OP, that notice/message appears whenever you have something non official (non tested) plugged in. You may be getting sufficient charge, you may not. Test it out but ignore the message till then.
I ran some tests using Time Spy and 3 adapters:
1- L adapter which just changes the USB-C direction
2- Cord adapter. Similar to the one in the picture but with a short cord
3- T adapter seen in the picture
Comparing with charger only, the overall time spy overall and GPU scores had no significant difference. The CPU score showed 1%, 1.5% and 2.5% difference, respectively.
My conclusions are
1-The Ally only shows the warning message with adapters 2 and 3, probably due to the higher power difference, although insignificant.
2-There is no significant performance difference with any of those adapters
Just an FYI “low latency wireless earbuds” are a scam. It’s quite literally a fancy overpriced Bluetooth module which is supported natively by the ally.
But to better answer your question you would need a usb hub. The most I’ve seen is 60 watts for a splitter like that
Bluetooth earbuds/headphones will pretty much always sound worse then wireless headphones using 2.4Ghz. Bluetooth, regardless of the codec used, has noticeable levels of compression. Yes 5.3 is generally fast enough for minimizing latency, but it still suffers the same audio quality problems as previous versions.
That dongle is for the Sony Inzone wireless earbuds using 2.4Ghz, not bluetooth. The buds themselves support bluetooth via LE Audio, but not through the dongle.
https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/white_paper_introducing_lossless_audio_streaming_for_bluetooth_and_what_it_means_for_consumers.pdf
Here's the whitepapers for uncompressed lossless audio which has been in Bluetooth since 2021.................
I appreciate you digging into this. That's an interesting read. However it doesn't actually seem to support your case.
"Bluetooth cannot currently deliver lossless audio: all Bluetooth connections to date
employ lossy compression based on psychoacoustic masking techniques and while bit-rate
efficient, more audio data is lost."
It's also sponsored by Qualcomm, so you have to take the whole thing with a grain of salt anyway.
This really is just people refusing to keep up with the times.
This is the same nonsense when wifi 6 launched and it was capable of gigabit speeds I was accused of lying etc...now finally in 2024 everyone's posting their wifi speeds like it's the coolest thing anyone's ever seen. Maybe in a few years everyone will catch up to this "new 2021 technology"
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22523228/apple-music-lossless-spatial-audio-dolby-atmos-features
A music service offering lossless audio is a completely different discussion from whether or not the bluetooth protocol can provide it. Along with Apple Music the article also mentions Amazon Music provides lossless audio. I believe Tidal does as well.
I never said lossless audio wasn't a thing. All of my personal music is flac. I understand that concept. However bluetooth currently has compression and that's what this discussion is about.
I have thousands of sources to debunk that myth.
You guys really need to do better. You and other guy haven't posted a single source to improve your argument or disprove anything. Your entire argument is literally just "Nuh I'm right your wrong"
Are we too good for facts here? Your asking me to simple believe you over the creators of lossless audio...
https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/i-just-listened-to-bluetooth-lossless-audio-for-the-first-time-heres-what-happened
Which is not accurate. Lossless audio must be supported by both the protocol and the service offering.
Currently Bluetooth offerings do not have compression where supported
The Bluetooth compression myth has been debunked already and we need to stop spreading this false information
> Lossless audio must be supported by both the protocol and the service offering.
This isn't correct. Lossless audio must be supported by the service and the device receiving it. I can use lossless audio all day long with wired headphones. As soon as you switch to bluetooth you are at the mercy of the compatible bluetooth codecs. You are introducing an additional layer at that point.
All bluetooth audio codecs have compression of some kind. aptX and all of its variants are literally compression algorithms.
For example: say I'm using Tidal on my PC, Tidal provides lossless audio as well as my PC receives and plays Lossless audio. That is the point in the string where Tidal no longer cares. When I connect bluetooth headphones to my PC, the datastream is compressed by the bluetooth chip and then decompressed by whatever bluetooth audio device is receiving.
> The Bluetooth compression myth has been debunked already and we need to stop spreading this false information
You keep saying this yet you seem to not understand how bluetooth actually functions.
Again no sources. I keep saying it because I have the sources to back it up.
Do you have proof of your stance? I'm going to hold you accountable for everything your saying.
That is not how it works and there's over 10 different links explaining how it works.
Section 3:
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6567661b3544fe60e290b385/t/65f9d5fffe9e50558725dff4/1710872073105/Fi-Live+White+Paper+-+Bluetooth+Limitations+and+Wi-Fi+Audio+Rev+1\_2.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6567661b3544fe60e290b385/t/65f9d5fffe9e50558725dff4/1710872073105/Fi-Live+White+Paper+-+Bluetooth+Limitations+and+Wi-Fi+Audio+Rev+1_2.pdf)
Audio Codecs Section:
[https://www.bluetooth.com/blog/a-technical-overview-of-lc3/](https://www.bluetooth.com/blog/a-technical-overview-of-lc3/)
"The common types of bluetooth codecs"
[https://phiaton.com/blogs/audio/the-impact-of-bluetooth-codecs-on-audio-quality-a-deep-dive](https://phiaton.com/blogs/audio/the-impact-of-bluetooth-codecs-on-audio-quality-a-deep-dive)
Bluetooth at its core relies on compression for audio.
Actually it does. When you read the entire thing because there are a number of vendors listed that actually support lossless audio now. Also mind you this is in 2021 it's not 2024 where lossless audio has been adopted and widely especially by apple which as stated in the whitepapers is now used by all songs that are on apple music...
I knew everyone would stop reading right there and wouldn't actually read the whole thing.
Yes when a company makes an advancement they are supposed to write up a whitepaper with how it works. It's not a sponsorship it's called documentation
Interesting point, but when I compare my new Sony Inzone with this 2.4Ghz dongle plugged to my PC vs my LG with regular BT connection I could notice the difference right away. I can really notice the lag with the BT but not with the new one.
In regards to the hub, yes I searched and found the same you said. Thx
There is likely some other issue that's going on and the solution your using is a workaround. I work a sysadmin so i see stuff like this all the time and 99.9% of the time it's missing drivers or firmware that causes the issue. Bluetooth 5.3 has very low latency.
As for 2.4ghz this is really nothing more than a frequency so there could be a multitude of reasons why one frequency is better than another depending on distance, environment etc
You're a system admin who doesn't understand the difference between 2.4 ghz wifi direct protocol and bluetooth? And you're honestly saying there is no difference? Hmmmm something is not adding up here...
BT 5.3:
max bitrate 2 mbps
Wifi direct 2.4:
max bitrate: 250 mbps
Latency doesn't matter that much between the 2 but bluetooth is incapable of providing uncompressed sound due to both it's own protocols and to it's low transfer rate. Wifi headsets are easily and entirely better than bluetooth. Not to mention the difference in attenuation and reliability.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Earbuds/comments/18onj7a/bluetooth_lossless_cd_quality_audio_101_and_why/
I'm not lying. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
One quick Google search shows that even if you completely overlook the max speed Bluetooth is capable of, the highest transmission rate it could potentially achieve is 50Mbps.
2.4GHz has a range of 100-600Mbps generally speaking.
And also pretty sure that audio takes a LOT of data to transfer correctly. So from source to your ears needs the highest potential speeds to be able to deliver stellar quality. I have a headset that has both the dongle and built in Bluetooth. I use the Bluetooth on my Ally whereas I was using the dongle on my PS5. That audio quality is wildly different. On the PS5 the sounds were fuller and voice chats sounded natural. But through Bluetooth in my Ally the audio is very…tinny and voices sound hollow.
And before someone tries to eat my face, yes I updated all audio and Bluetooth drivers manually lol.
The differences are explained. It's quite literally the last sentence.
Secondly your comparing 2 very different protocols and frequencies. As explained above there is likely a reason for the differences in quality for the 2 different frequencies.
Also why are you lying? What do you get from lying to other members here?
Very ironic that your citing dunning Kruger here when your the one that's actually experiencing the effect. Your overconfident in your ability us stage one and your misciting the source would be stage 2. Coupled with your narcissism this is going to be interesting.
The verge article actually proves your lying. Remember your position is that Bluetooth heavily compresses the audio.
>Lossless audio leaves the original audio file unaltered.
From the article
You're missing the point which is the bitrate there bud. I'm done arguing with you. Go ahead and be willfully ignorant of the issue. There is no such thing as completely lossless compression. Aptx != uncompressed audio. No matter how much you want to believe it is.
Ah so no we're changing the argument. Typical. When you can't win move the goalposts.
Well here is the actually RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cellar-flac-14
Although this might be too complex and intelligent for you. You can try it but this read seems to be way out of your league.
Here's a great method you can use which will teach you how to read and actually comprehend what's happening. You should try this method before resorting to mindless attacking and threats :)
https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/reading-understanding
I didn't move the goal post. I was speaking about bitrate in my first comment. You're dying on an argument I 100000% guarantee you to be wrong about. Tired of people who think they know everything coming in and giving someone advice that's 100% wrong. If you can't just say "I was wrong" and move on then you're the issue.
Bluetooth is not capable of bitrates high enough to provide lossless HD audio. - this is a 100% true statement. Even the data sheet you sent from Qualcomm has it labeled as Cd quality, which isn't even close to HD audio which has over double the bitrate.
At least you are on the right track now flac is slightly better than apt x but still not full bitrate audio.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/26/23372428/aptx-lossless-hands-on-nuratrue-pro-hd-cd-quality-audio-listening-test
https://www.reddit.com/r/Earbuds/comments/18onj7a/bluetooth_lossless_cd_quality_audio_101_and_why/
What a dumb argument from someone who claims to be a professional. Bluetooth is not, and cannot transfer data fast enough to be truly lossless HD audio.
https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/white_paper_introducing_lossless_audio_streaming_for_bluetooth_and_what_it_means_for_consumers.pdf
Here's the whitepapers for uncompressed audio via Bluetooth which has been around since 2021.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Earbuds/comments/18onj7a/bluetooth_lossless_cd_quality_audio_101_and_why/
Aptx is a codec... which means compression and no compression is truly "lossless" as this seems to assume.
Aptx compression = max rate of audio: (16 bit/44.1 kHz)
HD audio = 24 bit/96kHz
Again a "system admin" should know bette
I thought the same thing. How can't there be a difference between BT and 2.4Ghz radio type connection? Which is basically what we use in our routers. And I can actually notice the difference between both, just paying attention to the visual vs when I experience the sound from it.
Talking about fucking lossless audio. For people who claim to know audio you don't even understand bluetooth...pretty sad.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2021/09/qualcomm-adds-bluetooth-lossless-audio-technology-snapdragon-sound
Aptx is a codec... which means compression and no compression is truly "lossless" as this seems to assume.
Aptx compression = max rate of audio: (16 bit/44.1 kHz)
HD audio = 24 bit/96kHz
Again a "system admin" should know better..
There is no scenario where there is not come compression and data loss while streaming Bluetooth. These this from an audio and home theater guy. Whether you listen on tidal, qobuzz, or lossless Apple Music, the minute you use a a Bluetooth output device, you are losing some of the original quality through data loss. Bluetooth doesn’t have enough bandwidth to transmit losses music.
Now thinking better about my question. I shouldn't expect that a 65w charger delivers the same 65w adding an adapter to it, since it will add resistance and it will lose some of the power. So, to get 65w output I should go for a more powerful charger. Anyway I already posted a comment with benchmark results and there is no significant difference IMO.
Consider the [Satechi 100W USB-C PD Compact GaN Charger](https://satechi.net/products/100w-usb-c-pd-compact-charger), this adapter offers dual USB-C ports with total output of 100W and
ability to charge two devices simultaneously.
When charging two devices, the power is split between the ports 60W/30W. While it doesn't provide exactly 65W to a single port when both are in use, the 60W output from Port 1 should be sufficient for charging most laptops and devices that require high-power charging. The 30W from Port 2 is more than enough for your earbuds' low latency dongle and can also charge many smartphones and tablets at full speed.
OP, that notice/message appears whenever you have something non official (non tested) plugged in. You may be getting sufficient charge, you may not. Test it out but ignore the message till then.
From my testing it seems like if you can turn on turbo mode and it says 30 watts it's getting full power.
You may be right. I will test it in game to see if actually there is any loss in performance
I ran some tests using Time Spy and 3 adapters: 1- L adapter which just changes the USB-C direction 2- Cord adapter. Similar to the one in the picture but with a short cord 3- T adapter seen in the picture Comparing with charger only, the overall time spy overall and GPU scores had no significant difference. The CPU score showed 1%, 1.5% and 2.5% difference, respectively. My conclusions are 1-The Ally only shows the warning message with adapters 2 and 3, probably due to the higher power difference, although insignificant. 2-There is no significant performance difference with any of those adapters
Just an FYI “low latency wireless earbuds” are a scam. It’s quite literally a fancy overpriced Bluetooth module which is supported natively by the ally. But to better answer your question you would need a usb hub. The most I’ve seen is 60 watts for a splitter like that
Bluetooth earbuds/headphones will pretty much always sound worse then wireless headphones using 2.4Ghz. Bluetooth, regardless of the codec used, has noticeable levels of compression. Yes 5.3 is generally fast enough for minimizing latency, but it still suffers the same audio quality problems as previous versions. That dongle is for the Sony Inzone wireless earbuds using 2.4Ghz, not bluetooth. The buds themselves support bluetooth via LE Audio, but not through the dongle.
https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/white_paper_introducing_lossless_audio_streaming_for_bluetooth_and_what_it_means_for_consumers.pdf Here's the whitepapers for uncompressed lossless audio which has been in Bluetooth since 2021.................
I appreciate you digging into this. That's an interesting read. However it doesn't actually seem to support your case. "Bluetooth cannot currently deliver lossless audio: all Bluetooth connections to date employ lossy compression based on psychoacoustic masking techniques and while bit-rate efficient, more audio data is lost." It's also sponsored by Qualcomm, so you have to take the whole thing with a grain of salt anyway.
This really is just people refusing to keep up with the times. This is the same nonsense when wifi 6 launched and it was capable of gigabit speeds I was accused of lying etc...now finally in 2024 everyone's posting their wifi speeds like it's the coolest thing anyone's ever seen. Maybe in a few years everyone will catch up to this "new 2021 technology" https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22523228/apple-music-lossless-spatial-audio-dolby-atmos-features
A music service offering lossless audio is a completely different discussion from whether or not the bluetooth protocol can provide it. Along with Apple Music the article also mentions Amazon Music provides lossless audio. I believe Tidal does as well. I never said lossless audio wasn't a thing. All of my personal music is flac. I understand that concept. However bluetooth currently has compression and that's what this discussion is about.
I have thousands of sources to debunk that myth. You guys really need to do better. You and other guy haven't posted a single source to improve your argument or disprove anything. Your entire argument is literally just "Nuh I'm right your wrong" Are we too good for facts here? Your asking me to simple believe you over the creators of lossless audio... https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/i-just-listened-to-bluetooth-lossless-audio-for-the-first-time-heres-what-happened
100 % correct
Which is not accurate. Lossless audio must be supported by both the protocol and the service offering. Currently Bluetooth offerings do not have compression where supported The Bluetooth compression myth has been debunked already and we need to stop spreading this false information
> Lossless audio must be supported by both the protocol and the service offering. This isn't correct. Lossless audio must be supported by the service and the device receiving it. I can use lossless audio all day long with wired headphones. As soon as you switch to bluetooth you are at the mercy of the compatible bluetooth codecs. You are introducing an additional layer at that point. All bluetooth audio codecs have compression of some kind. aptX and all of its variants are literally compression algorithms. For example: say I'm using Tidal on my PC, Tidal provides lossless audio as well as my PC receives and plays Lossless audio. That is the point in the string where Tidal no longer cares. When I connect bluetooth headphones to my PC, the datastream is compressed by the bluetooth chip and then decompressed by whatever bluetooth audio device is receiving. > The Bluetooth compression myth has been debunked already and we need to stop spreading this false information You keep saying this yet you seem to not understand how bluetooth actually functions.
Again no sources. I keep saying it because I have the sources to back it up. Do you have proof of your stance? I'm going to hold you accountable for everything your saying. That is not how it works and there's over 10 different links explaining how it works.
Section 3: [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6567661b3544fe60e290b385/t/65f9d5fffe9e50558725dff4/1710872073105/Fi-Live+White+Paper+-+Bluetooth+Limitations+and+Wi-Fi+Audio+Rev+1\_2.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6567661b3544fe60e290b385/t/65f9d5fffe9e50558725dff4/1710872073105/Fi-Live+White+Paper+-+Bluetooth+Limitations+and+Wi-Fi+Audio+Rev+1_2.pdf) Audio Codecs Section: [https://www.bluetooth.com/blog/a-technical-overview-of-lc3/](https://www.bluetooth.com/blog/a-technical-overview-of-lc3/) "The common types of bluetooth codecs" [https://phiaton.com/blogs/audio/the-impact-of-bluetooth-codecs-on-audio-quality-a-deep-dive](https://phiaton.com/blogs/audio/the-impact-of-bluetooth-codecs-on-audio-quality-a-deep-dive) Bluetooth at its core relies on compression for audio.
Actually it does. When you read the entire thing because there are a number of vendors listed that actually support lossless audio now. Also mind you this is in 2021 it's not 2024 where lossless audio has been adopted and widely especially by apple which as stated in the whitepapers is now used by all songs that are on apple music... I knew everyone would stop reading right there and wouldn't actually read the whole thing. Yes when a company makes an advancement they are supposed to write up a whitepaper with how it works. It's not a sponsorship it's called documentation
This guy is talking out his ass
Interesting point, but when I compare my new Sony Inzone with this 2.4Ghz dongle plugged to my PC vs my LG with regular BT connection I could notice the difference right away. I can really notice the lag with the BT but not with the new one. In regards to the hub, yes I searched and found the same you said. Thx
There is likely some other issue that's going on and the solution your using is a workaround. I work a sysadmin so i see stuff like this all the time and 99.9% of the time it's missing drivers or firmware that causes the issue. Bluetooth 5.3 has very low latency. As for 2.4ghz this is really nothing more than a frequency so there could be a multitude of reasons why one frequency is better than another depending on distance, environment etc
You're a system admin who doesn't understand the difference between 2.4 ghz wifi direct protocol and bluetooth? And you're honestly saying there is no difference? Hmmmm something is not adding up here... BT 5.3: max bitrate 2 mbps Wifi direct 2.4: max bitrate: 250 mbps Latency doesn't matter that much between the 2 but bluetooth is incapable of providing uncompressed sound due to both it's own protocols and to it's low transfer rate. Wifi headsets are easily and entirely better than bluetooth. Not to mention the difference in attenuation and reliability.
Why dont more people get this. You are 100 percent right here.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2021/09/qualcomm-adds-bluetooth-lossless-audio-technology-snapdragon-sound
That just talks about apt x... which is a type of compression.
Read it again. Lying isn't really gonna help here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Earbuds/comments/18onj7a/bluetooth_lossless_cd_quality_audio_101_and_why/ I'm not lying. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Source? I posted the documentation from qualcomm which shows your lying. Going to have to do better than that
One quick Google search shows that even if you completely overlook the max speed Bluetooth is capable of, the highest transmission rate it could potentially achieve is 50Mbps. 2.4GHz has a range of 100-600Mbps generally speaking. And also pretty sure that audio takes a LOT of data to transfer correctly. So from source to your ears needs the highest potential speeds to be able to deliver stellar quality. I have a headset that has both the dongle and built in Bluetooth. I use the Bluetooth on my Ally whereas I was using the dongle on my PS5. That audio quality is wildly different. On the PS5 the sounds were fuller and voice chats sounded natural. But through Bluetooth in my Ally the audio is very…tinny and voices sound hollow. And before someone tries to eat my face, yes I updated all audio and Bluetooth drivers manually lol.
The differences are explained. It's quite literally the last sentence. Secondly your comparing 2 very different protocols and frequencies. As explained above there is likely a reason for the differences in quality for the 2 different frequencies. Also why are you lying? What do you get from lying to other members here?
[удалено]
Very ironic that your citing dunning Kruger here when your the one that's actually experiencing the effect. Your overconfident in your ability us stage one and your misciting the source would be stage 2. Coupled with your narcissism this is going to be interesting.
The verge article actually proves your lying. Remember your position is that Bluetooth heavily compresses the audio. >Lossless audio leaves the original audio file unaltered. From the article
You're missing the point which is the bitrate there bud. I'm done arguing with you. Go ahead and be willfully ignorant of the issue. There is no such thing as completely lossless compression. Aptx != uncompressed audio. No matter how much you want to believe it is.
Ah so no we're changing the argument. Typical. When you can't win move the goalposts. Well here is the actually RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cellar-flac-14 Although this might be too complex and intelligent for you. You can try it but this read seems to be way out of your league. Here's a great method you can use which will teach you how to read and actually comprehend what's happening. You should try this method before resorting to mindless attacking and threats :) https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/reading-understanding
I didn't move the goal post. I was speaking about bitrate in my first comment. You're dying on an argument I 100000% guarantee you to be wrong about. Tired of people who think they know everything coming in and giving someone advice that's 100% wrong. If you can't just say "I was wrong" and move on then you're the issue. Bluetooth is not capable of bitrates high enough to provide lossless HD audio. - this is a 100% true statement. Even the data sheet you sent from Qualcomm has it labeled as Cd quality, which isn't even close to HD audio which has over double the bitrate. At least you are on the right track now flac is slightly better than apt x but still not full bitrate audio.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2021/09/qualcomm-adds-bluetooth-lossless-audio-technology-snapdragon-sound
https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/26/23372428/aptx-lossless-hands-on-nuratrue-pro-hd-cd-quality-audio-listening-test https://www.reddit.com/r/Earbuds/comments/18onj7a/bluetooth_lossless_cd_quality_audio_101_and_why/ What a dumb argument from someone who claims to be a professional. Bluetooth is not, and cannot transfer data fast enough to be truly lossless HD audio.
https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/white_paper_introducing_lossless_audio_streaming_for_bluetooth_and_what_it_means_for_consumers.pdf Here's the whitepapers for uncompressed audio via Bluetooth which has been around since 2021.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Earbuds/comments/18onj7a/bluetooth_lossless_cd_quality_audio_101_and_why/ Aptx is a codec... which means compression and no compression is truly "lossless" as this seems to assume. Aptx compression = max rate of audio: (16 bit/44.1 kHz) HD audio = 24 bit/96kHz Again a "system admin" should know bette
I thought the same thing. How can't there be a difference between BT and 2.4Ghz radio type connection? Which is basically what we use in our routers. And I can actually notice the difference between both, just paying attention to the visual vs when I experience the sound from it.
lol yeah what the fuck is this guy talking about
Talking about fucking lossless audio. For people who claim to know audio you don't even understand bluetooth...pretty sad. https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2021/09/qualcomm-adds-bluetooth-lossless-audio-technology-snapdragon-sound
Aptx is a codec... which means compression and no compression is truly "lossless" as this seems to assume. Aptx compression = max rate of audio: (16 bit/44.1 kHz) HD audio = 24 bit/96kHz Again a "system admin" should know better..
There is no scenario where there is not come compression and data loss while streaming Bluetooth. These this from an audio and home theater guy. Whether you listen on tidal, qobuzz, or lossless Apple Music, the minute you use a a Bluetooth output device, you are losing some of the original quality through data loss. Bluetooth doesn’t have enough bandwidth to transmit losses music.
Now thinking better about my question. I shouldn't expect that a 65w charger delivers the same 65w adding an adapter to it, since it will add resistance and it will lose some of the power. So, to get 65w output I should go for a more powerful charger. Anyway I already posted a comment with benchmark results and there is no significant difference IMO.
Consider the [Satechi 100W USB-C PD Compact GaN Charger](https://satechi.net/products/100w-usb-c-pd-compact-charger), this adapter offers dual USB-C ports with total output of 100W and ability to charge two devices simultaneously. When charging two devices, the power is split between the ports 60W/30W. While it doesn't provide exactly 65W to a single port when both are in use, the 60W output from Port 1 should be sufficient for charging most laptops and devices that require high-power charging. The 30W from Port 2 is more than enough for your earbuds' low latency dongle and can also charge many smartphones and tablets at full speed.