Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/11/24/4-bluetooth-headphone-deals-to.html
…
“Bluetooth” and “audiophile” are two words that do not go together. Ever. Bluetooth sound is absolute shit, no matter how good your headphones or speakers. Too much is removed.
6 Likes
True, but average ears don’t mind. I, for one, an rather content with LDAC and high quality sources, e.g. 320 kbps MP3.
But then I’m old. And I even listened to the stuff I dl’ed through Napster, when they popped up.
Actually what I’m looking for is an underwater mp3 player for use while swimming. Something that syncs easily w iTunes, & has earbuds that won’t fall out on a flip turn. Can BB offer a deal on that? I bet I’m not the only one.
1 Like
2 Likes
This may have been true in the past but with modern codecs audio quality isn’t bad - aptX in particular is really good.
2 Likes
I have not heard it where it isn’t a noticeably worse sound, though it has improved tremendously in the past 5 years.
1 Like
I’m not saying they sound as good as a direct wired connection because they don’t but speaking as an audio snob I’ve still found audio quality with modern Bluetooth headsets and adapters to be “good enough” for casual day to day listening.
2 Likes
I use them (even cheap ones) regularly for the convenience, it’s just hard to beat the super light weight and even the noise cancellation is great. Perfect for environments where there’s a lot of background noise or for moving around in general.
Color me skeptical (blue, if you like) that any self professed audiophile would A. Get behind wireless headphones of any kind and B. Actually be able to tell much of a difference anyways.
2 Likes
Depends on the kind of audiophile. If it’s the kind that buys a $2500 power cable and gushes about how after a mandatory break in period everything sounds more warm and lush, maybe?
1 Like
Yeah. Let me just say, I am more likely to give credit to an audiophile who plays something.
Eric Johnson for example does not identify as an audiophile, but he can tell when someone put the wrong battery in his distortion pedal.
Define audiophile.
If the definition is ‘someone with a discerning ear who is interested in and willing to pay for good sound quality’, then Bluetooth headphones have been an audiophile option for a few years now. Good Bluetooth headphones are objectively good. ‘Bluetooth is shit’ is just not accurate anymore, and recent codecs are as close to lossless as to be immaterial to the majority of ears.
That said, I suspect none of the weird, obscure brands featured in the post here will make sound/quality-obsessed listeners happy…
2 Likes
No way, dude. One of them has “Sound 2.0”! You know that means business.
6 Likes
Finally! Someone invented interactive sound! We’ve been waiting millennia for this. No more will sound just travel in one direction.
2 Likes
Not to mention… what are you listening to?
Every popular recording mastered (or “remastered”) since the mid-'90s has been destroyed by dynamic compression, which can’t be fixed.
I think everyone agrees that the title of this post is just wrong. Maybe one “audiophile” would be pleased with this selection. I believe the only Bluetooth headphones that would come close would be the Sony WH1000-XM3. However there maybe some seriously expensive models I don’t know about.
These cheapy but good enough for most people headphones are just that. The title should be “Dirt cheap Bluetooth headphones that are worth listening with.”
1 Like
The Cowin E7 headphones are $49.99 elsewhere.
I have the Sonys and they are solid on audio quality and decent on noise cancelation. I also have a pair of mid-tier Grados and you can still tell the difference. The Grados don’t have great bass, but they feel crisper and clearer in the highs.
If I’m going to sit down and listen to some music, I go with the Grados (until my ears hurt, but that’s another issue). But walking around or doing dishes, ironing, things like that? For me, headphone chords have a magical ability to snag and tangle, yanking my headphones off. Bluetooth headphones have been a godsend for that.
Oh, and the Sony WH1000-XM3s can usually be found on the Amazon marketplace with an opened box and no other defects for over $100 off. Still way more expensive than these options, but…
Nope, sorry, I’ve tried recent things. They still sound like crap to me. Mind, there is always the issue of context, etc. Sure, in a noisy environment, they’re “good enough”. But when I really want to sit down to a serious listen, when I’m focusing on the sound and nothing else, then it’s not. And any “audiophile” worrying about how pure the sound is when they aren’t controling the ambient sound is no true audiophile.
Although, to be fair, I’m probably not considered an audiophile myself. But I am a semi-professional classical musician. Viola, if you care, which you probably should, because it means I have to constantly listen extremely carefully not only to the rest of the orchestra, but also to my own instrument, as strings continuously change pitch ever so slightly as you’re playing a symphony… and don’t get me started on timbre. 
Is too long, let me summarize: when there’s other sounds competing, “good enough” is all that matters, and audiophiles claiming otherwise can pound sand.
When you’re focusing purely on the music, and have other sounds absent to the fullest extent possible, bluetooth is shit.
And therefore the lead for this is false: the headphones will only please “audiophiles”, not audiophiles.
1 Like
