this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
1094 points (90.8% liked)
Technology
59593 readers
2962 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then you'd need to include a headphone jack since the headphones acted as the antenna.
Good.
It's funny how the few who're totally sold on Bluetooth go "ugh, but then you'd need a headphone jack" as if it isn't an upgrade for others which wouldn't affect their ability to use Bluetooth at all.
It doesn't make it at all harder to waterproof the devices. Sony has been making them for a decade now (IP57 in 2013 on the Xperia Z), Samsung didn't have any issues with the S10 line either. This is just a lie manufacturers tell you to sell bluetooth crap.
But what's the problem with having an analog component?
Also, your last claim is weird, because the headphones will ultimately require an analog signal, so, it just changes the place where the conversion is made, either in the user device, or in a digital circuit inside the headphones, and the cable diatance is small enough for adding interference. Your better sound experience is probably due to manufacturers making better sound actuators, not due to the digital data transmission. Try some really cheap bt headphones, and you will see what bad quality is.
Not an expert on this but, but AFAIK having the analog component inside the device is exactly the problem, as all the components in there cause electrical interference that you can't really shield against inside such a tiny device. It's similar to how the built-in PC audio is often quite bad compared to even the cheapest external DAC.
Not to mention it’s a form factor that requires a considerable amount of space. That for the majority of users is doing nothing but taking up that space for no reason. Every phone without a headphone jack is capable of getting a jack with a simple dongle. What I love are the people who have absolute no problem with a dangly cord around their neck but lose their shit if you have to connect a 1 inch piece of wire first. They act like it’s a bag phone you attach to your side. And as far as audio fidelity goes the DAC inside a cell phone is nearly always garbage and you’ll need your own DAC anyway which is easy to obtain when it can be powered by your phone.
Yup. What I'd actually like to see is a secondary USB-C port becoming much more common. USB-C is just much more universal and if both ports support charging it also helps device longevity since you can still charge if one breaks. My handheld emulation device has two and it's been handy several times already.
Indeed, interference is the greatest enemy of analog signals. It's not impossible to shield, though. Other parts are already shielded, but I can see how it could have become more challenging.
Btw, I thought it was more related to frequency than components size, but now I'm confused, I will look more into it when I have more time. Thanks for bringing this into the topic.
I'm not an expert either, but the DAC on my Galaxy S10 sounds amazing. It's just a question of whether manufacturers bother implementing it properly.
I see myself wanting to listen to music in situations where the data signal is bad more often than I want to use my phone underwater or something.
This requires an expensive (in my country) data plan and cell tower service.
Then get a $10 transistor radio instead of a cell phone
There's no such thing as digital headphones.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. You can still use Bluetooth even when your phone has a headphone jack, and headphone jacks can be IP67 rated so it’s not a concern for waterproofing.
How did I say that like it's a bad thing?
Why is it limited to 67? It should be easier than the USB port right?
I mean, the only other rating above that is IP68, and that would require them to specify the depth and time that the phone can be submerged. Most manufacturers only go for IP67 because it’s much cheaper to test.
That I know but I was wondering why you specifically mentioned 67. I guess I misread that as a limit.
Nah, not a limit. It’s just a cost/benefit trade off. Manufacturers don’t typically push for IP68 unless they’re specifically marketing the device for underwater use, and believe users will be willing to accept the higher resulting cost.
I wonder if wired USB-C Headphones could work the same?
Yes. But it would also drain more power.