481
Latency just still isn't there unfortunately (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/pcmasterrace@lemmy.world
204 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 3 years ago (3 children)

You clearly haven't used wireless headphones in last 10 years, have you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    If you use the gamingest headphones with proprietary dongles, you can get decent latency. But then you're sacrificing on sound quality or ANC, and if you have multiple devices you want to use them with (eg a console and a PC), you have to either physically move the dongle between them, or suffer with Bluetooth lag and connection hassles on one of them.

    Bluetooth is still bullshit in terms of latency. It will get better with LE Audio, but whether it will get good enough is anyone's guess, and it's still in its infancy and support is almost non-existent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    yeah but if we incorporate Bluetooth in this discussion, then Bluetooth mice and keyboards suck for gaming just as much.

    I completely agree with you on that, though. It baffles my mind how, in 2023, in the version 5.2, Bluetooth still sucks so hard in terms of latency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    I wouldn't consider Audio-Technica anywhere "gaming" related, can be pricey though.

    I have a ATH-G1WL (wireless) and ATH-AVA400 (wired) and cannot hear any difference in sound quality what-so-ever, except the 3m cable I have to fiddle with now, which I also have to physically move when changing devices.

    Bluetooth also sucks for mice and keyboard, so yeah...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    I had an error in my calculations, read comments below for correct math

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    AptX LL indeed has ~30ms of latency at the cost of bitrate, but last I checked it's not supported by Windows out of the box. It's also been generally dropped in favor of the higher latency AptX Adaptive due to requiring a dedicated wireless antenna. The default experience of Bluetooth is still >200ms of latency. Also 30ms is 4.2 frames at 140Hz.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    I have. You either get good sound quality or low latency. Pretty much every low latency wireless protocol (at least the ones I'm aware of) sacrifices bitrate for latency. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but I can tell when sound quality isn't great.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but you're basically describing the fundamental problem.

    Higher quality audio tends to take up more data bandwidth in the wireless protocol, and resilience against interference (and retransmission or error correcting redundancy) will require a longer delay between receiving that signal and actually playing that signal. Some codecs make use of much more efficient ways of turning high quality audio into a lower bandwidth signal, but those usually come at the cost of computational complexity in encoding and decoding - which sacrifices the size and battery life of the wireless device decoding those signals. Or, some codecs allow for more efficient encoding or better error correction, but need to operate on bigger chunks of audio at a time, which might mean that the codec waits for an entire chunk to finish before it gets encoded and sent, which means that latency at a minimum is the length of the chunk. As a result, wireless audio transmission generally needs to trade between audio quality and latency.

    With keyboard and mouse data, it's very, very simple. There are only so many possible keys/buttons, and even the mouse movement is essentially a two dimensional vector with an x-axis and a y-axis in the fixed amount of sampled time. That means less compression necessary to fit the data into very tiny slivers of time, that allows for the polling/refresh rate to be really high, and therefore communicate in a low latency manner.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago

    Yup, this was pretty much supposed to be the point of the meme. Audio, unfortunately, is a much more difficult problem. It seems like we're getting closer every year though and I'm excited for when wireless audio is as good as wireless keyboards and mice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent