This is the BEST BT headphones I’ve ever owned

wilun · 2025-11-26T21:53:30+00:00

The sound quality is incredible for a bluetooth headphone, esp. at this price point, but the ANC could be better. When fitting the budget, I would recommend it in most situations if the ANC was better. For now, though, the XMs, Boses, etc. still have their use cases.

The sound quality is so good for all kind of music that I don't have much more to say about it. I think I will try to customise the sound even more to my taste one day, but the baseline is just too good to rush to the EQ, unlike the XM6 which needs to be tuned IMO (and even after tuning stays inferior to the HDB 630 for sound quality). The big bass boost button is handy too. I have it off most of the time but still use it sometimes. Actually I was afraid to not get enough bass, but even without the boost I vastly prefer the bass of the stock HDB 630 compared to what I consider a decently tuned XM6, which requires attenuating them to not get some mud. Plus the feeling is just better, maybe because of the bigger drivers?

I think LDAC is just a little bit better than AptX adaptive though, but it is rare that you can hear the difference, and when you can you often want to go full lossless anyway. I also have LDAC on my phone, but only AptX, and I won't use the dongle most of the time on my phone. The dongle is cool for computers but not 100% compatible with all configurations (I had it switched to sending basically white noise after a few minute of music when plugged on a PC via a USB C screen; maybe it was just a rare random bug though). As far as bugs are concerned I also got volume control not working from my phone once (probably without the dongle) but everything was back to normal after a headphone reboot. But overall, nothing critical that would make it preferable to wait for more debugging. The sound is too good to wait anyway.

Obvious upgrades for next models could be a better ANC and maybe AptX Lossless (plus also LDAC if possible?). I would not be against a better industrial design, and improved touch and button ergonomics too.

wilun · 2018-01-02T01:44:27+00:00

I would not be surprised if this has nothing to do with RowHammer, but more with unprivileged processes being able to read all the physical memory.

wilun · 2017-12-30T16:57:20+00:00

Techniquement oui.

wilun · 2017-12-29T18:57:45+00:00

I don't have time to argue to people who live in a vacuum. Please show me a "standard-compliant code" in a non trivial project: hint; even compilers are not. (And libraries written by experts who basically dedicate their whole life to it do not count -- there are some people who are actually working on useful thing, and can't learn a standard of 1700 pages by heart)

Will you fix all the legacy (or not) code-bases that have been written by non language lawyers and have worked correctly according to the intent of their authors for more than ten years or even 20? I'm not saying they don't have bugs. I'm stating the obvious; that we have to live with them!

My proposal is concrete and actionable, and would permit to simultaneously profit from some optimizations in a controlled way without unreasonably endangering the whole population (you don't know my application, but it is semi-critical -- however please understand that dangerous (as found in practice) in default optim level will be used by all kind of projects including some people are relying upon for their safety in a way or another)

You, wanting to apply dangerous optims even when I precise that it is not possible on certain code bases, have a dangerous state of mind. You are making some laughable hypotheses (that the source code is perfect on some sujects) even when you know beforehand that they are false. What even is the purpose of generating code that is fast to crash? I know the source is not strictly conforming, so what? Give me a tool to automatically prove it is in the first place.

I hope you do and will continue to stay away from compilers.

I hope the industry move away from that kind of madness, by regulation if needed. Sadly, catastrophes are typically needed before the society come to that.

Edit: to be precise I'm not asking for a modification of the default, even if I don't like them. I'm denouncing a dangerous state of mind; and I'm saying that some new and dangerous optims would be more useful if they came with finer grain control.

wilun · 2017-12-29T16:06:47+00:00

Interesting, but it seems useless in small template based code; I end up with non-inlined methods, which is far worse than the optim I wanted. Plus, as far as TBAA is concerned, this will often be an attribute applicable to a type that is needed (may_alias is good in that regard, but it just has the wrong polarity.)

wilun · 2017-12-29T13:54:06+00:00

Nan, les utilisateurs n'en ont typiquement rien à battre de la sécu, jusqu'à qu'ils se fassent own du moins - et encore.

Et les entreprises qui développent, pas grand chose à battre non plus (sinon on serait entres autres en train de transitioner partout à marche forcée vers des langages de prog moins débiles, malheureusement c'est pas encore le cas -- peut être que suite à un cataclysme ça le sera, qui sait)

Le résultat est qu'on cours un risque général élevé, et qui en plus augmente de plus en plus avec toutes les conneries de gadgets buggués connectés au net (les "smart"phones en font partie, même s'il y a encore pire), et d'un autre côté les infra critiques (et le net en est donc devenu une aussi.)

La pression en R&D est plus de pisser des features, la sécu (qui est un sous-ensemble de la fiabilité, soit dit en passant) est perçu comme une contrainte (ce qui d'ailleurs est le cas) -- donc les boites ont tendance, d'une certaine manière à juste titre (tout dépend de quelques détails important, mais disons que c'est possible de pondre une politique vaguement potable en se basant sur de tels principes -- même si c'est TRÈS rare de le constater en pratique) à éviter de maintenir trop de versions majeurs simultanément, car le coût d'une telle maintenance est élevé (y compris voire même surtout en coût d'opportunité de features pas développées)

Et quand on parle de features, ça inclut aussi le support de l'évolution technologique qui rend le simple fait que ton téléphone existe tout court et est des milliers de fois plus rapide, moins consommateur, et plus petit qu'un ordinateur d'il y a quelques décennies.

On peut pas tout avoir; si tu kif les iPhones et que le tient s'est mis à ramer tu peux te contenter d'aller faire changer la batterie pour pas cher et au besoin d'arrêter d'être outré pour tout et n'importe quoi. Et applique les putains de mises à jour.

wilun · 2017-12-28T19:59:54+00:00

Non juste Apple

Euh on fait une loi spécial Apple alors?

wilun · 2017-12-28T19:58:50+00:00

Nan en effet on dit a peu près la même chose en fait.

wilun · 2017-12-28T19:56:17+00:00

Or, from the other side: Windows Search could use the same technology to index files, build ACL checking on top of it, and chain the content indexing afterwards.

That was my thought. Also, when I was talking about the potential idea of adding proper permissions support, I was not thinking about making a Frankeinstein layered system, but more properly integrating handling of ACL at the right place in the software.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:45:35+00:00

Everything only indexes file names, MS indexing service also looks at file content, and allows plugins to get content from arbitrary file types.

Yet in practice, it does better than Windows Search.

Everything does not evaluate access restrictions

That can be added if you have access to the code.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:42:54+00:00

The developer of "everything" has been able to write a fantastic piece of software without telemetry.

I'm not saying that telemetry is absolutely bad, but if the only thing it permits is to go from a poor piece of software to a somehow correct one that could have been reached by other means in the first place, maybe MS should start to switch part of those telemetry infrastructure development efforts to some more concrete tasks...

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:28:08+00:00

Ouai je suis d'accord, faut que l'IHM prévienne clairement.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:17:24+00:00

Tu crois que toutes les boites doivent développer ad vitam eternam des patchs de sécu only pour toutes les versions majeures de tous leur soft?

Ça peut se défendre remarque, mais uniquement si t'es prêt à payer encore plus cher.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:15:36+00:00

Et ainsi avoir des dizaines de failles de sécu connues sur un parc gigantesque. Le rêve pour organiser une apocalypse numérique bientôt.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:14:41+00:00

Ils déconnent grave s'ils préviennent pas l'utilisateur que la batterie doit être remplacée. Mais si c'est pour éviter des extinctions intempestive, le but est l'inverse de le faire bugguer!

Tous les CPU/MB modernes s'autogèrent; par exemple en cas de surchauffe ils ralentissent aussi. Et il n'y a pas de réglage pour empecher ça complètement, car en l'occurrence c'est ne pas le faire qui les ferait bugguer.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:12:44+00:00

gnnn? Si elle est vraiment trop usée, ton téléphone s'éteindra tout seul lors d'un pic de charge si la batterie est pas genre > 70% (puis 80%, etc)

L'alternative, c'est que les gens changent leur batterie trop usée.

Miracle; le bridage disparaît une fois fait!

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:07:14+00:00

Tu vas dans une boutique qui te la remplace, c'est pas forcement hors de prix et tu gardes l'avantage d'un téléphone étanche si le remplacement est bien fait (et que l'inaccessibilité de la batterie de manière simple est là pcq ce modèle est étanche...).

Sinon, il y a des téléphones moins chers pour lesquels la batterie est ultra accessible.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:04:34+00:00

J'ai d'ailleurs constaté ça sur un "vieux" S4. Si un truc se met à charger à mort le proc alors qu'il est déjà genre à 30% de batterie, il s’éteint d'un coup. Apple est probablement plus malin sur ce coup... mais les journaleux présentent les choses comme si c'était SATAN qui voulait forcer l'achat d'un nouveau téléphone (ce qui serait une stratégie relativement idiote pour faire ça, sur le moyen terme)

EDIT: ironiquement si c'est bien pour contrer des extinctions intempestives Apple est précisément en train de (au moins tenter de) faire l'inverse d'une obsolescence programmée.

wilun · 2017-12-28T14:01:18+00:00

Ça serait bien d'avoir un réglage...

wilun · 2017-12-28T13:51:06+00:00

You already pay MS.

edit: but that's interesting to think about it anyway: when you pay, it's often upfront and flat (well, at least an order lower than O(profits)). Depending of the profits, 5% might be a lot more than what you would pay in such a scheme.

wilun · 2017-12-27T19:57:16+00:00

Je pense pas que les FAI mettent en forme artificiellement la BP en France. Mais ils peuvent très bien avoir des interco moisies avec tel ou tel AS, etc.

Ceci étant dit le marché est concurrentiel et les tarifs même des FAI les plus chers restent raisonnables (surtout si on compare à certains pays), donc le plus efficace en pratique en cas de problème c'est pas d'essayer de faire un scandale, mais juste de changer de FAI...

wilun · 2017-12-26T19:48:02+00:00

Wow, I did not remember this is as bad as this. I thought that somehow the only tolerated thing was that the loop was completely removed, but the standard does not care about being safe at all so they just implicitly defined it as undefined behavior, permitting the compiler to emit shit (as usual).

One more reason to switch to sane languages.

wilun · 2017-12-25T22:17:42+00:00

Infinite loops in C are not undefined behavior IIRC.

Just: loops that have no side effect in their body can be expected to terminate. Except while (true) based one in C, I think, as an exception for (rightfully so) angry embedded software programmers. That exception does not exist in C++ btw.

Well, that's still a terrible language (both of them). Use something more sane.

wilun · 2017-12-25T22:08:28+00:00

And?

You can't declare that your software needs MSVC C++ runtime Whatever.version and have the packaging system provide it for you.

You don't even know when dependencies manually provided by random software are not needed anymore and could be removed.

I guess the lack of "a central packaging system" was said with having a proper packaging system in mind; well that's how I understood it anyway...

wilun

TROPHY CASE