7 ms·

Bluetooth Headset: PRO: - no cable that annoys you CON - heavy, thus fall out your ear while running. - small battery (which evolves, but slowely) - more

by Zorlag 9y ago

Bluetooth Headset: PRO: - no cable that annoys you CON - heavy, thus fall out your ear while running. - small battery (which evolves, but slowely) - more expensive - redundant audio processors - mostly low quality audio processors - bluetooth is unstable Cable Headset PRO - good audio quality - low price (in comparison) - light, stays in your ear while jogging - usable on a range of devices - compact design - make use of a huge battery, namely the one in your phone CON - the cable breaks after some time - the cable restricts you I don't see the why I would want to change my standard headphones for a technology that is bound to fail me over time, either by running out of juice or by a bluetooth hickup. I wouldn't buy a phone without a headphone jack. Period.

komali2 9y ago
Good analysis, and that doesn't even include the phone itself: Having a 3.5mm Jack on a smartphone: PRO: - Compatible with nearly 100 years of audio technology - Inclusion does not prevent usage of other means of wired/wireless audio transmission - usbc, bluetooth, wifi CON - Phone thickness minimum is hard-set to 3.5mm (not even sure this is a con) - ....cost to.. design? I don't even know.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- morecoffee 9y ago
  Not justifying, but waterproofing a phone is very hard if it has holes in it.
  - bliss 9y ago
    Microphone, speakers, charging port - lots of holes. The Sony Walkman Sport from back in the day was waterproof, it had a standard jack
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      The audio jack is not a hole at all. It is a sealed port with metal plates inside. (Unless you make one for cheapening purposes.)
  - komali2 9y ago
    Perhaps, but Samsung has it figured out.
chaostheory 9y ago
I agree with Bluetooth 4.xx audio quality. It sucks, especially for bass (I have several giant wireless headphones including one from Bose for reference). Everything sounds more flat. Hopefully the new 5.x standards will fix it. There's one pro that you're missing for bluetooth though. One less port means it's easier to protect Pixels from water.
therobot24 9y ago
I use these - https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-S305-Bluetooth-Stereo-Headphones/dp/B002IS1O84/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1498418977&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=motorola+wireless+headphones https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-S305-Bluetooth-Stereo-Headph... and love them. The battery is worth a few hours, doesn't fall out (don't like earbuds), and decent sound quality (albeit i'm not an expert in what someone might deem 'quality')
Eric_WVGG 9y ago
so what's wrong with a pair of USB-C headphones?
- ac29 9y ago
  Can't charge and listen at the same time. For many (most?) use cases, this wouldn't matter, but for example, taking a multi-hour plane trip and wanting to use your phone to watch a movie or two would be basically impossible. If manufacturers are so dead-set on getting rid of the traditional 3.5mm headphone jack, I hope they move towards dual USB-C.
- mclehman 9y ago
  My guess is going to be the sound quality.
jarcoal 9y ago
Bluetooth can handle a larger variety of tasks than just transmitting audio to the headset. In other words, the headphone jack limits what we can do with smart listening devices.
- falcolas 9y ago
  A music jack in no way limits a phones Bluetooth capabilities. As has been proven over the years, you can have and use both.
kentt 9y ago
The big con for me is I already have great headphones that I'm guessing I'll use for another 5 years or more. They don't have bluetooth equivalents. I'm normally a big Pixel/Nexus fan so this is a big disappointment for me.
JohnTHaller 9y ago
Bluetooth is necessarily lower quality as you're taking an audio source and compressing and decompressing it using a lossy algorithm. Granted, as most people are listening to streaming, they're already listening to a source that's been compressed and decompressed once or twice.
synicalx 9y ago
Only point I agree with about the Bluetooth headsets is that they're expensive. Although I must admit, the bigger ones do make you look a bit like Frankenstein's monster I go running all the time with my Soundsports and have zero issues - battery life can be measure in weeks, they never fall out, bluetooth is rock solid, and the best bit is I don't even need my phone they can operate directly from my watch. Each to their own, but I doubt I'll ever use wired earphones with my phone again.

by Zorlag 9y ago

komali2 9y ago

Good analysis, and that doesn't even include the phone itself: Having a 3.5mm Jack on a smartphone: PRO: - Compatible with nearly 100 years of audio technology - Inclusion does not prevent usage of other means of wired/wireless audio transmission - usbc, bluetooth, wifi CON - Phone thickness minimum is hard-set to 3.5mm (not even sure this is a con) - ....cost to.. design? I don't even know.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
morecoffee 9y ago
Not justifying, but waterproofing a phone is very hard if it has holes in it.
- bliss 9y ago
  Microphone, speakers, charging port - lots of holes. The Sony Walkman Sport from back in the day was waterproof, it had a standard jack
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    The audio jack is not a hole at all. It is a sealed port with metal plates inside. (Unless you make one for cheapening purposes.)
- komali2 9y ago
  Perhaps, but Samsung has it figured out.

chaostheory 9y ago

I agree with Bluetooth 4.xx audio quality. It sucks, especially for bass (I have several giant wireless headphones including one from Bose for reference). Everything sounds more flat. Hopefully the new 5.x standards will fix it. There's one pro that you're missing for bluetooth though. One less port means it's easier to protect Pixels from water.

therobot24 9y ago

I use these - https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-S305-Bluetooth-Stereo-Headphones/dp/B002IS1O84/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1498418977&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=motorola+wireless+headphones https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-S305-Bluetooth-Stereo-Headph... and love them. The battery is worth a few hours, doesn't fall out (don't like earbuds), and decent sound quality (albeit i'm not an expert in what someone might deem 'quality')

Eric_WVGG 9y ago

so what's wrong with a pair of USB-C headphones?

ac29 9y ago
Can't charge and listen at the same time. For many (most?) use cases, this wouldn't matter, but for example, taking a multi-hour plane trip and wanting to use your phone to watch a movie or two would be basically impossible. If manufacturers are so dead-set on getting rid of the traditional 3.5mm headphone jack, I hope they move towards dual USB-C.
mclehman 9y ago
My guess is going to be the sound quality.

jarcoal 9y ago

Bluetooth can handle a larger variety of tasks than just transmitting audio to the headset. In other words, the headphone jack limits what we can do with smart listening devices.

falcolas 9y ago
A music jack in no way limits a phones Bluetooth capabilities. As has been proven over the years, you can have and use both.

kentt 9y ago

The big con for me is I already have great headphones that I'm guessing I'll use for another 5 years or more. They don't have bluetooth equivalents. I'm normally a big Pixel/Nexus fan so this is a big disappointment for me.

JohnTHaller 9y ago

Bluetooth is necessarily lower quality as you're taking an audio source and compressing and decompressing it using a lossy algorithm. Granted, as most people are listening to streaming, they're already listening to a source that's been compressed and decompressed once or twice.

synicalx 9y ago

Only point I agree with about the Bluetooth headsets is that they're expensive. Although I must admit, the bigger ones do make you look a bit like Frankenstein's monster I go running all the time with my Soundsports and have zero issues - battery life can be measure in weeks, they never fall out, bluetooth is rock solid, and the best bit is I don't even need my phone they can operate directly from my watch. Each to their own, but I doubt I'll ever use wired earphones with my phone again.