Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect (Read 1839 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

My source material is mp3, most VBR, some CBR, and FLAC.

The consideration is playing the audio on a phone, tablet, or small personal player (e.g. Sansa ClipZip) while listening to it on a powered speaker system.

The options are connecting the hardware with an audio interconnect or through bluetooth.

The question is which, if either, is least draining/(amount of audio data) of the player’s battery charge? Since the speaker system is plugged into the mains power, its usage is not a consideration.

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #1 –
bluetooth always requires power so i'd think just the audio interconnect will be less draining (it will sound better as well)

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #2 –
Apart from anything else, consider the wear and tear of frequent plugging/unplugging on a miniature socket of whatever portable source you're planning to use. The socket on my old Fire Tablet eventually gave up the ghost due to several months of that.
While Bluetooth is a well-established connection that works and doesn't physically tether you to the end of a bit of wire.

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #3 –
Bluetooth has always been intended for low energy communication. Wouldn't be surprised if a Bluetooth radio in your phone uses less energy than the DAC/headphone amp but never seen any data about the energy use of these these components.
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #4 –
It is just that fragility of those cable sockets that led to my inquiry. Where I use headphones (IEM actually) I try to not unplug them at any time. Earphones can travel with the player when it is time to recharge or to change the audio material I intend to play but a speaker system is a different matter.

I’ve since found a test that claimed to measure battery charge life with bluetooth turned on vs turned off. The difference they reported was only a few percent. I don’t see how actually using that bluetooth broadcast would effect the transmitter’s power consumption so it might be a worthwhile tradeoff. Unfortunately I didn’t bookmark it.

The speakers will need a bluetooth receiver. Prices vary considerably but some are inexpensive enough for a trial. This one is reported as working well.

https://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Transmitter-Receiver-Wireless-Headphones/dp/B09Y1TKBBZ/ref=sr_1_7?crid=24WNZG8KZFOG5&keywords=bluetooth+receiver+for+home+stereo&qid=1677219333&s=electronics&sprefix=bluetooth+receiver%2Celectronics%2C226&sr=1-7

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Roseval on
Bluetooth has always been intended for low energy communication. Wouldn't be surprised if a Bluetooth radio in your phone uses less energy than the DAC/headphone amp but never seen any data about the energy use of these these components.


are you referring to the Bluetooth BLE spec?  i'm not 100% sure but i think this is in regards to an earlier bluetooth spec (it uses less power, etc)

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #6 –
No. From day one it has been about nearfield communication frugal on energy. That is why you have Bluetooth headphones by the number and no WiFi ones.
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

Re: bluetooth vs audio cable interconnect

Reply #8 –
If you get an bluetooth transmitter for your audio player it should also list how many hours you can play music on a charge. I just found one, which can be used for 8 h as a transmitter and 5.5 h as a receiver.