Analogue headphones are way overprices for sure, but anything USB is basically the same regardless of price range, though, so if that’s what the top image is then you’re overpaying $30.
This doesn’t make any sense at all. All headphones are analog regardless of what their cable is and cable type makes no difference when it comes to sound quality. And there certainly isn’t some kind of limitation inherent to usb. Unless you’re plugging your headphones directly into some hifi vinyl record setup your signal is going to start out as digital and will have to be converted to an analog signal with a DAC. Plugging into a 3.5mm headphone jack just means you’re using the DAC built into that device. Plugging into a USB port just means the headphones you’re using need to have that DAC built in (likely into the cable itself). Not only that but there’s a high degree of likelyhood that the DAC built into your USB headphones would be made of better components than the one attached to whatever 3.5mm jack you’re plugging into. Though it’s not super likely that a higher quality DAC would affect sound quality all that much if at all. Basically any DAC you’re likely to run a signal through is fully capable of playing full quality lossless audio. Though a better DAC would at least make noise from interference less likely.
Digital data, flat line frequencies from interpreting ones and zeroes, doesn’t translate well to audible frequency without larger equipment like an audio interface. Maybe someday small devices will be able to use a larger sample rate for a comparable result, though.
Human hearing upper limit for discernable sounds is about half or more than 48kHz standard for high quality audio, but those samples would generally be the peaks and lows of the audio signal. The problem is that interpolating that to a decent sized wave is generally done with large components from a bygone era, analogue-digital audio interfaces, in many cases with some noteworthy latencies, and Transducers alone do not do that.
Any digital to audible sound solution on the market is basically going to be the same sound quality until you get into dollar-store territory.
My dude, I have a PhD in electrical engineering and actively work in the field of information theory, and I have no idea what you are talking about. We work in bandwidths a thousand times larger and can send millions of times more data using the same quantization depths as common digital audio modes. The difference is our transducers move no mass. The thing which makes acoustic waves “special” is literally the that you must move air to make them. The digital/information side is identical.
Analogue headphones are way overprices for sure, but anything USB is basically the same regardless of price range, though, so if that’s what the top image is then you’re overpaying $30.
This doesn’t make any sense at all. All headphones are analog regardless of what their cable is and cable type makes no difference when it comes to sound quality. And there certainly isn’t some kind of limitation inherent to usb. Unless you’re plugging your headphones directly into some hifi vinyl record setup your signal is going to start out as digital and will have to be converted to an analog signal with a DAC. Plugging into a 3.5mm headphone jack just means you’re using the DAC built into that device. Plugging into a USB port just means the headphones you’re using need to have that DAC built in (likely into the cable itself). Not only that but there’s a high degree of likelyhood that the DAC built into your USB headphones would be made of better components than the one attached to whatever 3.5mm jack you’re plugging into. Though it’s not super likely that a higher quality DAC would affect sound quality all that much if at all. Basically any DAC you’re likely to run a signal through is fully capable of playing full quality lossless audio. Though a better DAC would at least make noise from interference less likely.
The quality of the headphones largely comes down to the quality of the transducers themselves, so the cable interface doesn’t really change that.
Digital data, flat line frequencies from interpreting ones and zeroes, doesn’t translate well to audible frequency without larger equipment like an audio interface. Maybe someday small devices will be able to use a larger sample rate for a comparable result, though.
What do you think the problem is exactly? Low sample rate? Are you familiar with the Nyquist sampling theorem?
Human hearing upper limit for discernable sounds is about half or more than 48kHz standard for high quality audio, but those samples would generally be the peaks and lows of the audio signal. The problem is that interpolating that to a decent sized wave is generally done with large components from a bygone era, analogue-digital audio interfaces, in many cases with some noteworthy latencies, and Transducers alone do not do that.
Any digital to audible sound solution on the market is basically going to be the same sound quality until you get into dollar-store territory.
My dude, I have a PhD in electrical engineering and actively work in the field of information theory, and I have no idea what you are talking about. We work in bandwidths a thousand times larger and can send millions of times more data using the same quantization depths as common digital audio modes. The difference is our transducers move no mass. The thing which makes acoustic waves “special” is literally the that you must move air to make them. The digital/information side is identical.
My dude, it’s a good thing you decided to stay in school because clearly you’re going to need it. Dumbass flexing his degree at me, smh.