24/96 too
- latency under <100ms is meaningless for pure audio listening, video players have latency compensation
We have amazing technology available today, at prices and quality unimaginable in the 80s. A $50 in-ear from a chinese hi-fi brand can give you an audio experience you couldn’t buy for thousands of dollars a decade ago. And there’s more and more analog hardware being designed and built as technology costs have fallen. You’re really missing out if you think things were better back then.
From a security point of view music listening is quite marginal, I think. The vulnerable headsets make conversations trivial to eavesdrop.
Average communication input is in a noisy environment (colleagues, family, wind, equipment, car), and is compressed both in the dynamic range and bitrate sense before sending out. The transport medium then provides latency and packet loss. The fidelity of the audio equipment on the receiving side plays very little role. I imagine even audiophiles quite readily use even below mid-range wireless headsets for conversations, just because they are more convenient.
In other words, I don't take calls on my wired AKG headphones, even though my phone has a 3.5mm jack. I'm particularly fond of my €30 in-ear BT headset that provides good enough input and output even when I'm biking. I can't be bothered to check if the model is on the vulnerable devices list, the phone company / Meta / Alphabet / some governments and so on can surveil my communications anyway. Adding a random passer-by to the mix does not meaningfully increase the attack surface. Plus they might get to listen to awesome music, if I'm not on a call.
"Sound quality" is a theoretical goal which can't be achieved in practice unless you listen in a perfectly quiet room. Your audiophile open-back headphones can't achieve their rated sound quality if eg there's a CPU fan in the room, or if you're wearing glasses, or if your head just doesn't fit the headphones the same way as the tester's dummy head mic did.
A friend worked in an audiophile shop during his physics master and he'd swear the customer base was the most gullible bunch he ever saw... And mostly unswayable by rational arguments.
I suspect some of that disconnect is because hearing itself isn’t standardized. Differences in frequency perception, hearing loss, and training can make two people genuinely hear different things.
Of course people have different hearing, but the audiophile market is overflowing with snake-oil stuff like 'oxygen free copper' cables to 'acoustic resonator discs'.
Nobody's proven any of that stuff results in better sound quality (or even different quality after you graduate from junk stuff to reasonable equipment). Seems like an awfully expensive way of experiencing the placebo effect to me.
I know someone who spent upwards of $10k on a single 3-foot HDMI cable that was 'infused with Peruvian copper'. He says it makes the colors "more true".
I think many still recognise the train, car, going for a run / cycle, gym… isn’t an optimum listening environment and the convenience significantly outweighs AQ in a lot of situations.
I'm really enjoying my Focal Bathys Bluetooth headphones! Sure, wired options will always be better, but when I want convenience, I've been really impressed with these!
