>broadcast range is terrible>annoying to link devices>slow transmission speeds>latency is variable and slow
>>107565506This should probably become a copypasta at this point...It's not bluetooth itself that's laggy but the CPU inside processing bluetooth signals. For example despite being tiny earbuds, the Anker P40i achieves close to 130 milliseconds of SBC codec latency.https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/anker/soundcore-p40i-true-wirelessNow the reason 90% of earbud manufacturer's aren't prioritizing V8 engine CPUs that achieve this kind of latency is because most people are inherently laggy and can tolerate 200, some even 300 fucking milliseconds of latency. Thus using a $1 bluetooth SoC with a 800MHz ARM CPU instead of a $2 bluetooth SoC with a 1.4 GHz ARM CPU makes profit line go up and most users won't complain, like AT ALL.https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
>>107565571unrelatedthe buffer is 200ms as that's the sweet spot for range and error tolerance, if you need more than 200ms the connection is unstable to beginOtherwise it's just an artificial limitation by big tech, LDAC 990kbps' latency could be lowered to sub 50ms making it tolerable in gaming but the range would be low and it would be vulnerable to environmental conditions.I would worry more about the majority of manufacturers that don't make their own electronics using the same shitty quallcomm ANC DSP DACs that hiss/buzz and Sony degrading their flagship headphones each generation(XM5 introduced hiss in active wired mode, XM6 worsened hiss and added a permanent faint unilateral whistle noise in ANC, XM4 has none of these problems or much less and cost half the price ffs, also XM5 and 6 have arguably worse sound signature than XM4)
>>107565506There is no use case for sending large data files over bluetooth
>>107565804Yup wifi is better for moving files around a local area network, I still do it with an ftp client/server
>>107565804I can't even tell if you're serious.
