Good day. I need to replace some Sony wireless headphones which worked fine for more than a decade until I lost the battery.... Now I see battalions of recommendations for new-fangled, usually absurdly expensive stuff (£550 for headphones? Come off it!) They almost always run off Bluetooth. Close examination reveals many have a range of c 10-15 metres. In practice, some buyers complain of less. My Sony range was 200 metres................ If I am in my bedroom listening to something I really do not want the signal cutting out by the time I reach the kitchen or my home office - never mind the garden, where I would be c 50 metres from the audio source. Am I missing something, or is Bluetooth only for those who want to glue themselves entertainment-wise to their mobile phone - and see their battery die all the quicker? I take it my solution is to go for a good (but hard to find) radio frequency replacement? Thanks for all comments.
Bluetooth headphones - overrated or plain con???
- Thread starter Multisitio
- Start date
shipworm-archaism-recede
Well-known member
Like most things, it depends.
Is there some reason you can't or don't want to get the battery replaced in the ones that worked for you?
Is there some reason you can't or don't want to get the battery replaced in the ones that worked for you?
I just can't find it after several moves across different countries. I fear the wife may have located a while back and thought it was just an old bit of stuff of a child's toy and junked it. I would like to get the old ones to work, yes. I fear Bluetooth is touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread - not with such a pathetic range it isn't.
shipworm-archaism-recede
Well-known member
I would have thought the model number of the headphones should be enough to identify a replacement battery part.
Most of the improvements in recent Bluetooth versions have been to provide improved data range or bit rates with lower energy consumption. Each manufacturer makes tradeoffs for particular applications. It may be that your requirements exceed what most of them design for these days.
Most of the improvements in recent Bluetooth versions have been to provide improved data range or bit rates with lower energy consumption. Each manufacturer makes tradeoffs for particular applications. It may be that your requirements exceed what most of them design for these days.
Gray
Well-known member
Not just Bluetooth, I'd argue that the majority of headphones are more expensive than they should be - thanks, of course to popularity.
At least you're getting some technology with BT, noise-cancelling etc.
Imagine being a vinyl buyer these days...they're the biggest shafting target (thanks again to popularity).
At least you're getting some technology with BT, noise-cancelling etc.
Imagine being a vinyl buyer these days...they're the biggest shafting target (thanks again to popularity).
Hah - on vinyl, I can't even be a seller - loads of wonderful, mainyly classical, going back decades and decades (to the 30s) mainly from my late Dad. Nobody is interested! Shame
shipworm-archaism-recede
Well-known member
Start here, presuming you want a replacement for AirPods earphones. Similar lists exist on the same website for over-ear headphones. Only you can decide based upon what you want to use them for and your individual preferences.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigboss
Moderator
It comes down to practicality. Bluetooth headphones directly pair with mobile phones through Bluetooth to allow wireless usage. On the other hand, wireless headphones typically receive signals from a base that is connected to devices such as a PC, gaming console, speaker or smartphone.
Gray
Well-known member
Vincent Kars
Well-known member
By design Bluetooth was and is intended for communication over short distances.
10 m is the standard but there are long range transmitters (50 m) e.g. https://avantree.com/eu/oasis-b-bluetooth-transmitter-receiver
There are RF transmitters like Sennheiser RS 195 doing 100 m
A mix of WiFi and Bluetooth is also possible.
On the balcony I don't have Bluetooth reception but do have WiFi.
So my phone, connected to the WiFi, pulls the audio from any UPnP server in the LAN.
The Bluetooth of the phone pushes the audio to my TWS earbuds.
10 m is the standard but there are long range transmitters (50 m) e.g. https://avantree.com/eu/oasis-b-bluetooth-transmitter-receiver
There are RF transmitters like Sennheiser RS 195 doing 100 m
A mix of WiFi and Bluetooth is also possible.
On the balcony I don't have Bluetooth reception but do have WiFi.
So my phone, connected to the WiFi, pulls the audio from any UPnP server in the LAN.
The Bluetooth of the phone pushes the audio to my TWS earbuds.
I know Sennheiser have a good reputation - but 350 quid.....Plenty of people moan about the TV licence but these prices seem a bit extreme
Vincent Kars
Well-known member
RS 120 II | Sennheiser United Kingdom
The RS 120 II wireless TV headphones not only opens you to a world of true freedom of movement but also, breathes new life into audio with its sleek design.
en-uk.sennheiser.com
DCarmi
Well-known member
You don't need to spend £550 on some decent headphones. If you want to stick with Sony, the WH-1000XM3 can be had for around £160.
Bluetooth 4.0 was introduced with low power usage to enhance battery life, but this came at the expense of range. Bluetooth 5.0+ brought (potentially) both battery saving and range.
Beats and Plantronics do headphones with long range.
Bluetooth 4.0 was introduced with low power usage to enhance battery life, but this came at the expense of range. Bluetooth 5.0+ brought (potentially) both battery saving and range.
Beats and Plantronics do headphones with long range.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram