will this new meme let me listen to music with lossless quality?

bluetooth is sooo last season

>>58454169
No.

Bluetooth 5 still applies aggressive audio compression.

>you won't see improvements to audio compression, latency and power use until 2018.

nope

FLAC files have 3Mbps bitrate
Bluetooth 5 has transfer rate of 50Mbps in 240 meters

>>58454806
/thread

>>58454806
"no"

File: buthole shitpostfrog.jpg (21KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 499x499px

>>58454817
>>58454840
exblain

>>58454806
>50Mbps in 240 meters
Literally everything i'm seeing quotes Bluetooth 5.0 as increasing the data transmission rate from 1Mb/s to 2Mb/s.

>>58454996
>1Mb/s to 2Mb/s.
RETARD ALERT

>>58454806
Cablefags BTFO

>>58454996
>1Mb/s
Dude, Bluetooth 2.1 has faster transfer rate than that.

File: 2017-01-12 14_01_21-Bluetooth 5_ What you need to know about the new wireless technology.png (28KB, 580x226px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 580x226px

>>58455032

>>58454996
Top kek

File: 2017-01-12 14_02_32-Bluetooth - Wikipedia.png (35KB, 1215x218px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1215x218px

>>58455051

>>58455051
>>58455078
>inspect element
Nice try Pajeet

File: Clipboard02.jpg (155KB, 734x312px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 734x312px

>>58455051
>>58455078
>believing in everything
KEK

>>58455078
that's for bluetooth LE. I'm not sure what's more commonly used though

>>58455133
LE is just a protocol supported by Bluetooth 5, just like in previous versions, if we are talking about hosts
>>58454996 is just retarded and does not know the difference

>>58455131
>removing the [citation needed]

>>58455158
What the fuck are you talking about, Reader does not show the by default.

>literary retarded

File: stupidnigger.png (98KB, 1721x609px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1721x609px

>>58455184

>>58454996
>>58455051
>>58455078
I get better speeds than 128KB/s on BT2.1, what the fuck is this shit?

>>58455133
Obviously, low profile bandwight for mice and keyboards and shit, not actual file transfer.

>>58455201
>stupidnigger
>he does not see that all my text is clean >>58455131, that I'm using a reader and not the webpage
seriously, retardation

>>58455227
The point is where is there any proof of those speeds being possible?

>>58454169
>muh cable fags on suicide watch

>>58455227
>manipulating evidence by intentionally using software that removes [citation needed]

>>58455245
They are though, sennheiser announced they plan on making a version of hd800s bluetooth. Audeze is getting into bluetooth too

>>58455243
Maybe because BT4.0 already does way over 2 Mbit/s? Making your argument invalid automatically, without even checking what's BT5.0 max speed will be.

>>58455243
>>58455258
Where is your proof that it can't? Judging by the the fact that older bluetooth versions already surpass those speeds, please give me some proof.

>>58455262
>hd800s
>not the goat HD600

File: SccreenShot 01.jpg (75KB, 505x223px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 505x223px

>>58454996
>bluetooth.com
>LOW ENERGY
>i'm too dumb to read

>>58455283
older versions don't surpass 50Mbit/s @ 240m

>>58455283
the problem is almost no devices exist that actually use the high power bluetooth modes.

Show me any actual testing on bluetooth 4.0/.1/.2 or 5.0 and their actual large file transfer speeds.

>>58455326
see
>>58454996
they surpass 2Mb/s faggot

>>58455342
But where is the proofs?

>>58455335
>>58455353
You never used Bluetooth instead of WiFi for a mobile hotspot? Well fuck, I rest my case, someone who does not know shit is spilling it. Way too retarded for me.

>>58455353
It's hard to get proof because almost every device sold to consumers uses the bluetooth LE protocol.

>>58455360
>for a mobile hotspot
I've never used a mobile hotspot.

>>58455360
yes, it's hilariously slow. what's your point?

>>58455372
Yeah, guess being a retarded kid you never actually used technology 10 years ago.

>>58455379
I'm not saying 256KB/s is fast, but it's faster than claimed >>58454996.

>dude talks about bluetooth low energy
>he thinks it's the actual speed of bluetooth

>>58455363
Than connect two bluetooth hosts together, like two laptops or a laptop and smartphone? You do know that's possible.

>>58455408
>You do know that's possible.
sure it might be

What apps do you use for large bluetooth file transfers?

>>58455423
Built in.

>>58455353
http://www.newswireless.net/index.cfm/article/629

>>58455434
Too bad the only way to get bluetooth 4.0+ on a computer is through an expensive WiFi card because no one makes standalone bluetooth adapters.

They're literally all BLE.

>>58455566
I'm was talking about BL2.1 on a MacBook

>>58455579
yup that's basically the only option though.

Have a laptop with it built into the wifi card, or have an expensive wifi card on the desktop with bluetooth capabilities.

bluetooth adapters for high data rate simply do not exist as standalone devices.

>>58455566
>They're literally all BLE.
What do you mean? My laptop has Bluetooth 4.0, that's full Bluetooth 4.0 _PLUS_ BLE, BLE is just an extension, it's not literary BLE only, also have a USB BT adapter, BT4.0, exactly the same.

>>58455609
Oh, you mean like the high speed BL 4.0 etc, that use only bluetooth for making the connection, not EDR, EDR bluetooth adapters exist as standalone devices too and are usually built in in laptops, EDR was the one I was talking about, it's faster than that one faggot who didn't believe bluetooth can do over 2Mbps

>>58454209
Who are you quoting

File: 2017-01-12 14_40_22-USB-BT400 _ Networking _ ASUS USA.png (23KB, 732x486px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 732x486px

>>58455614
Those tiny little USB bluetooth adapters do not work with with high transfer speeds.

Just look at the full specs

>>58455641
>you mean like the high speed BL 4.0 etc
Well to get back to the OP. How else would someone be expected to do FLAC audio over bluetooth? You need high data rates, and from what I can tell, headphone size devices simply don't have the larger BT receivers/transmitters that allow for full BT speeds.

The specification might allow for it, but no products or devices exist that can accomplish what the OP is asking about.

>>58455655
Yeah, but they aren't BLE only. They just lack WiFi for the high speed transfers.

>>58454806
The problem is that for power saving reasons, Bluetooth relies on transcoding your audio (usually to a codec based on MP2, not even MP3).
Bluetooth audio is a terrible standard which simply doesn't allow for high quality audio (in most cases, when the stars align you can get AAC audio without additional compression).

there is no "bluetooth audio"

>>58455681
>The specification might allow for it, but no products or devices exist that can accomplish what the OP is asking about.

/thread

>>58455650
It's "whom".

>>58455131
Mega BITS per second you retarded blind nigger.

>>58454169
But how do I add this to my mobo? People barely make usb 4.0 Bluetooth adapters.