Tested using Methodology v1.5
Updated Jan 15, 2024 07:34 PM
Tested using Methodology v1.8
Updated Jan 17, 2025 03:49 PM
Jabra Elite 7 Active True Wireless
Jabra Elite 8 Active True Wireless
Jabra Elite 8 Active are better for sports than the Jabra Elite 7 Active True Wireless. The 8 are sturdier, have a higher IP69 rating for dust and water resistance, and have a slightly bigger bud design that makes them more stable. However, the 7 have a better noise isolation performance, especially with bass-range noise like rumbling engines.
Jabra Elite 7 Active True Wireless
Jabra Elite 8 Active True Wireless
Comments
Jabra Elite 7 Active True Wireless vs Jabra Elite 8 Active: Main Discussion
What do you think of these products? Let us know below.
Looking for a personalized buying advice from the RTINGS.com experts? Insiders have direct access to buying advice on our insider forum.
These are frequently recommended in VR forums. Would be really good to get some independent data on whether they manage the latency they aim for, and how they sound.
It wasn’t available when the Aurvana Ace 2 first launched, but Creative have since launched the BT-W6 dongle, that they advertise as compatible with the Aurvana Ace 2, and supports LE Audio - in particular the low-latency GMAP profile for gaming. I’ve heard (but not from anywhere that trustworthy) the Aurvana Ace 2 supports GMAP, and I’d be really interested to see what latency looks like with the BT-W6.
I’d be interested to see how this compares to the Tribit Stormbox Blast
The specs for this promise 15ms latency with the dongle. This would be huge if true, but I’ve heard reports that quality is lower. It would be great to see whether these claims stack up.
It’s not something I do myself, but a few times I’ve seen messages on forums asking “I’m interested in this speaker, but I’m going to be using it for gaming. What’s the latency like?”, and I’ve pointed them you your review but caveated it with “but their methodology will underestimate latency for gaming”.
Although I can see the argument for keeping the current methodology. Videos are a much more common use case, where the effective latency is the key number.
Those noise cancellation numbers in the early access data are just weird. I don’t think anyone expected full range numbers to be worse than common scenarios. I wonder if wind noise reduction was on during the test - I know Soundcore headphones often implement wind noise reduction by turning down ANC when they detect wind, and maybe the pink noise in the full range test is detected as wind.
If you do introduce transparency measurements, I’d also be really interested in including wind handling as part of that. It’s something that not a lot of headphones seem to try to tackle, even ones that have wind noise reduction in ANC mode.
I’d be interested to see how these perform on the new 1.7 methodology. They advertise a wind noise reduction feature, and it would be interesting to see if there are compromises on this compared to the Q45.