Bluetooth Headphones Overtake Traditional Headphones In Sales

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Wireless headphones are apparently more popular than ever. Cheaper options and new technologies (e.g., Bluetooth low energy) are just some of the reasons that consumers are shifting to BT headphones, which are now outselling wired options, with Apple’s Beats leading the pack.

Bluetooth headphone purchases are on the rise, according to new data shared by NPD Group. In June, Bluetooth headphone revenue overtook non-Bluetooth for the first time, accounting for 54 percent of headphone dollar sales and 17 percent of unit sales in the United States. The overall headphone category saw seven percent year-over-year growth in pure dollar sales during the first half of 2016, but Bluetooth headphones saw double-digit growth during the same time period. A solid cost decrease helped spur Bluetooth headphone sales, with average selling prices down 5 percent. Nearly 30 percent of Bluetooth headphones sold during 1H 2016 were less than or equal to $50.
 
And today's generation continues to accept mediocrity over quality because it's 'cool' or easier. It all started with the MP3 :(
 
TechLarry said:
And today's generation continues to accept mediocrity over quality because it's 'cool' or easier. It all started with the MP3 :(
Click to expand...

It started long ago with the introduction of CD's. Have you listened to the audio of the CD's from the 80's? Over produced, hot, distorted.
 
heatlesssun said:
Tethered versus untethered. Once untethered becomes good enough it almost always wins.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. If I could have my awesome headphones be wireless I'd TOTALLY do it. Why wouldn't I? Holds true for just about any damn thing.

Problem with people like heatless is that they don't realize that a vast majority of people either genuinely don't give a fuck or have NO idea what they're missing. Even being the geek I was back when I was a kid (before getting into audio) I had no issue with shitty headphones or speakers or audio formats. Once I did learn things obviously changed but it took new knowledge to get me there.
 
TechLarry said:
And today's generation continues to accept mediocrity over quality because it's 'cool' or easier. It all started with the MP3 :(
Click to expand...

It's understandable. If you listen to pop or rock the dynamic and pitch ranges are usually rather small. Losing dynamics and high frequency response won't change the sound much, especially when you're listening on crappy $5 ear buds.

All of this is moot anyways, live music > recordings.
 
Nukester said:
It started long ago with the introduction of CD's. Have you listened to the audio of the CD's from the 80's? Over produced, hot, distorted.
Click to expand...

In 1989 a friend and I sat down one night and compared CD vs LP of the same albums on a $20,000.00 system and our conclusion is that you are FoS. Music recording now are too hot but not in the 80s. CD has far wider dynamic range than LP too. Only one album sounded better on LP and that was Lou Reed Transformer, it had deeper bass and we put that down to them doing a poor remixing job of the CD. Some of the best recording ever done come from the 80s, Simple Minds New Gold Dream for example.
 
TechLarry said:
And today's generation continues to accept mediocrity over quality because it's 'cool' or easier. It all started with the MP3 :(
Click to expand...

320kb/s mp3 sounds the same as lossless. You are not a dog and can't hear the really high frequencies, or low, anyway. They did a test and teens actually preferred 128kb/s mp3s of shittily recorded music to lossless because it cuts out the distortion in the high frequencies. Fact.
 
Wait the article says it's only 17℅ of units sold meaning they just make 50℅ of the money from wireless headphones. They don't out sell regular headphones they just cost more duh.
 
rezerekted said:
320kb/s mp3 sounds the same as lossless. You are not a dog and can't hear the really high frequencies, or low, anyway. They did a test and teens actually preferred 128kb/s mp3s of shittily recorded music to lossless because it cuts out the distortion in the high frequencies. Fact.
Click to expand...

This simply isn't true. Even if a particular piece of music doesn't use the highest frequencies as fundamental pitches, overtones affect perception of timbre.

I wouldn't take to much stock in the subjective judgments of teenagers. What you described is logically flawed. I would imagine that most teenagers can't distinguish a perfect fourth from a perfect fifth or a root position major chord from a first inversion major chord, but that doesn't mean that it's humanly impossible to do these things. Not all people have the same aural abilities. I can't tell the difference between a C and a C# without a reference pitch, but someone like my wife (who has perfect pitch) can do this 100% of the time. By the same token, I can hear high pitch buzzing from computer monitors that she can't.
 
rezerekted said:
In 1989 a friend and I sat down one night and compared CD vs LP of the same albums on a $20,000.00 system and our conclusion is that you are FoS. Music recording now are too hot but not in the 80s. CD has far wider dynamic range than LP too. Only one album sounded better on LP and that was Lou Reed Transformer, it had deeper bass and we put that down to them doing a poor remixing job of the CD. Some of the best recording ever done come from the 80s, Simple Minds New Gold Dream for example.
Click to expand...

Today, yeah the CD's are HOT. So bass heavy that it ruins the music. I love Classical and glad that they try to match the recording to the actual instrument.
 
MarkVI said:
All of this is moot anyways, live music > recordings.
Click to expand...
I prefer the studio recording over live as the live music is often played in areas that are shit for sound and/or the music is so loud I need earplugs but the earplugs make it sound like ass. You also don't have to worry about the musicians being drunk and/or high and playing like shit.
 
MarkVI said:
This simply isn't true. Even if a particular piece of music doesn't use the highest frequencies as fundamental pitches, overtones affect perception of timbre.

I wouldn't take to much stock in the subjective judgments of teenagers. What you described is logically flawed. I would imagine that most teenagers can't distinguish a perfect fourth from a perfect fifth or a root position major chord from a first inversion major chord, but that doesn't mean that it's humanly impossible to do these things. Not all people have the same aural abilities. I can't tell the difference between a C and a C# without a reference pitch, but someone like my wife (who has perfect pitch) can do this 100% of the time. By the same token, I can hear high pitch buzzing from computer monitors that she can't.
Click to expand...

I've done the ABX testing, have you? Discounting teens is wrong too because they can hear frequencies most older adults can't.
 
Nukester said:
Today, yeah the CD's are HOT. So bass heavy that it ruins the music. I love Classical and glad that they try to match the recording to the actual instrument.
Click to expand...

It is so bad today that I have to turn down my subwoofer volume for modern recordings and turn it up for older stuff, annoying.
 
MarkVI said:
This simply isn't true. Even if a particular piece of music doesn't use the highest frequencies as fundamental pitches, overtones affect perception of timbre.

I wouldn't take to much stock in the subjective judgments of teenagers. What you described is logically flawed. I would imagine that most teenagers can't distinguish a perfect fourth from a perfect fifth or a root position major chord from a first inversion major chord, but that doesn't mean that it's humanly impossible to do these things. Not all people have the same aural abilities. I can't tell the difference between a C and a C# without a reference pitch, but someone like my wife (who has perfect pitch) can do this 100% of the time. By the same token, I can hear high pitch buzzing from computer monitors that she can't.
Click to expand...

The ability to hear chord changes has nothing to do with the ability to hear or difference in sound between a 320kb MP3 or a lossless format. Your argument doesn't make sense.

I promise you that, even among audiophiles, the difference between a high bitrate MP3 and lossy format would be indistinguishable.
 
They did a test and teens actually preferred 128kb/s mp3s of shittily recorded music to lossless because it cuts out the distortion in the high frequencies. Fact.
Click to expand...

The ability to hear chord changes has nothing to do with the ability to hear or difference in sound between a 320kb MP3 or a lossless format.
Click to expand...

So what that one-sentence test tells me is that you could A-B 128kb/s and 300 kb/s and have people distinguish it, not that you can necessarily distinguish 320kb/s MP3 and lossless (I don't think most can).

I promise you that, even among audiophiles, the difference between a high bitrate MP3 and lossy format would be indistinguishable.
Click to expand...

I believe 128kb/s was the "cut off" / floor for most people, and above 160kb/s or 192kb/s it was nigh impossible for trained audio professionals (musicians, sound engineers, etc.) to be able to distinguish lower bit-rate MP3 from lossless. If I can dig up the reference for that from several years ago I will post the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top