# What are head-fi members views on apt-x lossless codec (over bluetooth)?



## AnakChan

I've noticed there's a slight increase (revival?) in questions about audiophile standard quality over bluetooth. I know apt-x has been out for some time and quite a few manufacturers have started making apt-x compatible bluetooth headsets. Admittedly the headphones themselves may not necessarily be audiophile quality but that's just eventually customer demand and thereafter implementation/execution.
   
  The base would be in the codec itself. As such I'm curious head-fiers and audiophiles opinion of this apt-x codec. Has anyone tried it and deem it worthy? If so, why has there been no demand to increase the support of this codec? i.e. none of the Apple iDevices support this. One needs to buy a full fledged notebook for this. Similarly, only recently a little more support from portable devices such as Android (Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0, Sharp Aquos SH-01D), and Creative Ziio (but presumably only to support their aptx headphones).
   
  Is apt-x unsuccessful 'cos it's not delivering? Or is it cos it's expensive to licence?


----------



## andrewberge

From the official site:


> The audio codec however has a hybrid near lossless feature where the dynamic application of a mild form of lossy coding only for the short sections of audio where complete lossless coding cannot respect the bandwidth constraints required.


 
   
  The codec moves to a lossy mode if the audio can't be compressed enough.
  Personally, i don't think bluetooth will ever really catch on unless they manage to raise the bandwidth high enough for truly lossless audio.


----------



## kondor-11

I'm very interested in this topic as well. There seems to be several "lossless" audio technologies in the wild (Kleer, aptX that I know of) but not a lot of end user products.


----------



## Mauricio

How does the Apple Airport system move the data across the ether?


----------



## sarthorn

I work for CSR the company that developed and licensed aptX, so I think I can help with this.There are more and more aptX enabled source devices being launched all the time. I have included a list below:
   

 Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus, Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 and Samsung Note 10.1
 Motorola Razr
 Sharp Aquos
 Mac OS X
 Creative ZiiO Tablet
 HTC One Series (One V, One X and One S)
 Creative ZiiO Tablet
 Creative Zen Xfi3
   
  There are hundreds more peripheral products from manufacturers on the market including products from Nokia, Sennheiser, Monster, Altec Lansing, Cambridge Audio, Arcam, Burmester, NAD, Conran Audio, Gear4 (the list goes on).
   
  In 2012 we expect to see hundreds more source and sink devices with aptX inside.


----------



## jcx

the aptX literature seems a bit loose with "losssy" - turning it into marketing speak rather than conforming to its actual technical definition
   
  a aptX device audio channel is lossy at lower bit rates - there's no knowing if a given device implements the highest level of aptX - which still falls back to lossy coding on difficult passages
   
  is it better than Bluetooh SBC by a lot - yes - "good enough" for "on the go", automotive uses
   
  is it "Audiophile" quality - arguably no - no amount of market speak will make the tech perfromance equal wired USB Audio Class 2 async and a $$$ DAC


----------



## Mauricio

I wish he had told us more about the codec's capabilities and limitations.


----------



## AnakChan

Let's not make this about @Sarthorn. I'm hoping we can generate a healthy discussion about the codec itself and its adoption by general associated industries.
   
  So it seems there's in sufficient information about it. Good info about the HTC models supporting apt-x as I wasn't aware of that. I guess it's making more progress in the Android world than in the iOS. Yes I'm aware of MacOS supporting it but as I initially mentioned, one needs to carry a full fledged notebook (MacAir included in this category).
   
  So far only @andrewberge has given some potential reason as to why apt-x isn't doing as well as customers (and adopters?) have the impression due to Bluetooth bandwidth, the lossless downgrades back down to lossy. However versions 3.0+HS and 4.0 seem to be improving speeds though.
   
  P.S. @Sarthorn, hope you don't mind me ignoring the Creative products as I feel they're attempting to provide a more "locked-in" package. Naturally with their headphone supporting apt-x, I can see why they're releasing apt-x capable DAPs/devices. My curiosity about the (lack of?) adoption of apt-x is more as an independent standard by other manufacturers.


----------



## ec_na_ton

My portable rig:
  Sennheiser MM100 + creative zen x-fi3
   
  look at my impressions:
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/492297/sennheiser-mm100#post_8324199


----------



## shigzeo

I'm currently listening to lossy music over BT from a BT/toslink/coax/usb DAC for computers and iDevices. The BT option is actually quite good. The item is called MyST 1866. It's come to my office recently. For lossy music, as long as the distance isn't huge, the sound is very good with lossy material, but it is very very constrained in use. In many cases, especially with lossless, the unit must be as close to the DAC as when using a LOD. However, using BT rather than LOD for lossy music is great and for most listening, I can't say that there is any difference at all. 
   
  Move the iPhone about 1 metre, though, and suddenly music is gone. Same with computer as source. Very very interesting DAC though with otherwise very good sound. I'm only checking the BT connection so far, but will check other connections soon enough.


----------



## AstroTurf

I bought Wifey a bluetooth headset and AptX adapter.
   
  Of course I had to try it out... Not Bad, not bad at all.
   
  Linky: http://www.csr.com/products/60/aptx
   
  Jim


----------



## johnston21

I got the Jaybird uSport & the foxl Plats. Awaiting arrival of a Samsung HS3000 and a HTC A100.
   
  Using the foxl Plats with and without APT-X is noticeable. BT with APT-X sounds really, really good.


----------



## aQiss

Kleer is the only truly lossless technology for wireless listening, IMO. Unfortunately, there are few devices that can prove me right.
  On second thought, I can mention AKG K-840KL.
   
  Apt-X is a lossy codec, though it is able to use the bandwidth of a Bluetooth connection very efficiently.
   
  But Bluetooth was never meant to be a good solution for audiophiles anyway.


----------



## AnakChan

aqiss said:


> Kleer is the only truly lossless technology for wireless listening, IMO. Unfortunately, there are few devices that can prove me right.
> On second thought, I can mention AKG K-840KL.
> 
> Apt-X is a lossy codec, though it is able to use the bandwidth of a Bluetooth connection very efficiently.
> ...



Apt-X Lossless is lossy??


----------



## aQiss

Quote: 





anakchan said:


> Apt-X Lossless is lossy??


 
  Well, if you take a quick look at the technology, you _may_ deduce it is lossless.
   
  However, apt-X uses a max. bitrate of 352 kbps; and the compression algorithm is not even close to perfect, either.
   
  => Audio track encoded with apt-X for Bluetooth streaming is something like a 128 Kbps ALAC encoding. _It may be _considered lossless to some extent, but the quality is underwhelming anyway. That is the main thing you can't argue about.


----------



## sovereignty68

there are two types of *aptX *codecs, one is *aptX* which is now commonly used in new handset and headsets, another one is *aptX Lossless*. Many have been confused the *aptX *technology used in bluetooth devices is *aptX Lossless*, which is not true.
   
http://www.csr.com/products/60/aptx
http://www.csr.com/products/61/aptx-lossless


----------



## aQiss

Quote:


sovereignty68 said:


> Many have been confused the *aptX *technology used in bluetooth devices is *aptX Lossless*, which is not true.


 
 Man, you're a genius. Seriously. This explains everything, and by 'everything' I mean the incorrect thread name.


----------



## james444

Mark my words, the future of portable audio is wireless.
   
  I've been into portable audio since the days of the first Sony Walkman, I've used portable CD players, DCC and MiniDisc, embraced the first iPod and owned 20+ mp3 players over the years. I've been into bluetooth audio (A2DP) since its rather dreadful early days and been following its tediously slow crawl towards better sound quality over the last years. Today I can safely say that aptX bluetooth is significantly better and more reliable than everything else I've heard before and that wireless audio is finally ready for prime time.
   
  Why am I so sure about this? Because I've been using an aptX enabled bluetooth receiver (Samsung HS3000) almost daily during the last few months, first from a Creative Zen X-Fi3 and lately from a Samsung Galaxy SIII. As interesting as discussing lossless vs. lossy may be, I'm not a theorist, I need to get my hands on things and try them in practice. I've been on head-fi since 2004 and have witnessed some of the most die-hard beliefs disappearing into thin air, simply because technology had moved on (remember when it was more or less common belief that a cellphone could never rival the sound quality of a dedicated mp3 player?). After countless hours of using my portable aptX rig with high-end IEMs like the SE530, IE8, W4, FI-BA-SS, K3003 and UERM, I'm convinced that aptX is a fully adequate replacement for a wired connection in a mobile scenario.
   
  So let me clarify: I'm still using a wired connection at home, in very quiet surroundings. And to those who hear a difference between FLAC an 320 kbit/s mp3 or think that 24/96 is a necessity, I won't even try to argue with you. But for ordinary mortals like me, the sound quality of aptX bluetooth is easily good enough for portable use and virtually indistinguishable from a wired connection in any environment with ambient noise.
   
  Here's a picture of my current portable rig (SGS3 > HS3000 > IE8 with short cable):
   

   
  Ok, I'm cheating, there are still wires between receiver and earpieces. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Well, that's first of all due to versatility ( I can connect anything with a 3.5mm plug) and secondly, there aren't any decent IEMs with integrated receiver available yet. But things are improving quickly and I'm pretty sure that we'll see a myriad of wireless devices entering the market during the next few years. So far I've seen aptX enabled headphones by Creative, Motorola, Sennheiser, Jaybird, Denon, Phiaton and yes, there's even an aptX version of the infamous Beats out there. To anyone interested, here's a list of apt-X enabled devices that seems pretty up-to-date.
   
  Bottom line, this is my view on aptX, I don't care whether it's lossless or lossy, but it sure sounds damn good.


----------



## johnston21

Agree wirh above. Awesome with audio. Ever so slight delay with vid


----------



## stan11003

Apple takes the music whether it be mp3, aac or wav and compressed it into Apple Lossless and sends that to the other device which decompresses it. See this article http://www.macworld.com/article/1030806/000212.html


----------



## james444

^ Yep, but afaik AirTunes/AirPlay needs WiFi, so it won't work between your iPod and a headset for mobile use. Bluetooth is much more energy efficient than WiFi, btw.


----------



## zzffnn

Thanks James for mentioning Samsung HS3000.
  I would like to see more aptX transmitter/receiver in the future. Preferably transmitter/receiver that are compatible with my Sansa Clip+ or iPhone 3GS.
   
  I am currently using Sleek's Kleer wireless transmitter/receiver with SA6 earphones and like the sound and convenience. However, Sleek's wireless receiver has proprietary connections that fit only SA6s. DIY mod would be a pain with those, not to mention Sleek's wireless receiver has been out of stock for a long time.


----------



## markilou

Like james444 I've been testing using BT A2DP headsets for years, not only for the convenience of wireless audio in my urban life (listening to music outdoors, walking, cycling: to avoid entangling myself with wires and making unplanned falls of  pricy phones out of my pockets) but also indoor for all those times when I need to take a call when I've got my hands busy with typing, cooking, DIY, gym exercises, or whatever you can think of that would requires both hands' freedom of movement.
   
  Of course most readers of this forum wouldn't care too much about audio quality for telephone calls but did you ever test HD Voice ? Even for phone calls I found that apt-x makes a big difference compared to standard A2DP. I'm no tech but I believe A2DP bandwidth limitation requires an additional codec compression which muffles the speech clarity while apt-x carries the full bandwidth of the (mono) audio call. This is even more noticeable using VoIP (which adds transcoding and deteriorates speech clarity): I just wasn't able to use standard BT with VoIP (NextGenCel, Skype, etc) before apt-x.
   
  However "HD Voice" is not limited to VoIP : it is spreading fast on our Mobile Operators networks AND our handsets, the so-called AMR-WB (wide-band) codec is now used in almost 50 countries and many more handsets, spreading even faster now that it the HD Voice Codec is compulsory for voice over LTE (4G). Needless to say that this clarity is lost if you use a standard bluetooth heaset.
   
  Unless you use apt-x: apt-x is be the logical missing link to enjoy wireless HD Voice on our mobile devices.
   
  As for me I like in-hear style headphones and the choice is unfortunately very limited to just a couple of products out there. more than 6 months ago I've convinced myself with the Nokia Essence headset (they come with noise reduction feature too unfortunately they're a little too pricy AND quite hard to find).
   
  While I used to connect my BT only when necessary in the past, I now have those on my neck all day long, along with my HTC One S.
   
  I wish there were already more choice out there (shame Apple include it on their IOS devices already, that would have helped) but as james444 said: this is -dawn to- prime time for  wireless audio...


----------



## markilou

PrisonNurse suggested (by Private Message) I'd take a look at Jaybeard's new sport style Bluebuds X which I actually had already done by coincidence when I googled "apt-x earbuds" recently.
   
  the funny thing is it seems the Bluebuds X are not using the apt-x codec: according to the description Jaybeard instead came up with a so called "Shift" enhancement of the native SBC codec...
   
  no idea how good these are and would welcome any comment from any of the forum's users. Still,  I'm puzzled about why an apt-x google search comes up with this product if apt-x is not mentioned anywhere on the page nor on the specs..
   
  Since my last post however HTC came out with their own apt-x compatible in-hear model : BH S600 which I've bought and tested. Indeniably good for calls but not as awesome/rich as the Nokia Essence model I mentioned earlier. The other downside of the HTC compared to the Nokia is you need to clip the main block to some part of your clothes to sustain it whereas the  Nokia comes as a necklace. Less discrete though...


----------



## shaocaholica

I'm gonna reply to this old thread but I think its still relevant.
  
 I'm not sure how many people really care for aptx but it seems like that unless you're actually playing lossless files, there's no benefit to lossless aptx.  If you're just playing a bunch of itunes 256 AAC, V0 mp3s, Internet radio, its not like lossless aptx is going to make those sound any better/different than BT-AAC.


----------



## AnakChan

shaocaholica said:


> I'm gonna reply to this old thread but I think its still relevant.
> 
> I'm not sure how many people really care for aptx but it seems like that unless you're actually playing lossless files, there's no benefit to lossless aptx.  If you're just playing a bunch of itunes 256 AAC, V0 mp3s, Internet radio, its not like lossless aptx is going to make those sound any better/different than BT-AAC.


 
  
 I think this thread has somewhat died 'cos there are very few APT-x adopters - probably due to licensing. And even if a company does, they don't do it for everything (e.g. Apple supports APT-X for their MacOS but not for their iOS - well personally for me at least when I go wireless, it's usually when I'm "on-the-go" rather than sitting down somewhere with my latptop/notebook).
  
 Although I've not had anything with APT-X, logically I may disagree with your above proposal 'cos I'd expect APT-X lossless to at least maintain the originally lossy file. Wouldn't standard Bluetooth standards be _double_-degrading an originally lossy quality?


----------



## shaocaholica

I get where you're coming from. I think lossless wireless transmission of audio is and should be the goal but I also don't think it's a huge deal -IF- BT-AAC is as good as 256AAC or v0 mp3. That's assuming BT-AAC is 256 or better.

I try to avoid double encoding anything lossy but from practice I've also noticed it's not as bad as most people think. I can't speak for audio specifically but I'd wager it's inaudible for 256AAC double encoded or v0 mp3 encoded as 256AAC.


----------



## AnakChan

shaocaholica said:


> I get where you're coming from. I think lossless wireless transmission of audio is and should be the goal but I also don't think it's a huge deal -IF- BT-AAC is as good as 256AAC or v0 mp3. That's assuming BT-AAC is 256 or better.
> 
> I try to avoid double encoding anything lossy but from practice I've also noticed it's not as bad as most people think. I can't speak for audio specifically but I'd wager it's inaudible for 256AAC double encoded or v0 mp3 encoded as 256AAC.


 
  
 I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I do agree on the goal, definitely no disagreement about that. The assumption part is where I think it's a topic of interest. Would BT-ACC further degrade a 256k lossy to something worse like 128k when connectivity between the transmitter and receiver starts to get dodgy?
  
 Personally for me, I actually find lossy to be somewhat overrated. I don't deny I have FLAC, hires, and even DSD in soft format in my DAP, but to be honest, it's not like I don't enjoy my 256k VBR purchased AAC from iTunes any less. They're still quite listenable and enjoyable. Of course if lossless is there I'd opt for it, but I wouldn't say it's a "must have".


----------



## james444

shaocaholica said:


> I'm gonna reply to this old thread but I think its still relevant.
> 
> I'm not sure how many people really care for aptx but it seems like that unless you're actually playing lossless files, there's no benefit to lossless aptx.  If you're just playing a bunch of itunes 256 AAC, V0 mp3s, Internet radio, its not like lossless aptx is going to make those sound any better/different than BT-AAC.


 
  
 BT-aptX isn't lossless, but it sounds better to my ears than the usual BT-SBC encoding. As far as I know, there's no BT-AAC and your AAC files will be re-encoded to SBC for BT streaming.
  
 That said, according to this comparison, even good old SBC has very good audio quality at 320kbps, with artifacts below hearing threshold.
  


anakchan said:


> I think this thread has somewhat died 'cos there are very few APT-x adopters - probably due to licensing. And even if a company does, they don't do it for everything (e.g. Apple supports APT-X for their MacOS but not for their iOS - well personally for me at least when I go wireless, it's usually when I'm "on-the-go" rather than sitting down somewhere with my latptop/notebook).
> 
> Although I've not had anything with APT-X, logically I may disagree with your above proposal 'cos I'd expect APT-X lossless to at least maintain the originally lossy file. Wouldn't standard Bluetooth standards be _double_-degrading an originally lossy quality?


 
  
 There seem to be very few aptX adopters here on head-fi, however the list of aptX compatible devices has been steadily growing ever since the start of this thread.
  
 As I said above, BT streaming will always involve lossy re-encoding, regardless of whether SBC or aptX is used. From my point of view the question is, will you be able to hear the difference? Try opening a JPEG file in your photo editor and save it to a new file at 95% JPEG quality. The second file will obviously be a lossy degradation of the first one, but good luck on trying to discern the visual differences. (Of course, things will look different if you save the new file at 75% or lower).


----------



## shaocaholica

I found this jem:
  
 http://bernholdtech.blogspot.de/2013/03/Nine-different-audio-encoders-100-pass-recompression-test.html
  
 I think its relevant.
  
 I also did the jpeg encode over and over thing as an artsy thing a while back to see what would happen over thousands of re-encodes and turn it into an animation.  Sadly it wasn't very exciting.  Artifacts would appear immediately and then settle only after a few encodes.  Then the image was visually static over the next few thousand reencodes.  It must have reached some sort of stable entropy where the output was equal to the input.  And I was doing this at really high compression too like 20%.  I even tried nudging the image a few pixels and even half pixels every encode to throw it off but that didn't do anything terribly visually.  I even tried painting a big moving patch across the image but that didn't do much either.  I really wanted to see the artifacts grow more artifacts but thats apparently not how jpeg works.


----------



## james444

I personally don't think the result of 100 recompressions is relevant when we're talking about a single recompression for BT streaming. 
  
 However, like I said in an earlier post, I won't even try to argue with serious audiophiles about this topic:


james444 said:


> And to those who hear a difference between FLAC an 320 kbit/s mp3 or think that 24/96 is a necessity, I won't even try to argue with you.


 
  
 Likewise, if you can see a visual difference between a one time re-encoded JPEG at 95% quality and the original, I won't argue about that either.
  
 What strikes me though, is that some of the same folks who loathe BT streaming on principle, seem to have no problems on the other hand with expensive "audiophile" DAPs like the Tera Player, which demonstrably change the original signal more than high-quality BT re-encoding.


----------



## inline79

Hey guys,
 Just want to thank you for this discussion - it takes a bit of courage to say "lossless isn't everything" on an audiophile board and made me feel better about not having apt-x.  I mean, these are bluetooth devices - you're mobile.  I know I can't hear the difference between lossless and 320mp3 when I'm in motion, and if I'm not moving, then I can use a wire!  So I also agree that standard A2DP via mpeg-2 or aac is fine for mobile bluetooth devices.
  
 The only case I can think of is if you wanted to set up a wireless home theatre speaker - that should definitely be apt-x!


----------



## inline79

Follow-up: a few days after the above, I bought a Sennheiser MM450x which has apt-x. Then somehow my BlackBerry Q10 magically got apt-x. I gotta say, this is a killer combo. Can't go back to A2DP like in my car!


----------



## ClieOS

I think I have this discussion (somewhat) with James before. My thought is that the majority of the 'evil' in BT isn't inherently SBC (or any lossy codec for that matter), but more on poor implementation by various manufacturers. A lot of the older BT devices sound bad because either they uses low bitrate SBC (many are just 128kbps, 96kbps or even lower), having poor earpiece or poor amp section after the DAC (and sometime they didn't even have a dedicated amp section). Some of the newer BT headset still suffer from these problem because traditionally no one really care that much about the SQ over BT. Samsung, for example, pairs their good sounding HS3000 (with apt-X) with one of the worst sounding earpiece they have (EHS44). If they would have bother to use EHS64 instead, they would have a winning combo there. If I were in charge, I would have fire the guy who made the decision on HS3000+EHS44.
  
 So the situation can get a bit more complex than saying "apt-X > SBC". In theory it is. but in reality it depends also on the hardware as well. An apt-X supported headset with poor hardware will still sound poor compared to a high bitrate SBC supported headset with good hardware. Manufacturer just need to learn to take BT more seriously, instead of trying to use 'apt-X' more like a marketing tool vs. a real solution. Also don't forget that BT has a 'high speed' mode since v3 that can steam data using WiFi layer so bandwidth might not be a limitation in the future (though currently hardware isn't there yet to utilize high speed mode). Who to say we won't have BT lossless in a couple of years if there is a demand for it? Well, it isn't impossible for sure.


----------



## james444

Yep, I have to agree that aptX alone doesn't make a winner. At least the Samsung HS3000 sounds good if you use it with a better third party earpiece, but for instance the HTC BH S600 (which supports aptX) sounds worse than some other non-aptX headsets, regardless of which earpiece is used.


----------



## ClieOS

James, you might want to look into the upcoming Sony SBH80 as well. It is the first Sony BT headset with apt-X support. I have a review sample here and overall it is better sounding than MW1. It still uses the MH1 transducer but retuned so it sounds more transparent / less warm than the MH1 on MW1. The only downside is that everything is integrated into a 'behind-the-neck' design, so no alternative earpiece or different wearing style. It won't be everyone's cup of tea for sure. But I reckon it is by far the best sounding BT headset Sony ever make and probably one of the best sounding BT headset in the market as well. Unfortunately my Samsang Galaxy Tab 7+'s BT function is acting up so I can't really test the apt-X yet, but I am planning to get a new smartphone soon and hopefully I'll be able to test the apt-X function by then. But even with just high bitrate SBC, the SBH80 is still quite impressive.


----------



## andrewberge

clieos said:


> [...]


 
  
 Good point. It's not just about the codec.
 I don't know which one it uses, but the Cowon J3 adds some pretty bad artifacts when playing over bluetooth, while my laptop sounds just fine.


----------



## inline79

FWIW I also agree that hardware can definitely affect the quality of a BT headphone. I mean after decompressing apt-x or A2DP/SBC, there's still got to be an amplifier section that can make or break the sound quality.

My personal example is my car, which has a spectacular sound system yet manages to ruin BT audio somehow. Without knowing the system architecture, it's not fair to blame the lack of apt-x, but it's all I have to go by as my BT source is apt-x.


----------



## james444

clieos said:


> James, you might want to look into the upcoming Sony SBH80 as well. It is the first Sony BT headset with apt-X support. I have a review sample here and overall it is better sounding than MW1. It still uses the MH1 transducer but retuned so it sounds more transparent / less warm than the MH1 on MW1. The only downside is that everything is integrated into a 'behind-the-neck' design, so no alternative earpiece or different wearing style. It won't be everyone's cup of tea for sure. But I reckon it is by far the best sounding BT headset Sony ever make and probably one of the best sounding BT headset in the market as well. Unfortunately my Samsang Galaxy Tab 7+'s BT function is acting up so I can't really test the apt-X yet, but I am planning to get a new smartphone soon and hopefully I'll be able to test the apt-X function by then. But even with just high bitrate SBC, the SBH80 is still quite impressive.




Thanks for the heads-up! Yep, I don't care much for that kind of design, but will probably still try it out of curiosity for the sound quality.


----------



## egosumlux

you can find a cheap apt-x enabled phone to give it a try  here http://www.energysistem.com/es/products/auriculares/serie_auriculares_bluetooth/38731-energy_wireless_bt7_nfc_black


----------



## yalper

clieos said:


> I have a review sample here and overall it is better sounding than MW1. It still uses the MH1 transducer but retuned so it sounds more transparent / less warm than the MH1 on MW1. The only downside is that everything is integrated into a 'behind-the-neck' design, so no alternative earpiece or different wearing style. It won't be everyone's cup of tea for sure. But I reckon it is by far the best sounding BT headset Sony ever make and probably one of the best sounding BT headset in the market as well.


 
 It looks Sead is hereinafter referred as a very famous guy and we won't be able to get these for $15 this time. I've been expecting a detailed review from you ClieOS


----------



## ClieOS

yalper said:


> It looks Sead is hereinafter referred as a very famous guy and we won't be able to get these for $15 this time. I've been expecting a detailed review from you ClieOS


 
  
 $15 will be a very long shot this time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am still waiting for the Xperia Z1 Compact to release locally before I'll do a full review (my current TX doesn't have apt-X support). But if you want to read something more technical, Rin already posted his review and he seems to be pretty happy with it.


----------



## james444

james444 said:


> Thanks for the heads-up! Yep, I don't care much for that kind of design, but will probably still try it out of curiosity for the sound quality.


 
  
 So I've had the SBH80 for a few days and surprisingly I liked the 'behind-the-neck' design much better than expected. Everything about the neckband and the button layout seemed very well thought out. The only thing I found missing was a carrying case, because even though you'll mostly leave the headset just there around your neck, at some point you'll need to stow it away and that's when things get a bit awkward with that kind of design.
  
 Soundwise, there's little to complain about, they're very smooth and refined, though still a little bit too bassy for my taste (and maybe a smidgen too polite in treble). I ended up EQing their bass by -5db in quiet surroundings and by -2db outside, as well as their treble by +2db, regardless of environment. These rather small corrections for outside show that they're already excellently tuned for on-the-go use right out of the box.
  
 The main reason why I didn't keep the headset in the end, was that it offers pretty much the same sound quality as my old BT-rig (Samsung HS3000 with short-cabled, EQed IE8), but the IE8 can be worn over-ear and stowed away more easily. Nevertheless I think the SBH80 are easily recommendable to anyone who's looking for a stellar sounding aptX BT-headset with very well thought out design.


----------



## fnkcow

Is Sony SBH80 using dynamic driver or balanced armature?
  
 Says on official webpage its 5.8mm dynamic
 http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/accessories/stereo-bluetooth-headset-sbh80/specifications/#tabs
  
 In its video ad its balanced armature drivers
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09YP9SHz9Pw
  
 Confused


----------



## james444

^ The webpage info is correct.


----------



## fnkcow

james444 said:


> ^ The webpage info is correct.


 
 lol for the video ad blunder
  
 No way a BA's bass can sound this good over its dynamic counterpart for the same design


----------



## SergeSE

As the list of devices supporting aptX become longer, SoundExpert (SE) - a non-profit research project - is going to add aptX (bluetooth) codec to its testing system. This will help to evaluate perceptual quality of the codec in comparison with SBC which is in SE ratings for a long time already.
  
Unfortunately the only reliable way of making aptx test recordings is using of hardware receivers with digital output. Also some aptX-enabled source of signal is necessary (phone, tablet, laptop …). While SE is looking for such devices I would like to ask Head-Fi forumers to help with these recordings too. Details are in the article “Audio quality of bluetooth aptX” – http://soundexpert.org/news/-/blogs/audio-quality-of-bluetooth-aptx
  
Thanks in advance.


----------



## dynacampjim

SergeSE:


> Unfortunately the only reliable way of making aptx test recordings is using of hardware receivers with digital output.


 
 I just picked up on this thread after reading about _Crystal Acoustics BluDac  _which is a Bluetooth receiver that seems to get good reviews and it has optical out, so presumably would be ideal to make recordings as requested above. It seems good value too - priced at £60 on Amazon in the UK.
 Of course, an aptx bluetooth enabled phone or tablet would also be required and I'm having some difficulty finding out if my Moto G is so enabled. According to some spec lists online, the Moto X has aptx but it is missing on the spec for the Moto G. On the other hand, the aptx.com website lists the Moto G as having aptx !  I think I may drop Motorola a line on this but I'd be interested if anyone has any knowledge on this matter.


----------



## JRG1990

I own the crystal acoustics bludac, it works fine with my galaxy s3 and has really good range.


----------



## SergeSE

> Of course, an aptx bluetooth enabled phone or tablet would also be required and I'm having some difficulty finding out if my Moto G is so enabled. According to some spec lists online, the Moto X has aptx but it is missing on the spec for the Moto G. On the other hand, the aptx.com website lists the Moto G as having aptx !  I think I may drop Motorola a line on this but I'd be interested if anyone has any knowledge on this matter.


 
 Looks like the only place where Moto G has aptX is aptx.com. I didn't find confirmation elsewhere. Some people say it has no aptX support:
 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/toybox-motorola-moto-g-ck-151642
 http://www.android-hilfe.de/motorola-moto-g-forum/516395-aptx.html


----------



## SergeSE

> Of course, an aptx bluetooth enabled phone or tablet would also be required and I'm having some difficulty finding out if my Moto G is so enabled. According to some spec lists online, the Moto X has aptx but it is missing on the spec for the Moto G. On the other hand, the aptx.com website lists the Moto G as having aptx !  I think I may drop Motorola a line on this but I'd be interested if anyone has any knowledge on this matter.


 
 Looks like aptX web site is the only place where Moto G has aptX support. I did not find confirmation elsewhere. On the contrary some people confirmed that their Moto G's do not have aptX.


----------



## SergeSE

jrg1990 said:


> I own the crystal acoustics bludac, it works fine with my galaxy s3 and has really good range.


 

 Do you have possibility to record Blu-DAC's output via optical link?


----------



## dynacampjim

SergeSE:


> Looks like aptX web site is the only place where Moto G has aptX support. I did not find confirmation elsewhere. On the contrary some people confirmed that their Moto G's do not have aptX.


 
 Thanks for your reply, Serge - that summarises what I found which I think means that the Moto G does not have aptx - unfortunately.


----------



## james444

Got the new LG BTS1 in and in short, it's the best aptX enabled BT headset with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far. Beats my trusty old Samsung HS3000 in driving power, bass linearity and overall clarity.
 Possible downside: manual and voice prompts are Korean only.
  
 Sound quality ranking of all aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO I've heard (not considering stock earpieces):
  
          HTC BH S600 - not recommended                         Samsung HS3000 - recommended                           LG BTS1 - highly recommended


----------



## KBGolfRunner

I can't find a headphone and transmitter that user aptx lossless.  Help me find one!  There is 2:1 compression on "aptX Lossless" by the way.  I'm sure it sounds lossless compared to other other Bluetooth setups, but it's definitely not lossless.


----------



## ClieOS

kbgolfrunner said:


> I can't find a headphone and transmitter that user aptx lossless.  Help me find one!  There is 2:1 compression on "aptX Lossless" by the way.  I'm sure it sounds lossless compared to other other Bluetooth setups, but it's definitely not lossless.


 
  
 aptX lossless isn't designed for Bluetooth, so any of such headphone or receiver that is Bluetooth compatible (which is just about all of them) doesn't use aptX Lossless. It is also not full-time lossless. It will scale down to lossy if it doesn't have enough bandwidth.


----------



## i1fang

james444 said:


> Got the new LG BTS1 in and in short, it's the best aptX enabled BT headset with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far. Beats my trusty old Samsung HS3000 in driving power, bass linearity and overall clarity.
> Possible downside: manual and voice prompts are Korean only.
> 
> Sound quality ranking of all aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO I've heard (not considering stock earpieces):
> ...


 
 if you are able to try this
 - http://global.rakuten.com/en/store/bellpark-ecshop/item/lbt-mppar400bk/
 - http://www.amazon.com/BlueAnt-RB-BKBL-US-Bluetooth-Streamer--Headset/dp/B009F4XM48/
  
 Elcom sound neutral to me but have none above to compare.


----------



## markilou

The price of the blueant is hard to beat but as far as I understand it, it uses an additional dongle you have to plug into the phone's 3,5 jack ... not very practical whereas the Elcom model indeed looks interesting as an alternative to James' 3 models listed above.
  
I hadn't come back to this thread for a while though so 2 comments:
  
1) I have been using Sony's SBH-80 for almost 2 months now and even if they don't sound as good as my Nokia Essence (they do sound better than my HTC's BH S600 though), I just love the form factor : they're so light you just forget you're wearing them, connecting them to the phone or my tablet is as as easy touching the two devices's NFC tags. More importantly people on the other side of a call hear me perfectly even if I'm walking in a noisy street... after all -and as I already wrote in earlier in this thread- call functionality is key parameter to make your pick for a headset which will be primarily used with a phone.. just try a Skype with a normal BT headset you'll see what I mean with call clarity.
  
  
 2) to *shaocaholica *about apt-x not being better than BT-AAC : actually AAC *is* an alternative to apt-x. I read in the A2DP standard definition that along with apt-x, AAC is one the two optional codecs for bluetooth on top of the default SBC codec. So in theory if you stream an iTunes' 256kbits AAC song over bluetooth from an iOS to an AAC BT receiver you're likely to get as good or better results than doing the same over an apt-x connection which as you rightly say will introduce an additional recompression.
  
 This could explain why Apple never cared to introduce apt-x in iOS.
  
 If that's the case though they failed to promote it. Not many vendors out there promote this AAC bluetooth compatibility and Apple barely mentions it anywhere either. So far I've only found it in the Nokia Essence heaset (BJH-610) and the NuForce S3-BT speakers. 
  
 This isn't as completely trivial as it may seem because a lot of us would like to be able to use the same headphones/speakers with their Android phones and their iOS devices. I'd love that Crystal Audio BluDac to have it for ex..
  
 Maybe more manufacturers have it however no-one mentions it in the specs. Should we start a new thread AAC bluetooth codec ?


----------



## turbobb

@markilou - I have the Blueant and am just not too fond of it. The odd shape coupled with the stiff buttons contribute to very poor ergonomics and makes it difficult to use. It also has poor range and is susceptible to interference. However, for general use its decent to pair up with a non-BT can. I'd love to get my hands on the LG BTS1 but can't seem to find a US based retailer for them.


----------



## Rurouni

Picked up the sony Sbh-80 as it was finally available in my region, and this is the best implementation of a wireless bt iem I've heard so far. Have always preferred a wireless solution and after reading Rin Choi's measurements on the sbh80 I had to try it. 

As mentioned by James, I have no idea if the aptx implementation is lossy or not but it sounds great! Very low noise floor and instrument details and vocal nuances are there on a fairly transparent sound signature. Dare I say that it sounds quite close to my hd598 just a smaller soundstage. (There needs to be an sbh80 appreciation thread! *gush*)

The only issue I've faced is some bass distortion but it's only noticeable at very high volumes and on certain tracks, so I'm not sure if it's the recording, limitation of the dynamic driver or the inability of the aptx codec-Bluetooth 3.0 to push all the info over to the headset. 

The aptx creators need to do a marketing tie up with sony and the sbh80, as demonstrations of good aptx implementation will drive up consumer confidence in this codec.


----------



## turbobb

@Rurouni - mind giving this a shot with your SBH-80? (on moderate volume first): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPbLuqtCMw&feature=youtu.be&t=49m21s
  
 It's Hovering Glows by Terre Thaemlitz and one of the tracks I like to test sub bass with. The first impact should occur at 49:41. I've run this through a few BT cans (including WP380 which is BT 3.0 as well) so I know this source is clean and not distorted.


----------



## Rurouni

Hi turbobb, interesting track, but gosh the sub bass is a little overwhelming in the mix : )
  
 Did not hear any distortion when the sub bass kicked in, but the source isn't very clear so there was v little definition in the bass hits. After the 49:41 mark, I seemed to hear a little bit of distortion sampling mixed with sounds of nature, am I correct? Also around 53:10-53:12 mark there is a sampling of a sort of electronic distortion beat, is that intentional? I hear it at 54:11 as well and when the bass hits, you hear the initial bass impact then a sort of distortion decay.
  
 On this piece by the Art of Noise, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJBtIe-m3N8&list=PLEFA8C002E9BAF5DC I do hear a moment of distortion at the 1:10-1:11 mark. It is a little like slight crackling, which I have heard before in other bluetooth sets, but again, I am not sure if its the source, codec/bluetooth or just pushing the driver too hard. Rest of the track sounds great though.
  
 On more complex pieces with good recording like this version of Take 5  (start at 0:37 mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glT-z8XANwM (with albeit less sub bass, but still a great bass lines all the way) everything sounds great


----------



## Rurouni

After further extensive listening, I noticed that for the tracks where one can hear some distortion, it occurs not just in the sub-bass regions, and occurs only when listening volumes are maxed out. Lowering the listening volume eliminates the distortion.
  
 So perhaps it is a limitation of the compressed audio stream magnifying imperfections in recording, which is further highlighted through the transparency of the dynamic driver.
  
 On well recorded tracks such as Telarac's Battle of Gettysburg soundtrack, there is little or no discernible distortion at max volumes (when I note max volume - these are levels where one should not be listening at constantly)


----------



## turbobb

49:41 - no distortion on my end using various aptX cans. As for 53:10 & 54:11 mark, yes there is an intentional bass layer but not sure if it's distorted.
  
 As for AON, I actually have that CD & at the point you reference there is first something like wind chimes and then a specific hit of a percussion instrument (wood block, clave or some kind of cymbal?) that is not heard at the very beginning of the song nor at 2:22 which both feature this same exact passage).  
  
 That Take 5 track was a joy to listen to on the AF62 (current fave BT cans w/aptX). Suffice to say, I think the technology is up to snuff and should only get better as they tweak the codec. Hopefully more devices will continue to adopt aptX.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Can any of you recommend a nice quality, longer range APT-X transmitter?
 I use my APT-X Velodyne headphones connected to my HTPC for watching movies & TV.  But my Avantree Saturn transmitter just can't push the Bluetooth very far.  Maybe ten feet before it starts breaking up.


----------



## puntloos

This is not a recommendation YET since I haven't actually received the device yet, but as far as I am aware, the Tosblue X2 is the only device that satisfied my requirements:
  
 1/ Bluetooth 3.0 or better. (this was the hard part. Forget about BT 4 for now..)
 2/ Apt-X support
 3/ Multi-point. You can listen to this device with 2 headsets
 4/ Optical in (analogue is cute and all, but I am looking for sound quality..)
  
 http://telme2.com/introducing-tosblueX2.html
  
 Paid $74 (incl shipping to europe)
  
 Key downside: No battery. Not that I personally want this, mine will be velcro'ed to my stereo, but maybe some people want to move around with this stuff.
  
 (also bought a LG-BTS1 as the receiver, which indeed also supports Apt-x and BT 3.0.. now hoping the 2 devices will indeed succesfully find eachother)


----------



## zzffnn

Guys, check this out:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1629248706/earin-the-worlds-smallest-wireless-earbuds/description

Basically, those are a tiny pair of BA IEMs (Knowles SR Siren) without any external wire, microphone, or remote control (they are not the Dash). They work with smartphone or computers via Bluetooth 4.0 and AptX. The designer, who has worked for Sony Ericsson,  seems to focus on simplicity, ergonomics and sound quality. I quizzed the designer a bit and he seemed to be competent.

That Kickstarter project has reached almost twice of its original funding goal and sold out early bird specials (which I was able to obtain for £89). Now the Bluetooth IEMs can still be pre-ordered at £119-129. The estimated delivery time is 7 months away (Jan 2015) though.


----------



## james444

^ Just guessing, but it's probably the same one who designed the HBH-IS800 in 2008. Back then, the weak point was reception and will possibly be again on these. Still, it's something that deserves backing.


----------



## SilverEars

Not sure if this one was ever mentioned here, but I was quite impressed with all the features it has.  Not sure about sonic quality though.  
  
 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hellobragi/the-dash-wireless-smart-in-ear-headphones


----------



## ClieOS

zzffnn said:


> Basically, those are a tiny pair of BA IEMs (Knowles SR Siren) ...


 
  
 That's my only concern about it. I can live with relatively short battery life but not if it doesn't deliver great SQ, and Siren isn't exactly known to have great SQ in the past.
  
  


silverears said:


> Not sure if this one was ever mentioned here, but I was quite impressed with all the features it has.  Not sure about sonic quality though.
> 
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hellobragi/the-dash-wireless-smart-in-ear-headphones


 
  
 Too much focus on being smart and sporty.


----------



## zzffnn

clieos said:


> That's my only concern about it. I can live with relatively short battery life but not if it doesn't deliver great SQ, and Siren isn't exactly known to have great SQ in the past.




I did ask the designer why not use ED or TWFK and how are they improving treble limitation of Siren. The designer said the new Siren series have improved treble performance and they are going to playing with damping. 

Personally I am not too concerned about the final 10% of sound quality in a wireless product, as I am using them in exercise. The Earin seem to be the best on the market and have better fit/seal and acoustic design than the Dash (which focuses too much on "cool" features), which is why I backed Earin for £89.

The designers of Dash, who have worked for AKG, sent me the frequency graph of their prototype and told me that they are improving treble via digital processing. Still, I thought Dash had too much going inside, so I only backed it for $2.

 Let us hope wireless audio gets better in the near future.


----------



## ClieOS

Well, finger crossed the new Siren will indeed be better.
  
 Yep, I agree. I too think Dash is trying to accomplish too many things at once.


----------



## schizo

So my music player is a Cowon X7, which has awesome audio quality but no bluetooth. For various reasons and situations I wanted to look into a bluetooth transmitter and bluetooth headset solution, plugging the transmitter into the X7 via 3.5mm jack, and during my looking up of transmitters I saw apt-x on one and started looking into that to see if it really should matter but have yet to find opinions that directly relate to my situation of 3.5mm to transmitter to headset setup. So with my setup in mind, should I bother with making sure whatever transmitter (and thus then headset too) has apt-x capabilities or should I not bother based on my intended use of pretty much being for use with my X7? If I should bother, does anyone have any recommendations for decent transmitters under $60?
  
 Thx for any help in comments and/or product recommendations.


----------



## puntloos

I bought and experimented with this - http://www.telme2.com/webshop/index.php?id_product=16&controller=product and it works fine.
 It works much better with digital input for obvious reasons but if you give it an analog jack it'll work pretty well, it had some noisiness but I think that was mostly my source, I just jammed it into my small music player.
  
 Sound quality is excellent with apt-x. Build quality is very plasticky but not a dealbreaker IMO. Note that the device takes USB power, and doesnt have its own battery.
  
 [edit] updated, the one I linked was the X, the X2 allows to connect 2 listening devices..


----------



## dabotsonline

Has anyone tried the CLIPS CS300? It only seems to be available on eBay and is rather cheap looking, but looks can - of course - be deceptive.
  
 I'm interested in a receiver unit that will allow me to use my own headphones. One member states that they think the LG BTS1 is superior to the Samsung HS3000. When gaming or playing a video - for instance, a 1080p Netflix stream on a Nexus 7 (2013) running Android KitKat or 'L' Preview - will the sound still be both wirelessly transmitted and in sync? Or will this require an apX Low Latency compatible device such as the HTC One M8 (including the Google Play Edition?) What about an iPad Air, given that iOS 7 lacks aptX support?
  
 Presumably the most high-bandwidth solution would be a Wi-Fi Direct receiver with 3.5mm output, a microphone, answer/end call buttons and transport controls. Does anybody know if one exists?


----------



## CZ Eddie

dabotsonline said:


> Has anyone tried the CLIPS CS300? It only seems to be available on eBay and is rather cheap looking, but looks can - of course - be deceptive.


 
 I don't get it.  What is there about this device that make it worth almost three times more than a budget APTx transmitter is worth?  Digital is digital.  One unit should not transit the 0's and 1's any better than the other?
 And this device does not advertise any special features?
  




> 1 Post. Joined Today


 
  
  
 Welcome to the board.
 But your first post is advertising an overpriced device.  So I have to wonder if you may not just be the seller or mfg?


----------



## dabotsonline

Thank you for your breathtakingly arrogant and presumptuous comment, @CZ Eddie . I don't even own a Bluetooth receiver, let alone work with a company who manufactures or sells them.
  
@james444 mentioned, calmly and eloquently, that he found the LG BTS1 to be superior to the Samsung HS3000. Perhaps you could explain, according to your theory, how they could be anything other than equal given that both simply receive (i.e. they are a 'sink', as opposed to the transmitter which is a 'source') 0s and 1s? I simply proposed a different unit for comparison and, indeed, made direct reference to its seemingly rudimentary qualities.


----------



## germanium

dabotsonline said:


> Thank you for your breathtakingly arrogant and presumptuous comment, @CZ Eddie
> . I don't even own a Bluetooth receiver, let alone work with a company who manufactures or sells them.
> 
> @james444
> mentioned, calmly and eloquently, that he found the LG BTS1 to be superior to the Samsung HS3000. Perhaps you could explain, according to your theory, how they could be anything other than equal given that both simply receive (i.e. they are a 'sink', as opposed to the transmitter which is a 'source') 0s and 1s? I simply proposed a different unit for comparison and, indeed, made direct reference to its seemingly rudimentary qualities.




Bear in mind that this is the sound science , the one thing I found here in general is arrogance, not everybody but a lot of them are. They are only interested in shooting down any one who has a either a pure subjectivist view or even a more balanced subjectivist-objectivism view which I hold myself.


----------



## puntloos

Of course there is also more to it than 'just being a decoder of lossless data'. 
 The device needs a proper amplifier to actually 'cast' the analog audio into the world. 
  
 I found the BTS-1 does not handle my headphones (Shure SE535) well and creates a ton of noise. I think it's the impedance (36ohm)..


----------



## james444

puntloos said:


> I found the BTS-1 does not handle my headphones (Shure SE535) well and creates a ton of noise. I think it's the impedance (36ohm)..


 
  
 Hmm, I just tried with my SE530 (same impedance / sensitivity as the 535). Very low noise from my Galaxy S3, actually hard to tell the difference from driving it wired.


----------



## puntloos

Yup, different devices different results. Some do well some do not. My nexus 5 is completely silent (in the good way) while my macbook pro actually produces some minor noise. The BTS1 though is not good. Lot of noise.


----------



## james444

^ I meant there's hardly any more noise with SGS3 > BTS1/aptX > SE530 than with SGS3 > cable > SE530 to my ears.


----------



## puntloos

james444 said:


> ^ I meant there's hardly any more noise with SGS3 > BTS1/aptX > SE530 than with SGS3 > cable > SE530 to my ears.


 
 Curious. What age are you? After 50 the top octaves of hearing drop off, but maybe there's something wrong with my BTS1 too. It's really unbearably noisy for me. I doubt the SE530 -> SE535 gap makes a big difference here.


----------



## turbobb

Had been considering the BTS1 but now eagerly awaiting release of the Sound Blaster E3. It'll serve pretty much all my needs as a portable DAC/amp that also features aptX receiver.


----------



## james444

puntloos said:


> Curious. What age are you? After 50 the top octaves of hearing drop off, but maybe there's something wrong with my BTS1 too. It's really unbearably noisy for me. I doubt the SE530 -> SE535 gap makes a big difference here.


 
  
 I'm that age, but I'd say my hearing is still decent up to 16kHz. Besides, both the SE530 and 535 roll off considerably past 10kHz, and I've tested the BTS1 with brighter IEMs than the Shures without encountering major noise issues. Have you tried other IEMs besides the SE535, and if so, are these noisy too?


----------



## puntloos

james444 said:


> I'm that age, but I'd say my hearing is still decent up to 16kHz. Besides, both the SE530 and 535 roll off considerably past 10kHz, and I've tested the BTS1 with brighter IEMs than the Shures without encountering major noise issues. Have you tried other IEMs besides the SE535, and if so, are these noisy too?


 
  
 Certainly, although none anywhere near the quality of the Shures. Only a few random headsets like the ones that came with the BTS1. Pretty much dead silent with those. 
  
 Also when I put my fiio7 headphone amplifier between the BTS and the headphone it improves things into the 'tolerable' level.


----------



## dabotsonline

Bluetooth 4.2:
  
 https://www.bluetooth.org/en-us/specification/adopted-specifications
  
 Bluetooth 4.2 stops eavesdroppers, increases data transfer speed & brings direct internet access:
 http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/03/bluetooth-4-2-security-data-transfer-speed/
  
 "In addition, Bluetooth 4.2 introduces faster data with “Up to 2.5x faster with a packet capacity increase of 10x vs. previous versions,” according to SIG."
  
 Could this facilitate an update to the A2DP profile to enable higher-fidelity wireless audio transfer, as an alternative to aptX?


----------



## Class D

> Could this facilitate an update to the A2DP profile to enable higher-fidelity wireless audio transfer, as an alternative to aptX?


 
  
 A2DP is a BT profile or service.   It is designed to uni-directionally transfer an audio stream in up to 2 channel stereo, either to or from the Bluetooth host.  It is independent of the speed of the transfer.   It includes mandatory support for the low-complexity SBC codec.  The Sub Band Coding, SBC, was created many years ago by Philips as a coder/decoder for converting analog audio to digital format to be transmitted by BT from a source (transmitter) to a sink (receiver).  Not all codecs are equal.  Some are highly complex and capture more audio for coding, e. g., MP3 and AAC, than others.  This generally requires a very fast microprocessor to slice the audio wave into many parts and assign it a code for each part.  The more slices, the higher resolution or bitness of the audio.  SBC coding is the least common denominator of the audio coding done in BT.  In other words, all manufacturers of BT devices (both source and sink) must adhere to the SBC spec.  This makes the BT A2DP profile compatible across all BT devices.  Anything less would be chaos.
  
 The Apt-X codec is an alternative to the SBC codec. It is a higher resolution codec for streaming audio uni-directionally.  It, of course, requires the Apt-X codec at the source and sink. Absent this, the BT A2DP profile defaults to the lower resolution SBC codec to stream the audio to be compliant with the BT spec.  So, if you prefer low resolution audio with lots of latency for maximum compatibility, you should stick to the SBC codec when you design a sink or source BT device.  It is also the most cost effective solution as the microprocessor mentioned above is slow and cheap.  If however, you desire high resolution audio for high fidelity and low latency of transmission for acceptable lip synch between the video on your mobile device (phone or tablet) and your wireless BT stereo headphones, then you have an alternative with the Apt-X codec which provides better audio resolution and low latency.  If your sink or source has a fast enough microprocessor, you can load the CSR Harmony BT stack (program) on to it to take advantage of Apt-X coding.  This BT stack is proprietary to Cambridge Silicon Radio, CSR, and requires royalties to that company to use it.  The audio resolution and latency of the Apt-X is very close to what you get with a wire.  So it approaches the sound quality of the original audio content.
  
 There are alternative audio codecs to Apt-X, but they aren't consumer products and are very costly.  As an example, the wireless microphones on the lapels of broadcasters in Hollywood have an extremely low latency, 2ms, compared to 28ms - 35ms for Apt-X.  The Hollywood wireless microphones used by rock stars in concerts use a propriety wireless transport.  They typically cost $2000 per mic.  The wireless audio receivers in their ear aren't consumer products either, and are also very expensive.
  
 The IEEE sig for Bluetooth only controls the SBC code to assure compatibility.  If you are a radio company and want to enhance how the audio is transmitted over BT, then you need to create a BT stack and hope ALL BT manufacturers support it.   CSR, now a Qualcomm Company, has done a great job of promoting their BT stack over the years.  Eventually, all roads will lead to the Apt-X codec for the reasons given above.


----------



## james444

^ Awesome first post, thanks!


----------



## KHB2014

Hello. I have an ASUS Transformer Book T100TA. I wonder if this PC transmits with Apt-X. If not what can I do. Any god dongle out there? Thanks for the help


----------



## Class D

I read the specification for the Asus Transformer Book T100TA.  The Bluetooth spec says, "Built-in Bluetooth™ V4.0".  There's no mention of the Apt-X CODEC.  My guess is that they didn't install the CSR Harmony drivers for the built-in BT chip.  Nevertheless, the Bluetooth A2DP streaming performance may be very good, as it is with my Microsoft Surface Pro 2.  The quickest way to check the audio performance on your Transformer Book is by playing a video of someone singing or talking and look to see if the lips are synched.  Even with Apt-X there will be approximately 25-30 msec delay, but most people would agree this is pretty good.
  
 An economical Apt-X USB dongle can be found here =>
  
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JAZGSXY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  
 I have one of these Azio USB Micro Bluetooth Adapters V4.0 EDR and aptX (BTD-V401) myself.  It works with my Surface Pro 2, if I disable the built-in Microsoft Win 8.1 BT driver before I plug in the Azio dongle.  You can re-enable your Windows BT driver if you need it for your mouse, after you see that CSR Apt-X is running (there will be a Bluetooth symbol in your system tray which says CSR).
  
 A Tip:  If you have trouble installing the CSR Harmony software that comes with Azio dongle, go to their website and read the note on Microsoft .NET Framework for your version of Windows.  According to MS tech support, you can have .NET Framework 3.5 and 4.0 running simultaneously for Win 7 or 8.1.
  
 Generally speaking, the fidelity and lip-synch with CSR's Apt-X codec will be very close to what your hear and see with wired headphones.


----------



## Giogio

I have an Azio BTD-V401 USB Dongle powered (with APTX) by the CSR Harmony Bluetooth Stack.
 If you do not install the Stack, it works as normal BT Dongle, no Aptx.
 The difference in SQ with my APTX Headphones (I have tried many) with or without APTX (also, installing or not the Stack) is so big that for example with my favorite BT Headphone, the Fidelio M2BT, I would heve never bought it not even for 100 Euro with the SQ of no Aptx.
 But for how it sounds with Aptx, it worth all its price.
  
 Now, if this is a problem of this Azio Dongle or a real difference of Aptx vs No Aptx, I cannot say.
 It could be the DOngle, I do not trust Azio, their support is extremely bad, they write contraddictory info on their site, give fals info via email...
 So, maybe their Dongle is just **** and it only sounds good with the CSR Stack.
 But, no idea.
  
 What I find disturbing in Aptx is the ambiguity.
 They do not EVER answer one single email, did not want to give me any support for this CSR Harmony because "End of Life", although I had just bought it and the questions were extremely easy to answer.
 They never answered when I asked them if the Beats Studio Wireless are registered as supporting APTX (they must know it because they get money when people want to implement Aptx, and because they have the APTX website where they list all devices which support Aptx -the Beats Studio Wireless are not listed).
 They never gave me any info which I may have requested.
  
 And besides this mystery of Beats, there is the mystery of Apple.
 Apple is also not listed on the official Aptx website, and there is NO mention to Aptx ANYWHERE on any official Apple source, and if you call the Apple support they do not even have any idea of what Aptx is.
 But many people report that some macbooks support Aptx.
  
 Considering that nobody can implement Aptx withot paying something to CSR, all this could be more clear.
  
 WIth a mobile phone is easy. You connect a Headphone, and if it supports Aptx, you get the Notification "connected to an Aptx device".
 WHich is why I am sure the Beats do NOT support Aptx, because with them I do not get this notification (while I have got it with all Aptx devices I tested).
  
 With some Bluetooth Stack like CSR Harmony or some from intel, you get also a notification.
 But for example with the Sennheiser BTD 500 USB Dongle, which works indipendently from the OS, you get no notification. I have to trust that they have Aptx.
  
  
 It should all be more clear. Like it is with Dolby.
 More transparent.


----------



## Giogio

> Originally Posted by *Class D* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I have one of these Azio USB Micro Bluetooth Adapters V4.0 EDR and aptX (BTD-V401) myself.  It works with my Surface Pro 2, if I disable the built-in Microsoft Win 8.1 BT driver before I plug in the Azio dongle.  You can re-enable your Windows BT driver if you need it for your mouse, after you see that CSR Apt-X is running (there will be a Bluetooth symbol in your system tray which says CSR).


 
 Can you explain that?
 I had one problem with my Logitech M555b mouse: when I install the CSR Harmony software it takes the place of the System BT Stack and so the Mouse is not recognized by the System and also not by the Logitech SetPoint software, which means that I cannot use its special features.
 Logitech was not able to give me a olution, Azio and CSR VEVER ANSWERED to my emails, not even one single answer to my MANY emails.
  
 I had to buy the Sennheiser Dongle for audio and keep using the Azio without CSR Stack (= without APTX) for my mouse.
  
 Incredible.
  
 I have Windows 7 64


----------



## CZ Eddie

I have used two different ATPx dongles on my PC.  Naturally, both use the same CSR driver (like 300-400MB).  When my Velodyne vFree Aptx headphones connect, I do get the "connected to APTx" splash screen.  You'll only get that splash screen when the aptx codec is engaged.  If your Beats headphones don't give you the splash screen, then they are not Aptx compatible.
  
 Also, I gave up on the USB dongle.  The CSR driver is pretty bad.  Very buggy.  
 I now use a 3.5mm dongle with Aptx.  I lose the media button capability but at least I don't have to deal with the random driver weirdness any longer.


----------



## Giogio

The Sennheiser BTD 500 dongle is independent from the OS and needs no Stack. The APTX support is native in it.
 It is not very small and its range is clearly inferior to the Azio BTDV401. But Sennheiser at least is a name and if you have problems gives support.
 Azio is **** and I NEVER got an answer when I had problems, and before purchasing they gave me WRONG answers on the specs and dimensions of their dongles (as also on their site there are wrong info about the range).
 CSR Support is also **** and never answers.
 And more importantly, as said, CSR Harmony, the software coming with the Azio Dongle, is END OF LIFE, CSR give no support for it, and it is very Buggy, as you said.
 And Azio also gives no support. So.
 Just avoid Azio.


----------



## Class D

Hi Giogio, you have asked several questions.  Let me see if I can answer them.
  
 You haven't said what your PC is.  So, I'll assume it's a PC with built-in Bluetooth and you have a Logitech mouse that pairs to it.  Perhaps your BT headphones will pair up with your PC.  So, your PC is running more than one BT profile, at least A2DP and HID (mouse).  Your PC should have a BT Manager that will show what BT devices it sees.  You have said the SQ of the built-in BT running the A2DP source profile is much less than what you hear with the Azio dongle running the Aptx codec (Harmony stack).  This would be the case if the BT micro in your PC is cheap and slow.  The CSR stack needs a robust micro, usually an ARM processor, to code and decode the audio along with other things.  If you have a known Aptx source or sink, then it has the required embedded micro to process everything quickly.  This is why some BT devices cost more than other non-Aptx devices.  Your BT processor built-in to your PC probably runs all your BT devices, except your wireless headphones, just fine since they don't require a lot of processing.  In the case of my Microsoft Surface Pro 2, it has a robust built-in BT processor and handles many wireless devices simultaneously, such as, my BT mouse, BT keyboard, BT printer, and my BT speakers, and BT headphones.  For A2DP streaming, Aptx headphones and speakers run really well, as they also have robust processors for handling SBC or Aptx coding.  This is also true for my Nokia Lumina 635 phone.  It also has a fast BT processor.  So, SQ and lip-synch are excellent, even without Aptx.  Microsoft promises to include the Aptx codec (CSR stack) in the upcoming release of Windows Phone 8.1, known as Denim.
  
 So, without taking apart your PC and looking at your BT chip, I would conclude you have a cheap BT chip.  This is okay for most of your BT devices, but not for A2DP.
  
 I'm not aware if the Azio dongle running with or without the CSR BT stack supports other BT profiles, like HID for your mouse.  You will have to contact Azio support.  Keep in mind that it's hard to find good BT support anywhere.  The spec is complicated and fragmented by many versions.
  
 If you want excellent SQ from your PC along with low latency delay for very good lip-sync, like you have with a wired headphone, then you will have to get around (disable) your PC's built-in BT.  To make things easy, you should also use a wireless mouse that doesn't use BT.  I think Logitech makes several.  You will then run BT from the Azio dongle with the CSR (Harmony) BT stack to stream A2DP audio to your wireless BT Aptx headphones or speaker.  Find an Mp4 video somewhere or a HD video on YouTube and run the audio over BT to your headphones.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised in the SQ and lip-sync.  If you have iTunes, try videos there.  Apple has an equalizer built-in to iTunes for you to tweet the SQ to your liking.
  
 I don't think Aptx is going end-of-life.  CSR was recently purchased by Qualcomm, the mobile phone semiconductor giant, and they will likely make the Aptx stack part of their mobile phone chip offering to enhance their position in the market.
  
 I don't think Dr. Dre's beats headphones are Aptx compliant.  Beats was recently purchased by Apple, and other than their PC's, Apple is not making any move to Aptx.  Maybe they will invent their own A2DP codec for consumer products.  If you need to check out who makes Aptx compliant devices, then l@@k here =>
  
http://www.jessebandersen.com/2012/05/list-of-apt-x-compatible-devices.html
  
 BTW, not all BT headphones give you an Aptx announcement when you connect.  I have several Aptx BT sinks (headphones, speakers, and other receivers) and they just give me the characteristic "connected" tone.  Normally, your source (PC or phone) will provide you with the CSR BT icon in your system tray.  But in all cases you will have superb SQ and low latency.
  
 Don't compare Aptx with Dolby.  Dolby Labs sets strict standards for coding and decoding in Hollywood.  They have a vast following among movie makers.  Their codec is also not cheap, but it helps sell a lot of movie content everywhere.  Aptx is not a standard, just a good economical product for wireless stereo.
  
 If your Sennheiser Dongle is working for your audio, then it is probably because it has some sort of BT manager that disables your PC's built-in BT.  Hence, you need the Azio dongle for your mouse.  This is just like I mentioned earlier.  Disable your PC's BT, use a wireless mouse with a non-BT dongle, and use the Azio dongle with the CSR stack. 
  
 Hope this helps you better understand the black magic of wireless audio.


----------



## Giogio

class d said:


> Hope this helps you better understand the black magic of wireless audio.


 
 Hi, thanks, you for sure helped me with one thing: the twitter answer of CSR to Jesse solved my debate about the presence of Aptx on Apple products.
  
 But no, I do not have any BT in my notebook. This is why I have bought the Azio instead of the Sennheiser, because I wanted also to buy a wireless mouse and on my notebook I only have 3 USB ports, so I did not want to sacrifice two, one for the BT Dongle and one for the Radio Wireless Dongle, or two for two BT Dongle (Audio and HID).
 The Azio supports a lot of profiles, also the HID.
 The Sennheiser only A2DP and, another one, I do not remember the name, the one for the media buttons on the headphones. But no HID, no mouse.
 I do not think the azio is weak, I can use headphone and mouse together with it.
 Sometimes I have strange things anyway, like a sort of slow motion pointer. The mouse is no more very responsive.
  
 Anyway thanks for those info, they come useful.
 So, you mean that to give Aptx to a product the producer needs not only to pay a license to CSR but also to use a special chip? Or at least, a GOOD one?
  
 About the BT announcment I did not meant the headphone, but the phone, the smartphone (damn it, why do yankees call phones the headphones? How do they call a, a PHONE?)
 So, as far as I know, ALL smartphone with aptx and all bt stacks with aptx (like the CSR one) give a popup when you connect an Aptx device.
 In my Xperia I have it, "connected to an Aptx device", with the CSr I have it, the APTX logo. People with a Samsung phone have it, the "connected to aptx device".
 Apple Mac users have it, "active codec, Aptx".
 If the Beats Studio Wireless really support Aptx, they are THE ONLY headphone in this UNIVERSE which are able to prevent your phone or PC or Mac in informing you of an active Aptx connection.
 Which is clearly NOT possible.
 = Beats Fraud about Aptx.
 Or, worse support ever.
 Well, after Azio and CSR 
  
 Which brings me to: about end of life I meant the CSR Harmony stack. Not the Aptx codec.
 The only time that CSR answered to a support request I sent (HORRIBLE DISGUSTING support) they just quickly, coldly, unfriendly told me that the CSR Harmony is End of Life and they give no support for it.
 So, Azio is selling a product with an end of life software, for which CSR gives no support. A buggy software, to be more precise.
  
 Infact, my problem was with and because of this CSR buggy software, the CSR Harmony Bluetooth Stack.
 To give Aptx to the Azio I must install this software.
 When I install it, the mouse is no more recognized by the system. What do I mean, if the system has got no own BT?
 I mean that I can use the Azio without this CSR software. In that case it becomes as any internal BT card.
 Then, the mouse is recognized by the system and listed among the SYSTEM devices.
 And the logitech SetPoint software recognizes it too and I can use its special features.
 As soon as I install the CSR Harmony, the mouse is no more recognized by the system properly, it is not anymore listed among the SYSTEM devices but only among the BT devices on the CSR software.
 On SetPoint the mouse Tab disappear, and I lose all special features.
  
 So I have two choices:
 change mouse, and give the sennheiser back
 use the sennheiser for music and the azio (without csr stack) for mouse.
  
 in the first case I spend money again, but a part I get it back from the sale of the m555b (people look for it because of its hyperscroll feature which is SUPER COOL, and, it is LASER; not just optical).
 And, the Azio is slightly less well sounding than the Sennheiser, but has got much better range.
 Considering that my belover Fidelio M2BT headphones have not a super range, I have with this combination of sennheiser and fidelio a blind spot in my kitchen.
 I did not have it with azio and fidelio, or with plantronics and sennheiser.
  
 End of the story.


----------



## Class D

Well, Giogio, you have detailed the saga of BT on your PC very well.  I admire your patience with radio devices.  For sure they can be frustrating, even for a seasoned electronics engineer like me.
  
 It may be a blessing that you don't have BT built into your PC.  You don't have to disable it to run other BT devices with dongles.  Let me give you one tip.  The Harmony software looks a lot like prototype software written by a hardware manufacturer to demonstrate their device to an OEM in hopes they will use their hardware in a PC, BT headphone, wireless speaker, and etc.  CSR wanted to make Aptx the standard for audio streaming.  Previously they used the Aptx codec in a product known as BlueCore.  I don't think the Harmony software was ever made to include other BT profiles, just to demonstrate the Aptx codec and its latency.  As you have witnessed, Aptx does a great job with audio streaming, almost as good as a wire.  OEMs have the ability to build a wireless BT interface using the Aptx codec for the A2DP profile.  OEMs can also add other BT profiles to their device to support other wireless clients like printers, keyboards, mice, and other things.  There are approximately 20 different profiles in the BT spec.  What Azio has done is build a BT dongle which runs the CSR BT stack, when installed, and nothing more that I know.  You have mentioned that if you don't install the CSR BT stack, then the Azio dongle does give you some other profiles.  My guess is that these profiles come from the Operating System.  They may work well or they may be slow and buggy.  You've mentioned that Aptx works well with some mobile phones.  This is due to the fact that the mobile phone OEM purchased the CSR codec (Aptx) and customized the BT stack for their mobile phone.  You will notice that these mobile phones run the AVRCP profile that allows the phone to communicate with who ever they're connected to providing such services as volume control, advance to next track, answer phone, pause, and etc.  This was done by the mobile phone manufacturer.
  
 My guess is that A2DP streaming will run with very good SQ without the CSR Aptx codec on the Azio dongle.  You can test this easily on your laptop using the Azio dongle with CSR Aptx, and without it.  I have several Aptx sinks, such as, speakers, headphones, and BT receivers.  The SQ and latency are very good just running the BT stack built into my Microsoft Surface Pro 2.  I only have one source for my Aptx, the Azio dongle.  I'm hoping for more in the future when I buy smartphones and tablets.
  
 Your issues with the CSR Aptx codec seems to be limited to your PC.  You shouldn't blame Azio or CSR, but rather your PC manufacturer.  Had they included CSR Aptx BT with your laptop, then you wouldn't have the problems you are experiencing.  Life would be good for you.  After all, your mobile phone manufacturer got it right with Aptx, certainly they could have also gotten it right.


----------



## Giogio

Well, not exactly. The BT profiles are the same, with or without the CSR Stack installed.
 Or at least, the ones I use (A2DP and HID).
 SO, I can listen to music with my headphones and use my mouse too.
 When I install the stack from CSR the difference is that I have BETTER audio (so, the answer to your guess is no. The audio streaming of the Azio without Aptx is bad), and I have the conflict with my mouse, because the CSR software takes the mouse away from the system and closes it in its own stack where it is not recognized by the Logitech Software itself.
  
 I do not think we can really think like that about notebooks manufacturers.
 Of course they would make us all a favour (us, who know what music is like, with Aptx, or with AAC, or with Airplay, etc. Us, who can distinguish the quality of the bass of a Fidelio M2BT from the squality of the bass of a Beats Studio Wireless).
 But maybe there are not enough us to make them pay CSR for us.
 And, these are anyway tow different things.
 It is, yes, true, that it would be  better for us to have native Aptx on our notebooks.
 It is though also true that the support of CSR is bad, that they are absolutely unfriendly and inflexible, that they discontinued the ONLY STACK AVAILABLE FOR THE ONLY DONGLES AVAILABLE which can bring Aptx to consumers, and this is NOT ok.
 And it is also true that the support of Azio sucks very badly and that they are an extremely untrustworthy company, which sells a product with a discontinued buggy software, which does not answer support requests, which gives false info about their products (like the 80ft of range which are MAX 40), etc etc etc.
  
 The Sennheiser Dongle for those who really want a Dongle (but beware of its low range, max 30ft), and the 3.5stereo jack  BT adapters (like the Avantree one) for all other people.
  
 **** Azio, and **** the bad company policies of CSR.
 (I normally do not say **** so much but I kind of like how it sounds near the words Azio and CSR).


----------



## Class D

Hi Giogio,
  
 The Aptx software, Harmony, that comes with the Azio dongle is at best demonstration software intended to showcase the great fidelity and latency of Aptx.  It's my opinion that this combination was given to hundreds of prospective OEMs for all sorts of portable electronics as a reference design and a means to test the codec.  Virtually all mobile phone manufacturers have incorporated the Aptx codec into their BT along with the 4.0 version of the spec to provide the low power consumption features of 4.0, among other things.  Mobile phones are the BT source, just like your laptop.  There are hundreds of Aptx BT receivers (sinks) in the market looking to pair up with Aptx sources (transmitters).  Like your laptop, my desktop has no built-in BT.  This has been a blessing for me.  I just insert the Azio dongle and CSR Aptx comes up.  I have several Aptx sinks that connect gracefully with it under Win 7.  My mouse is wireless, but not BT.  I have no conflicts.  Everything works fast.
  
 Computer manufacturers are not known for being innovative.  They have been reluctant to introduce BT wireless features into their products, due to support issues.  They simply can't afford the staff required to troubleshoot BT problems.  I think you ran into similar roadblocks at CSR when you asked questions.  This Neanderthal approach at PC manufacturers is not permanent.  Eventually, their customer base, you included, will want to use their Aptx BT sinks with their desktops and laptops so they can enjoy the fidelity and low latency of their Aptx BT speakers, headphones, and Home Theater receivers and TV's.  Apple PC's already have Aptx.  This is a strategic advantage for them.
  
 You can no longer blame CSR.  They have successfully developed an OEM market for their Aptx codec, except for Apple iEverything.  CSR is in the process of being acquired by Qualcomm who services the Android and Windows Phone market with cellular phone chips.  It's my opinion that Qualcomm will continue to support Aptx in all their BT products and create a standard for the industry.  It's not clear if Qualcomm will try to proliferate Aptx into the Neanderthal PC market.  If this becomes the case, then PC users will need to stick to the wire headphone jacks on their products and circumvent wireless issues in their customer base.  However, the trend for the future is to make PC's, Ultrabooks and tablets, totally wireless with USB the only connector to the outside world (except for the power cable to charge the battery).  This pretty much what my Microsoft Surface Pro 2 has along with 3.5 mm jack for headphones, a Display Port connector for additional video, and an SDXHD card slot for additional storage.  Any PC under 3 lbs. will have a similar I/O set up.
  
 BTW, my Nokia Lumia 635 will be receiving an update to WP 8.1 soon which includes the Aptx codec.  I think China and Europe already have this update known as Lumia Denim.  I can only guess that Microsoft will include the Aptx codec in future releases of the Windows 8.1 OS, after extensive testing at their OEM customers.  I can use the Aptx codec with my Azio dongle on the Surface Pro 2, but I have to disable the built-in BT  first.  I can re-enable the built-in BT later to get to the supported profiles.  You could probably achieve the same thing by booting up with no BT dongles and later inserting them one at a time, starting with the Azio dongle.  Wait for it to connect with your headphones, then plug in the Logitech dongle for your mouse.  Barring any memory conflicts, it should work.  Let me know.


----------



## Giogio

Class-D, if your mouse is not Bluetooth, your example makes no sense.
 Sorry.
 The conflict between CSR Harmony and SetPoint is because my mouse is bluetooth and CSR closes it in its Stack where SetPoint cannot see it anymore.
 This is bad programming from CSR.
  
 I blame CSR for this and especially for abandoning us all, releasing only ONE Stack, which was NEVER MORE updated in YEARS, and even discontinuing it.
 This is just a very poor Customer Care.
 Or better said, Customer DO NOT Care.
 They just do NOT care about us.
 And the way they respond (or mostly do NOT respond) to E-Mails, show very well how  unimportant are we for them.
  
  
 Anyway.
 For me, discussion closed. Not much more to say.
 I thanks you for sure for all precious infos you gave me


----------



## Giogio

puntloos said:


> This is not a recommendation YET since I haven't actually received the device yet, but as far as I am aware, the Tosblue X2 is the only device that satisfied my requirements:
> 
> 1/ Bluetooth 3.0 or better. (this was the hard part. Forget about BT 4 for now..)
> 2/ Apt-X support
> ...


 

 Apart for the Optical thing, the new Avantree Saturn Pro is also Bluetooth 3, Aptx LOW LATENCY, and can be set as transmitter or receiver. Buy two and you make a repeater. Or one transmitter and one receiver, as you did with these two products.
  
 The new Avantree Priva is a Multipoint transmitter, Bluetooth 3, Aptx Low latency.
  
 The Avantree, mmm, Roxo I think it is called, is Bluetooth 4, Multipoint, normal Aptx (no low latency). It is a receiver.
  
*[EDIT: I have received the Avantree Priva. One first negative thing: it is NOT really multipoint. Or, yes, it is, but in SBC. = you have Aptx only if you connect ONE device. As soon as you connect two, you will be using the old SBC codec. This is not written in their website nor in Amazon where they are direct sellers. It is only written in the manual. Too bad. --- EDIT 2: they received my complaint, apologized, corrected the missing info, and even started asking me how they could improve things. I now appreciate them as a Company for sure.]*
  
 I think anyway that Bluetooth 3 or 4 or whatever has nothing to do with the BT Range.
 What influences the Range is the Class. It can be 1, 2 or three.
 The most used is 2, 10 meters.
  
 Which kind of range has got your Tosblue?
  
 Cheers


----------



## Giogio

Plus, something for iPhone owners:
 http://store.kokkia.com/i10stinybluetoothipodtransmitterforipodiphoneipaditouchwithtrueappleauthenticationremotecontrolsandl-6.aspx
 and
 http://www.amazon.com/JayBird-iSport-Bluetooth-Adapter-iPhone/dp/B002PU9U0O/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
 They both can give Aptx to an iPhone.
 While this:
 http://www.amazon.com/JayBird-uSport-Bluetooth-Adapter-Devices/dp/B002PU9U0E
 can be attached to your wired Headphones (if they have detachable calbe) and give them Aptx.
  
 Cheers.


----------



## Class D

Hi Giogio,
  
 I have a non-BT wireless mouse on my desktop.  I simply plug in the Azio dongle and I have Aptx A2DP.  The wireless mouse isn't a Logitech mouse, nor do I use SetPoint mouse drivers.
  
 I have a BT mouse for my Microsoft Surface Pro 2 tablet.  To use the Azio dongle with CSR stack for Aptx, I must first disable the Windows 8.1 BT that's built-in to the tablet.  I then plug in the Azio dongle and connect to an Aptx BT sink device, like my Yamaha yba-11 Bluetooth Wireless Audio Receiver.  This adds low-latency and excellent SQ wirelessly to my tablet while using my Home theater receiver.  I can turn up the volume watching YouTube videos until my ears bleed.  We haven't discussed it here, but the codec, MP4, used by YouTube to decode their audio is absolutely great.  In my opinion, much better than iTunes AAC.  However, iTunes has a built-in equalizer that gives you customizable audio for the audiophile.  Since I also have a Microsoft keyboard cover for my Surface Pro 2, I can get by using the trackpad for my pointer.  If I wish to use my BT mouse instead, then I re-enable the tablet's built-in BT and everything works normally with no conflicts.  For sure this multi-step approach is cumbersome, but it gives me the best of all worlds, given my hardware.
  
 I am now convinced that your Logitech SetPoint drivers conflict with the memory space of the Azio dongle.  Therefore, you can't run both simultaneously.  You would need to get advice from Logitech to help you move the SetPoint drivers to another memory location.  This would eliminate the conflicts you are experiencing when you try to use both BT dongles simultaneously.
  
 I think your issues are largely self-inflicted due to forcing the CSR Harmony software to work with the Logitech SetPoint software.  Everyone would agree that Azio and CSR support are non-existent or poor at best.  Nevertheless, if you have some understanding how the wonderful world of BT works with PC's, then you can get everything to work with lots of workarounds.  The consumer electronics users want everything to plug-n-play the first time.  With computers this is only possible if manufacturers and Microsoft permit plug-n-play with BT Aptx.  This plug-n-play concept with CSR Aptx already exists with mobile phones and some TV's (Panasonic).
  
 Lastly, if you want enhanced range with BT you will need to use a Class 1 device.  However, Class 1 devices are not practical for portable applications, like headphones, as they suck a lot of juice out of tiny batteries.  Having to recharge your headphones every other track of music is not what consumers want.  Nor is it practical to mount a car battery into headphones to give you enhanced range.  If you must have enhanced range for audio, then try Apple's AirPlay.  It's based on WiFi ranges.  It provides great SQ and low-latency.  Unfortunately, there aren't many AirPlay portable devices in the market.  I have one, the Harman Kardon Onyx.  It requires the HK iOS App to control your audio content.  So, you'll need a recent iSomething device.  The Onyx also does DLNA, the Android and Microsoft approach to doing AirPlay with their portable devices.  The Onyx also does CSR Aptx BT and is NFC.  Info on the HK Onyx can be found here:
  
http://www.harmankardon.com/estore/hk/us/products/Onyx/HKONYX_HK_US


----------



## turbobb

@Giogio - I too couldn't get Logitech's SetPoint to work properly w/CSR's S/W (this was with either the Azio or Orico AptX dongles). Basically it wouldn't display the advanced features to customize my K810 keyboard (this was on Win7 64 and then later 8.1 PC). I had to revert to connecting the K810 to a Kinivo (that doesn't feature AptX) and my BT cans to the Azio.
  
@Class D - In my case it's not that the SetPoint won't run w/the CSR stack, it does, but for whatever reason, the advanced features are not enabled/supported. It's almost as if the Azio/Orico aren't loading the correct BT driver.


----------



## Giogio

class d said:


> Hi Giogio,
> 
> If I wish to use my BT mouse instead, then I re-enable the tablet's built-in BT and everything works normally with no conflicts.
> 
> ...


 
 Hi Class D.
  
 I am a bit frustrated because after all these messages it seems I still can't get to explain to you things in a way that you can understand them.
 You say that I "try to use both BT Dongles". I have ONE Dongle, the Azio. I have NO built-in BT in my PC. The only source of BT is Azio.
 And SetPoint is NOT a BT Stack. It's a universal program by Logitech used for ALL kind of peripherals, BT, radio, or even wired. It does NOT interfere with the Windows BT Stack or with any third Party BT Stack, because it is NOT specific for BT.
 The Logitech Bluetooth Mouse I have does not need any extra Dongle. It connects through the Azio Dongle.
  
 So, in my case it is not so easy as in yours, I can not just "enable" a built-in BT and disable it when I want. I have NO built-in BT!
 And I can NOT use two BT Stacks with one dongle (for example, the Windows BT Stack and the CSR Harmony BT Stack).
 As soon as I install the CSR, it AUTOMATICALLY disables the Windows BT Stack.
 So, to connect the mouse with the Windows Stack I have to uninstall the CSR.
 To have Aptx I have to install CSR.
 I cannot install and uninstall a software all the time, right?
 So, there IS a conflict, and it is caused by CSR. CSR does not allow SetPoint to see the mouse.
 And this cannot be solved. So I am not forcing CSR to work with SetPoint. CSR is forcing me not to use Setpoint!!!
  
 I hope that now it is more clear. Sorry for the caps, no shouting or angry background, just making things more clear 
 So I think that what you say about memory conflict does not apply anymore, but correct me if I am wrong.
  
  
 Now I have bought a Logitech radio frequency mouse. The Mouse is perfectly recognized by SetPoint ALSO when CSR is installed, which is the proof that the problem is not SetPoint, the problem is that CSR "closes" the BT peripherals in its own Stack and in the case of the BT mouse CSR prevent SetPoint to see the mouse.
 SetPoint is working perfectly, there is not a conflict between the two programs, it is only a matter of how the CSR BT Stack manages the BT devices.
  


turbobb said:


> @Giogio - I too couldn't get Logitech's SetPoint to work properly w/CSR's S/W (this was with either the Azio or Orico AptX dongles). Basically it wouldn't display the advanced features to customize my K810 keyboard (this was on Win7 64 and then later 8.1 PC). I had to revert to connecting the K810 to a Kinivo (that doesn't feature AptX) and my BT cans to the Azio.
> 
> @Class D - In my case it's not that the SetPoint won't run w/the CSR stack, it does, but for whatever reason, the advanced features are not enabled/supported. It's almost as if the Azio/Orico aren't loading the correct BT driver.


 
 I have not only bought a radio frequency mouse but also an Avantree Priva BT Adapter.
  I did not yet tried it, but if it gives good sound and good range, I will only use Azio as emergency, and I will eventually buy another BT mouse. In any case mine is a bit too small. I have realized that I have big hands and I need a big mouse. And for how I use the mouse and how I sit, I need a high/tall mouse, with the back part higher and the front part much lower, and the wheel as much as possible on the front.
 I did not find such a mouse.
 Well, I have found a Razor which may be a bit like that, but, very expensive. Gamer mouse. I do not need it.
 And another, called Oyster Mouse, which can be used in different angles, but it is also extremely expensive.
 I have bought a Penclic, but it is not practical at all. Though I notice how it is better for the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome to have the hand in another position.
 So probably this Oyster is really the best solution around. We'll see if I decide to spend so much money. After all, Health is important.
  
 But, coming back to SetPoint, once again: it DOES run with CSR. My problem is EXACTLY the same which you also have with your Keyboard.


----------



## Class D

Okay GioGio,
  
 Previously you had a computer (laptop???) with no BT built-in, a Logitech BT mouse with no dongle, an Azio USB Micro Bluetooth Adapter V4.0 EDR and aptX (BTD-V401), Logitech Setpoint software to customize your mouse buttons, keyboard F-keys and hot-keys, control tracking speed, and configure other device-specific settings. It can also notify you of your device's battery status, and whether Caps Lock and Num Lock are on.
  
 Now you have bought a Logitech radio frequency mouse, presumably it comes with a dongle to provide the non-BT radio connection to the mouse.  Setpoint works with this mouse as described above.
  
 Are you saying that when you install the Azio dongle that the Setpoint software crashes or otherwise stops working fully?  Do the CSR Aptx drivers load?
  
 If you now have a Logitech dongle for your radio mouse, then it shouldn't interfere with your Azio BT dongle.  Both should run just fine.  This is my configuration with my Win 7 (64) desktop.  It has no built-in BT.  I have an older Hewlett Packard wireless mouse (non-BT).  The Azio dongle with CSR BT Aptx runs fine.  It is the only BT stack running.  I don't have Logitech Setpoint software.
  
 It appears to me that your Setpoint software is being overwritten by the CSR BT Aptx software which loads after Setpoint on your PC. 
  
 I'm confident that you can run your Logitech wireless mouse with its dongle and the Azio dongle with the CSR Aptx codec.  You should test this out.  I'm afraid the Setpoint software won't run as you want due to system (memory???) conflicts with the CSR software.  I think you'll have to live with this.  Turbobb has mentioned he has similar problems with Setpoint and CSR software running simultaneously.
  
 Keep your receipts for the accessories you are buying for your computer.  You may have to return them.
  
 I think you now realize your current PC and Setpoint won't work with your Azio dongle running CSR BT Aptx.  You can run one or the other.  Win 8.1 may be better for you if you have BT built-in to your computer (PC, laptop, or tablet).  If you like Setpoint software, then ask Logitech if it is supported in Win 8.1.  If it is, then you should have a graceful solution, maybe.


----------



## Giogio

Hmmm, it is pretty much unlikely that I am gonna change OS for my mouse. Unless I will ever find a super wonderful perfect mouse for which I'll fall in love due to ergonomics and functions.
  
 Anyway, no, SetPoint does NOT crash nor has ANY problem EVER.
 And it is not "overwritten" if by that you mean something permanent.
 What happens is just that when I install CSR Harmony, SetPoint does not see my mouse anymore.
 Just that, nothing else than that.
  
 It is not a crash. SetPoint still works perfectly and can manage all other devices I may have connected with cable or with radio frequency.
 But it just stop seeing the mouse. The mouse does not exist anymore for SetPoint, because CSR closes it in its own Stack and does not allow Setpoint to see it.


----------



## Class D

Well, GioGio, you have a conflict with Setpoint and the CSR BT Aptx codec.  Apparently, the wireless mouse works, but you can't control it with Setpoint.  You'll have to prioritize what you want to run on your PC.  BTW, you'd love Win 8.1.  It's a great OS.  Perhaps one of the new Microsoft BT mice will work for you.


----------



## Giogio

I know I will love 8.1 but I wait till I have money and then I buy something with touch screen, probably a Dell XPS 18 or something similar by Lenovo.
 I love touch screens.
 Sometimes when I use my smartphone too much, then I try to touch the display of my notebook before remembering it is not touch.


----------



## Class D

I can attest to the fact that if you have a display that you can use your finger, a pen, or a trackpad for input, then you don't really need a mouse.  Although I still like navigating a browser with a mouse.
  
 It appears that the Dell XPS 18 has BT built-in.  Unless Dell has also included the BT Aptx codec, you may still need your Azio dongle for the CSR BT stack.  As far as I can tell, Win 8.1 permits more than one BT stack to run simultaneously.  In my case, I have to disable the built-in BT that runs all my wireless devices, plug in the Azio dongle, connect with an Aptx sink, and then re-enable the built-n BT to use the HID devices.  If I remember to disable the built-in Bluetooth before I shutdown, then this speeds up the process the next time I power up.


----------



## OPTiK

I just wanted to input some information pertaining to the Azio USB dongle. When I first got my BackBeat Pro headphones I connected to my Surface Pro 3 BT (4.0) and I didn't notice a difference between the audio quality when I use either my SP3 or Azio dongle BT connection. I then went and uninstalled the Azio Harmony driver. I tried listening to my BBPs today and noticed that the volume was oddly low compared to the audio coming out of my phone (HTC One M7 - AptX). I reinstalled the Harmony software with the Azio dongle connected and connect the BBP to the Azio BT once it completed installing. I re-ran my test and the audio sound levels were the same. Both the Azio dongle and my phone sounded the same when playing the same song. I then went and paired the BBP to the SP3 BT and tested again. Sound was the same! I believe that once you install the Harmony software it translates over to other BT connections.

When you thi8nk about it, it makes sense that this could work. What makes the Azio BT (4.0) different from other 4.0 BT controllers? To my knowledge BT protocols are standardized. Can someone test my theory and verify my results?


----------



## Class D

Hi Optik,
  
 I have noticed the same thing with my Microsoft Surface Pro 2.  Once you install the Harmony software on the Surface Pro it seems improve Sound Quality and latency (lip synch is really good), although there is nothing that tells me that CSR Aptx is connected to my sink (which is also Aptx).  I have found that the SP2 has a propensity to load its BT stack prior to the Azio BT stack.  Even though you have 2 BT symbols in the system tray, the CSR BT symbol is grayed out and there is no CSR splash screen to tell you that the Aptx codec is running.  To insure that I am running with the CSR Aptx codec, I must first disable the SP2 BT and then insert my Azio dongle.  Once the Azio dongle sees my Aptx sink (I have several of them) and connects, then I get the CSR Aptx splash screen.  The CSR BT symbol in the system tray is the only one and its no longer grayed out.  SQ and latency are ideal in this condition.
  
 If I want to use my other BT HID devices, then I re-enable BT on my SP2 and I get my BT mouse and keyboard back.  I will see both BT symbols in the system tray.  SQ and latency remain in the ideal condition.  It's the best of all worlds, the Azio radio runs the audio and the SP2 BT runs my BT devices perfectly.
  
 Now, I must say that if I never plug in my Azio dongle and just run with the SP2 BT, the audio is almost ideal.  The loss of SQ or latency are barely perceptible.  I'm very satisfied with the performance of the Surface Pro's BT alone.
  
 I have two other observations similar to yours regarding your HTC One M7 and Aptx.  One, I have a Nokia Lumia 635 with Win 8.1 (cyan).  Microsoft has not yet released the Aptx codec for Win 8.1.  The next release (denim) will have it.  Nevertheless, the SQ and latency of the phone is close to ideal when connected to any of my Aptx sinks.  When I connect my phone to a non-Aptx sink, the SQ and latency is poor.  Two, when I connect any of my iOS devices which use Apple's BT to any of my Aptx sinks, the SQ and latency are near ideal.  I'm quite satisfied listening to my iAnything when connected to any of my Aptx sinks. 
  
 I looked at the spec for your Plantronics BackBeat Pro headphones.  The spec lists BT v4.0 + Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) A2DP, but no CSR Aptx.  I don't think you will ever get the CSR Aptx splash screen when you connect, although your SQ and latency should be close to ideal due to the EDR - A2DP of your headphones.
  
 My conclusion is that purchasing a sink device, like your Plantronics BB2 Pro with BT v4.0 + EDR or an Aptx device, will give you near ideal SQ and latency when connected to a recently manufactured BT source device like your HTC One M7 phone.  Moreover, if you have a BT source device that specifies the Aptx codec, you are assured of ideal SQ and latency when connected to an Aptx sink.
  
 Thanks for sharing your observations with us.


----------



## OPTiK

class d said:


> Hi Optik,
> 
> I have noticed the same thing with my Microsoft Surface Pro 2.  Once you install the Harmony software on the Surface Pro it seems improve Sound Quality and latency (lip synch is really good), although there is nothing that tells me that CSR Aptx is connected to my sink (which is also Aptx).  I have found that the SP2 has a propensity to load its BT stack prior to the Azio BT stack.  Even though you have 2 BT symbols in the system tray, the CSR BT symbol is grayed out and there is no CSR splash screen to tell you that the Aptx codec is running.  To insure that I am running with the CSR Aptx codec, I must first disable the SP2 BT and then insert my Azio dongle.  Once the Azio dongle sees my Aptx sink (I have several of them) and connects, then I get the CSR Aptx splash screen.  The CSR BT symbol in the system tray is the only one and its no longer grayed out.  SQ and latency are ideal in this condition.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Class D,
  
 The BBP (http://www.plantronics.com/us/product/backbeat-pro) actually do support AptX (not sure why the website doesn't say). It has the logo on the box, and the AptX splash screen appears when I connect it to my SP3 via the Azio dongle. The fact that I noticed a volume difference when the Harmony driver was installed vs uninstalled leads me to believe that the CSR drivers are being shared with the SP3 BT hardware. The extra BT icon that controls devices connect to the Azio dongle located in the notification area does disappear when I remove the Azio dongle, but if you look at the windows services the CSR services (4) are still running in the background.
  
 EDIT: AptX logo can be found here: http://www.plantronics.com/us/product/backbeat-pro#overview


----------



## Class D

Hello Optik,
  
 Yes, I see it now.  The Plantronics BackBeat Pro does have CSR's Aptx.  The CSR logo is at the bottom of the home page.  I found it curious that they didn't include the Aptx codec within their BT spec.  Aptx is an improved alternative for the Sub-band Coding, SBC, codec originally written by Philips for Bluetooth years ago.  Aptx would never be used in the same way the AAC or MP3 codecs are.
  
 I believe you are correct to say that once installed, the CSR codec can run on the BT radio built-in to Microsoft's Surface Pro when the Azio dongle is removed.  In the case of the Surface Pro 2, BT is handled by the Marvell AVASTAR Bluetooth Radio Adapter.  However, there isn't a way to verify that the Aptx codec is actually running in the BT stack.  At the moment, it's a mystery.


----------



## Giogio

class d said:


> Hello Optik,
> 
> Yes, I see it now.  The Plantronics BackBeat Pro does have CSR's Aptx.  The CSR logo is at the bottom of the home page.  I found it curious that they didn't include the Aptx codec within their BT spec.  Aptx is an improved alternative for the Sub-band Coding, SBC, codec originally written by Philips for Bluetooth years ago.  Aptx would never be used in the same way the AAC or MP3 codecs are.
> 
> I believe you are correct to say that once installed, the CSR codec can run on the BT radio built-in to Microsoft's Surface Pro when the Azio dongle is removed.  In the case of the Surface Pro 2, BT is handled by the Marvell AVASTAR Bluetooth Radio Adapter.  However, there isn't a way to verify that the Aptx codec is actually running in the BT stack.  At the moment, it's a mystery.


 
 Yes there is a way. When you connect an Aptx receiver (speakers, headphones) to an Aptx Transmitter, you ALWAYS get some kind of notifications. In Android is a popup which says "Connected to an Aptx device", under CSR Harmony is the APTX logo, and for adapters which are independent, like the Sennheiser BTD 500 dongle or the Avantree Saturn and Priva, you can see which Codec is being used by which colour or how many times does the LED light flashes.
 I am sincerely very sceptic about the possibility to get Aptx just by installing CSR Harmony on any computer which has BT. If it was so easy, CSR Harmony would be heavy bittorrented 
 I think it must be programmed in the BT Chip somehow.
 But if you get it to work just like that, please let me know.
 A way to try if the transmitter is really using APTX is with a receiver which give a feedback about that.
 I know just two which do that, the Avantree Saturn (and Saturn Pro), which can be set as Transmitter or as receiver, and the Harman Kardon BT headphones. THey are the only headphones I am aware of, which have a LED which blinks differently according to which codec is being used.
  
 About the Plantronics, I do not know if I already wrote it in this thread, but, they do not only have Aptx, they have LOW LATENCY Aptx. Normal Aptx has got a better latency than SBC, 100ms. But LL Aptx has got 35ms latency.
 You need anyway a transmitter which uses the same codec. I know only 3 which do that: Avantree Priva, Avantree Saturn Pro, and Telme2 TosBlue.
 The Plantronics are also Class 1. WIth a Class 1 transmitter they can achieve 100mt range. Not bad 
 But with a normal class 2 transmitter they have a wonderful range... Or let's say, the range finishes where the transmitter gives up.


----------



## james444

Got a new aptX headset via Amazon, the QCY QY3 (odd name). Its sound quality is very good, a bit on the warm side compared to the more analytical LG BTS1, but with good extension and driving power. Actually, it's the loudest aptX headset with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far.
  
 However, on the downside, it needs a proprietary charging cable (USB to 3.5mm, included), and at least on my unit L/R stereo channels are reversed. The latter's no big deal for me, since Neutron Player offers a "reverse stereo" setting, but due to this flaw I can only recommend the QCY QY3 with reservation.
  
 Sound quality ranking of all aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far (not considering stock earpieces):
  

LG BTS1 - highly recommended
  
​QCY QY3 - recommended (with reservation)
  
​Samsung HS3000 - recommended
  
​ 
 HTC BH S600 - not recommended
  
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​


----------



## Class D

James444,
  
 Thank you for your evaluation of these BT sink devices.  Can you tell us what your BT Aptx source (transmitter) is?


----------



## Giogio

class d said:


> James444,
> 
> Thank you for your evaluation of these BT sink devices.  Can you tell us what your BT Aptx source (transmitter) is?


 
 If he uses Neutron Player it must be an Android Smartphone.
 Neutron is the best Music Player for Android.
 Also the most expensive.
 I also use it.
 The difference in sound quality even with the very famous Poweramp is just simply very noticeable.
 But the EQ is difficult to use, it is parametric and only 4 bands.
 So, not for everybody. Althoug there are two presets which work quite good.
  
 Anyway I think they are Earphones, or In-Ear Headphones.
 As far as I know, Headset is only the one to make phone calls, which you put only in one ear.
  
 And, I am not sure this adds much to the "opinions about APTX" theme.
 It is more of a comparison of earphones.
 Which is pretty interesting but I suppose that another thread would be better for it.
 With maybe some more info about how each of this sound, the difference, pros and cons, why you reccoment and why not.
  
 Cheers


----------



## james444

class d said:


> James444,
> 
> Thank you for your evaluation of these BT sink devices.  Can you tell us what your BT Aptx source (transmitter) is?


 
  
 I have two, a Creative X-Fi3 and a Samsung Galaxy S3 (international version). This evaluation has been done with the SGS3.
  


giogio said:


> If he uses Neutron Player it must be an Android Smartphone.
> Neutron is the best Music Player for Android.
> Also the most expensive.
> I also use it.
> ...


 
  
 You didn't bother to read my earlier posts, did you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 In short, aptX is great and I predicted more than two years ago that it will become a success.
 However, it still depends on implementation, e.g. the aptX enabled HTC BH S600 sounds decidedly worse than the non-aptX Sony MW1.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> I have two, a Creative X-Fi3 and a Samsung Galaxy S3 (international version). This evaluation has been done with the SGS3.
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to read my earlier posts, did you?
> ...


 
 Nope, I did't, I generally do not read whole threads because am already too much busy wasting all my free time comparing BT Headphones (mostly APTX) and writing reviews and lamenting that I procrastinate most serious things like studying and preparing for the exams 
 But, I still think that your comparison of these earphones is not really an opinion on the Aptx codec but rather an opinion on those Earphones.
 I mean, it does not bother me that you post it here, please.
 I was just observing that your comparison could reach (and help) more people if you would open a specific thread for it.
 I like comparisons a lot.
 And you are actually invited to post it in my Thread.
  
 Btw I agree, the non APTX Bose Soundlink On Ear sound much better than many APTX Headphones I have tested.
 But well. It must also be said that there are many kind of SBC.
 LG


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> But, I still think that your comparison of these earphones is not really an opinion on the Aptx codec but rather an opinion on those Earphones.
> I mean, it does not bother me that you post it here, please.
> I was just observing that your comparison could reach (and help) more people if you would open a specific thread for it.
> I like comparisons a lot.
> And you are actually invited to post it in my Thread.


 
  
 The aptX codec has been discussed in the first pages of this thread, more than two years ago. There's really not much to add. Subsequent posts have mainly been about aptX implementation rather than the codec itself, including your ramblings on BT issues with your notebook.
  
 My posts on BT stereo headsets (yes, they're indeed called headsets) with 3.5mm HPO are also about aptX implementation. I like your thread, but this is a different subject, as I ignore the stock earphones and merely rate the receiver (sink). I use the same high-end IEMs (UERM, K3003, ...) for evaluation and simply rate them by transparency, i.e. the less degradation of sound quality vs wired, the better.
  
 There aren't many aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO out there in the first place. I have two Elecom headsets incoming, but after that will probably go silent for months.


----------



## lennyr

i1fang said:


> if you are able to try this
> - http://global.rakuten.com/en/store/bellpark-ecshop/item/lbt-mppar400bk/
> - http://www.amazon.com/BlueAnt-RB-BKBL-US-Bluetooth-Streamer--Headset/dp/B009F4XM48/
> 
> Elcom sound neutral to me but have none above to compare.


 

 I just got the Elecom LBT-PAR500, which seems to be a replacement for the one linked above.  It sounds fantastic!  I loved my HS3000, but it broke, so I got the Elecom as a replacement.  It is a very noticeable improvement - more clear, more powerful/controlled bass. The Elecom is powerful enough even to drive Q701s well. The ergonomics are better. Battery life is better.  The only downsides are that it is huge (relatively) and the documentation is only in Japanese (but it's not hard to figure out).


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> The aptX codec has been discussed in the first pages of this thread, more than two years ago. There's really not much to add. Subsequent posts have mainly been about aptX implementation rather than the codec itself, including your ramblings on BT issues with your notebook.
> 
> My posts on BT stereo headsets (yes, they're indeed called headsets) with 3.5mm HPO are also about aptX implementation. I like your thread, but this is a different subject, as I ignore the stock earphones and merely rate the receiver (sink). I use the same high-end IEMs (UERM, K3003, ...) for evaluation and simply rate them by transparency, i.e. the less degradation of sound quality vs wired, the better.
> 
> There aren't many aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO out there in the first place. I have two Elecom headsets incoming, but after that will probably go silent for months.


 
 Hmmm, good point.
 Although my ramblings are strictly related with the Aptx itself, being caused by a BT stack created by CSR, the same company which created the APTX itself, and which is the ONLY way to give Aptx to a PC unless you buy an adapter which does not need any software (sennheiser or creative or avantree). In other words, I was speaking about the ways people can give Aptx to a PC. But, yes, I was not speaking of how good Aptx sounds, you are right.
  
 I understand what you mean with your Headphones. Although for what I understood, they are not bluetooth headphones, but a bluetooth receiver with controls plus wired headphones. Right? Which means, you can actually use the adapter with any other wired headphones.
  
 So, if I understand well, you try to see the value of Aptx by comparing the bt vs wired performances of the same headphone?
 I wonder if this can really be a way to test the Aptx itself and not to test the quality of that adapter...


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> But I understand what you mean with your Headphones. ALthough for what I understood, they are not bluetooth headphones, but a bluetooth receiver with controls plus wired headphones. Right? Which means, you can actually use the adapter with any other wired headphones.


 
  
 Exactly. In fact, aptX's sound quality is much better than of the stock headphones included with most of these receivers, so it really pays to use better earphones with them.
  


giogio said:


> So, if I understand well, you try to see the value of Aptx by comparing the bt vs wired performances of the same headphone?
> I wonder if this can really be a way to test the Aptx itself and not to test the quality of that adapter...


 
  
 I think there is no way to test aptX itself, we're all testing implementations of aptX. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


lennyr said:


> I just got the Elecom LBT-PAR500, which seems to be a replacement for the one linked above.  It sounds fantastic!  I loved my HS3000, but it broke, so I got the Elecom as a replacement.  It is a very noticeable improvement - more clear, more powerful/controlled bass. The Elecom is powerful enough even to drive Q701s well. The ergonomics are better. Battery life is better.  The only downsides are that it is huge (relatively) and the documentation is only in Japanese (but it's not hard to figure out).


 
  
 I got both the Elecom LBT-PAR400 and LBT-PAR500 in. Sadly, the latter is pretty much dead though, doesn't charge or turn on. The PAR400 sounds promising, with less of a bass roll-off than the HS3000.


----------



## ClieOS

My opinion is, it is often not the limitation of aptX, but the analog (amp) stage of the BT receiver that let the SQ down (and as James pointed out, the headphone too). While admitting that aptX is not really true lossless per se, a lot of people just discouraged by aptX because they had have some bad experience with BT audio in the past, without realizing how much BT audio has advanced over the last few years. Even worst, some just read how BT's SQ sucks over the internet and started to repeat the same hearsay without themselves trying the better BT solution out there first hand. It is just as bad as giving opinion on any piece of gear without any personal experience.
  
 On the other hand, I am pretty happy to see aptX Low Latency is starting to get more traction.


----------



## Class D

Quote: from ClieOS 





> My opinion is, it is often not the limitation of aptX, but the analog (amp) stage of the BT receiver that let the SQ down.


 
  
 ClieOS is absolutely correct here.  There are many parameters that effect sound quality and fidelity.  BT is essentially a wireless replacement for a twisted pair of wire.  It is also digital, as opposed to analog.  This is core to BT no matter which profile is being used, i. e., HID, HFP, DUN, AVRCP, BPP, A2DP, and etc.  In this thread we are discussing the Advanced Audio Distribution Profile, A2DP.  This profile allows for a continuous set of values or continuous, analog variations in air pressure to be replaced by a discrete set of digital values.  This process in a word is quantization.  Good quantization gives you higher resolution of the underlying audio content which equates to good SQ or fullness of the sound.  The best quantization is sometimes seen as loss-less.  That means little, if any, audio content is lost in the process.  The source fidelity is preserved.  At the other end, radio receiver, BT sink, the process is reversed, and you get a continuous set of values or analog variations.  After going through an audio amplifier and tiny loudspeaker you get the variations of air pressure generated by your earphone.  Audiophiles want these variations of air pressure to match those of the original content, from a trumpet, piano, or human voice.
  
 Aptx, SBC, and other codecs are used for this process.  Basically, they slice up the continuous analog values into discrete, digital values for storage or transmission.  The "bitness" of these slices is very important if you wish to preserve fidelity.  Aptx does a superior job of quantization than SBC.  I may add that MP3 does a better job than Aptx.  However, MP3 quantization is more complex, costly, and introduces latency without a fast, powerful microprocessor.  In the consumer electronics market, product complexity and cost are closely controlled.
  
 Aptx is only one parameter in a wireless BT system that can influence SQ to make it sound better or fuller.  Other parameters can also improve SQ, like audio equalization, amplification, stereo separation, minimizing harmonic distortion, and etc.  Audio engineers strive to create the best audio characteristics for audiophiles.  This can be costly.  This is why a AKG K3000i reference-class in-ear headphones costs $1000 USD.  With 3 individual drivers, incredibly good frequency response of 10-30,00 Hz, sensitivity @ 125 dB, and an outrageously low impedance of 8 Ohms, you can expect the very best in distortion free audio reproduction in an earphone.  Additionally, if your BT sink device includes a tiny audio amplifier with a audio DSP, you can provide the listener with multi-band equalization to make the sound more pleasurable to individuals tastes.
  
 There is a way to examine Aptx and other codecs and draw comparisons.  You would need the underlying written engineering specification of the codec.  It will list parameters like Sample Rates,  Audio Format: 16-bit, 44.1kHz (CD-Quality), Dynamic Range, THD + N, Algorithmic Delay, and etc.  Based on these things, you can do an objective analysis of each codec.  Using the codec in a practical sense in an audio lab will tell you which one looks the best on an oscilloscope and sounds the best to your ear.
  
 Don't be fooled, Aptx is very a very good codec for BT.  Given its relative low cost, it fits the consumer electronics market well.  It is well accepted as a standard by many manufacturers.  In the PC electronics market it has a long way to go, unfortunately.  Except for a few Apple PC products, Aptx is non-existent among OEMs.  Sadly, we are stuck with BT dongles at the moment for our PC's.


----------



## Bjrmd

james444 said:


> Exactly. In fact, aptX's sound quality is much better than of the stock headphones included with most of these receivers, so it really pays to use better earphones with them.
> 
> 
> I think there is no way to test aptX itself, we're all testing implementations of aptX.
> ...


 

 A while back I did a few RMAA runs comparing the creative E3, using its usb DAC vs sbc vs aptx bluetooth.  So the source was the same--android devices using Supercurio's voodoo test program.
 The apt x sounded much better and was very close to the straight usb output , just slightly more background noise in quiet tracks.  SBC was bad.  Just an fyi, and no, the tests were not done with high quality recording gear but were consistant when repeated.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> I think there is no way to test aptX itself, we're all testing implementations of aptX.


 
 I kind of had the idea that by testing the same Headphones with the same PC and the same Dongle, but with or without the CSR Harmony software, we could see the difference.
 Because theoretically the only difference after installing CSR Harmony should be the Aptx.
 But I have read that not all SBC are the same. So, once again it may be a limitation of that adapter. It may perform well as Aptx (thanks to the CSR software) but very bad as SBC because it is just crappy hardware from crappy company, like Azio.
 While maybe another SBC adapter would give much better sound.
 And well, at least with Azio I can confirm this. Their SBC sound sucks very very badly.
  


clieos said:


> On the other hand, I am pretty happy to see aptX Low Latency is starting to get more traction.


 
 Where do you see this?
 I only know of Avantree and Telme2 making LL Aptx adapters, and Plantronics making LL Aptx Headphones for music (plus other two for games and Telme2 for tv).
 And Samsung as the only notebook with LL Aptx.
 I mean, better than nothing, but not exactly much.
  
 I also wonder when will companies finally adopt Class 1 BT.
 Why bothering making a BT headphone with Class 2? DO they think that everybody use headphones just to watch tv from the sofa and need no more than 10mt?
 I like to walk around the house with my BT headphones and i can not with Class 2.
 Class 1 gives 100 meters, a concept which is not a surprise in wireless headphones for home, being the same given by RF Headphones.
 But as far as I know, no transmitter support Class 1, and only the Plantronics Backbeat Pro do it for headphones.


----------



## Class D

Quote: from Giogio 





> Why bothering making a BT headphone with Class 2?


 
  
 The answer is power consumption.  Class 2 BT devices use less battery.  It will be a while until mobile phone manufacturer's ship phones with Class 1 BT.  Same is true for portable PC's and tablets.
  
 Quote:  from GioGio 





> I like to walk around the house with my BT headphones and i can not with Class 2.


 
  
 Great, carry your mobile phone in your pocket and switch on BT to listen to your content on your phone.  Make sure that your headphones and your mobile phone use the Aptx codec.  If not, then plug your headphones into the 3.5  mm jack on your phone.
  
 Class 1 BT is only 100 m in theory or free air space.  For practical purposes it is much less.  To test this, you could get the AZiO BTD-V201 USB dongle.  It's class1 and uses a nice BT stack and control panel from Toshiba.  A2DP is the standard SBC edition with no enhancements.  The audio quality is hard on your ears, but you get decent range with some cutouts now and then as you put more walls and floors between your transmitter.  Keep your receipt for the dongle so you can return it when your range and A2DP test is complete.  
  
 Having class 1 BT on a sink (receiver), like the Plantronics BackBeat Pro, makes no sense with the A2DP profile.  Class 1 BT just places a larger power amplifier (transistor) on the antenna.  If you want to pause, advance, or replay tracks, then the AVRCP profile and class 1 BT could be useful.  However, class 1 BT will drain your battery faster.


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> ... Where do you see this?
> I only know of Avantree and Telme2 making LL Aptx adapters, and Plantronics making LL Aptx Headphones for music (plus other two for games and Telme2 for tv).
> And Samsung as the only notebook with LL Aptx.
> I mean, better than nothing, but not exactly much.
> ...


 
  
 Most noticeably Creative now has aptX LL in their Sound Blaster E5 and X7. I talked to the product manager awhile back and he did comment that aptX LL allows more room for R&D than aptX. Of course now we need a smartphone manufacturer to implement it as well. But given Qualcomm as the new ower, I don't think it will be that long.


----------



## james444

bjrmd said:


> A while back I did a few RMAA runs comparing the creative E3, using its usb DAC vs sbc vs aptx bluetooth.  So the source was the same--android devices using Supercurio's voodoo test program.
> The apt x sounded much better and was very close to the straight usb output , just slightly more background noise in quiet tracks.  SBC was bad.  Just an fyi, and no, the tests were not done with high quality recording gear but were consistant when repeated.


 
  
 Thanks for that, it's probably closest to a direct comparison out of what I've read so far. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt aptX's superiority at all, but one could still argue that it's just one particular implementation of aptX and SBC that you have compared. If SBC sounded downright bad, it was probably not the best one of that codec.
  
 The Sony MW1, for example, has an excellent implementation of SBC and demonstrates that it can sound damn good. The HTC S600 on the other hand, is a bad implementation of aptX. Though (as ClieOS said) the limiting factor is likely the output stage in that case, not aptX itself.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> Most noticeably Creative now has aptX LL in their Sound Blaster E5 and X7. I talked to the product manager awhile back and he did comment that aptX LL allows more room for R&D than aptX. Of course now we need a smartphone manufacturer to implement it as well. But given Qualcomm as the new ower, I don't think it will be that long.


 
 R&D?
 Anyway, interesting product, but I wonder, how does it work for BT Headphones? In Theory they have already their own Amp. How would this DAC improve the BT performances compared to a conventional BT Adapter like the Avantree?
 About Qualcomm, I must have missed some news. What do they own now?
  


class d said:


> The answer is power consumption.  Class 2 BT devices use less battery.  It will be a while until mobile phone manufacturer's ship phones with Class 1 BT.  Same is true for portable PC's and tablets.
> 
> 
> Great, carry your mobile phone in your pocket and switch on BT to listen to your content on your phone.  Make sure that your headphones and your mobile phone use the Aptx codec.  If not, then plug your headphones into the 3.5  mm jack on your phone.
> ...


 
 Hmmm, I did not think about battery usage, because I was mostly thinking of Home use. And, to be honest, I am not sure this would be a big problem. Take the case of the Plantronics, they have 24Hrs battery life being Class 1. Most BT headphones reach just the half of that being Class 2.
 Anyway, the problem could be solved giving people the option to set the power level. You know, like for the wifi router at home. So that when they are on the go they can set a lower power and have just 10mt range which is ok when you have the smartphone in your pockets.
 And at home they can set high power and move around like they want.

 About your suggestion to use the smartphone, Class-D, I am not really needing that kind of suggestions 
 How I will workaround the limits of my hardware, it is not what I was pointing out.
 And, when I am at home I use my PC a lot and I stream music from Youtube or from my big library of music in the heard disk or from CDs. Something I can NOT do with the Smartphone.
 If when I go making a quick sandwitch in the Kitchen I must first switch to my smartphone, well... yes, it is a workaround, which I had already thought about, and which sucks.
  
 Anyway. Got it, you do not feel this need of a Class 1.
 I do 
  EDIT: (after reading the answer of James and understanding better your comment about Class 1 and A2DP): do you mean that the better range of a Class 1 would only influence the AVRPC profile and not the audio? So, the audio would have a lesser range?
 Are you sure of it?
 I have no idea. So, I am open. Which anyway I tend to be also when I have ideas, although my way of answering sometimes gives a different impression (temperament).


----------



## james444

class d said:


> *Having class 1 BT on a sink (receiver), like the Plantronics BackBeat Pro, makes no sense with the A2DP profile*.  Class 1 BT just places a larger power amplifier (transistor) on the antenna.  If you want to pause, advance, or replay tracks, then the AVRCP profile and class 1 BT could be useful.  However, class 1 BT will drain your battery faster.


 
  
 Not sure if this is correct, since A2DP contains negotiation procedures.


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> R&D?
> Anyway, interesting product, but I wonder, how does it work for BT Headphones? In Theory they have already their own Amp. How would this DAC improve the BT performances compared to a conventional BT Adapter like the Avantree?
> About Qualcomm, I must have missed some news. What do they own now?


 
  
 If you look at those Avantree transmitter, they only take analog input. That means your source (a DAP, PC, smartphone or even a TV) has to do the D-to-A conversion first, send the analog signal to Avantree, go through another A-to-D, send to the receiving end (a BT headphone or something like the Creative E5), go through another D-to-A. Now the problem is, the signal has to pass through 2 DAC and 1 ADC, so SQ will definitely be degraded for sure. Even worst is that we have no idea how good the DAC / ADC used in Avantree.
  
 Anyway, if you have a BT headphone, you don't need the E5 / X7 unless the DAC and amp section inside the BT headphone is significantly less quality than E5 / X7.
  
 Qualcomm bought CSR (more correctly, is "in the process of buying"). Since CSR owns aptX, Qualcomm owns aptX as well.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> If you look at those Avantree transmitter, they only take analog input. That means your source (a DAP, PC, smartphone or even a TV) has to do the D-to-A conversion first, send the analog signal to Avantree, go through another A-to-D, send to the receiving end (a BT headphone or something like the Creative E5), go through another D-to-A. Now the problem is, the signal has to pass through 2 DAC and 1 ADC, so SQ will definitely be degraded for sure. Even worst is that we have no idea how good the DAC / ADC used in Avantree.
> 
> Anyway, if you have a BT headphone, you don't need the E5 / X7 unless the DAC and amp section inside the BT headphone is significantly less quality than E5 / X7.
> 
> Qualcomm bought CSR (more correctly, is "in the process of buying"). Since CSR owns aptX, Qualcomm owns aptX as well.



And what exactly does this e5 or x7?
What if i use a dongle? The digital signal stays digital all the time from the pc till the headphones right? Should this be better?
Because i didn't notice any difference between the sound i got with Sennheiser dongle or Avantree adapter...


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> And what exactly does this e5 or x7?
> What if i use a dongle? The digital signal stays digital all the time from the pc till the headphones right? Should this be better?
> Because i didn't notice any difference between the sound i got with Sennheiser dongle or Avantree adapter...


 
  
 E5 is a portable DAC/amp. X7 is a desktop DAC/amp.
  
 In theory, yes. Keeping the less D/A conversion helps to keep the signal as original as it can be. If you can't tell any difference, then all the better for you.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> E5 is a portable DAC/amp. X7 is a desktop DAC/amp.
> 
> In theory, yes. Keeping the less D/A conversion helps to keep the signal as original as it can be. If you can't tell any difference, then all the better for you.


 what i meant about the e5 is, why do they have bt? What for?


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> what i meant about the e5 is, why do they have bt? What for?


 
  
 http://us.creative.com/p/sound-blaster/sound-blaster-e5


----------



## Class D

GioGio,
  
 Let me clarify the Class 1 vs. Class 2 issue.  Having a Class 1 BT sink, such as the Plantronics BackBeat Pro headphones, will not give you a 100m range by itself.  The source would also need to be BT Class 1.   Good luck finding one that does acceptable A2DP. 
  
 So, a Class 1 sink like the Plantronics headphones would give you great reception and audio SQ at 10m.  Anything beyond that is dicey.
  
 A BT Class 1 source device draws 100 mW.    A BT Class 2 device draws 2.5 mW.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the Plantronics Headphones will deliver the advertised 25 hrs.of audio streaming without car battery built into the headphone.
  

Class*Maximum Power**Operating Range**Class 1*100mW (20dBm)100 meters*Class 2*2.5mW (4dBm)10 meters*Class 3*1mW (0dBm)1 meter
  
 For you to achieve what you are looking for, i. e., walking around your home with a wireless headphone listening to music, then you will have to move out of BT and into WiFi technology.  Apple's Airplay does a good job of streaming audio throughout a house with great fidelity and low latency.  You simply install wireless airplay speakers in all your rooms.  You can dump the headphones.  You can watch Netflix on your tablet as you walk from room to room with perfect lip synch.  Same is true for YouTube content.  While you're at it, you can dump your CD collection once you've imported this content to the cloud (iTunes??).


----------



## jugate

hello, i want to buy the xperia e3 and dont have the apt-x... is realy recomended for a lg tone+/sony sbh80 in terms of quality audio?


----------



## Class D

Jugate,
  
 What makes you think that the Sony Xperia E3 has the Bluetooth Aptx codec?  If you buy either the LG or Sony headphones you will need to find a BT source with the Aptx codec to take advantage of the lossless audio.  In the case of the Sony Xperia E3, you should stick to wired headphones for audio.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> http://us.creative.com/p/sound-blaster/sound-blaster-e5


 
  
 I had visited that link immediately when you first posted the info about this product. I still do not understand how it works.
 Why does it have Bluetooth if it only works with wired headphones?


class d said:


> GioGio,
> 
> Let me clarify the Class 1 vs. Class 2 issue.  Having a Class 1 BT sink, such as the Plantronics BackBeat Pro headphones, will not give you a 100m range by itself.  The source would also need to be BT Class 1.   Good luck finding one that does acceptable A2DP.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, I knew this. And I am in fact sad that no Aptx transmitter is Class 1.
 The Backbeat Pro have indeed a very good range even when connected to a class 2 source. But not 100m.
 So, what about implementing a way to choose the level of power usage (and therefore the range)? If battery usage is the problem (which the battery life of the Backbeat does not seem to confirm), it would be effective if people could choose between low power (similar range as class 2) and high power (class 1 range) depending on the situation. So, when they are out and have the phone in their pocket, they set low power because they need less range. At home (where they can charge the battery all the time) they set high power and have more range.
 About the wifi idea, which headphones can do that? I suppose I cannot use BT Headphones with a wifi technology.
 About Class 1, I have been told that Class 1 and 2 are mostly a thing of the past, related to bluetooth 2. I have been told that Bluetooth 4 does not work with classes anymore and natively support a range of 50 meters.
 Do you have infos about that?
 Btw, for the native english speakers, why is there no plural for Information? Is there no informations or infos?


----------



## Giogio

I have found some interesting info about the Aptx and CSR thing. Which brings again to the fact that Aptx was supposed to work only with some chips (= it was not enough to install a software).
 It seems that this may have failed and maybe is one of the reasons why this awful company named CSR had to leave the Aptx to Qualcomm.
 http://support.plugable.com/plugable/topics/apt_x_audio_codec_support_in_bluetooth_4_0_adapter_stack
 http://askubuntu.com/questions/425333/how-to-make-aptx-capable-bluetooth-equipment-work-with-ubuntu
  
 This is also directed @Bill-P


----------



## james444

Got two more aptX enabled headsets, the Elecom LBT-PAR400 and LBT-PAR500. Both have very good sound quality which I'd rate on par with the QCY QY3 and LG BTS1.
  
 Sadly, the PAR400 has by far the weakest reception of all units in this comparison and is prone to skipping, so it isn't really suited for mobile use. I'll still recommend it for the sake of sound quality alone, but advise against buying if you intend to use it outside the house.
  
 The PAR500 on the other hand is rated class 1 and has indeed the best reception in this comparison, even from my Samsung Galaxy S3 which is only class 2. It has more driving power than all other aptX headsets I've tried, however it's also the largest of the bunch. Still, all things considered, it would deserve the top spot on my list.
  
 Unfortunately there seems to be a catch with the PAR500: my unit was pretty much dead on arrival, and upon closer examination I found that the battery was tucked rather carelessly on top of the PCB and short-circuiting the power supply. I also found a review on Amazon Japan reporting the exact same issue after a month of use, so it doesn't seem to be an isolated case. Even though it's pretty easy to solve the problem if you open up the unit, I only feel confident to recommend the PAR500 with reservation.
  
 (On a related note, I'd like to give a heads-up to fellow head-fiers to avoid Rakuten's BIGSTAR / Starnet shop, since you'll get no customer support from the seller, even if the item he sent you is defective)
  
  
 Sound quality ranking of all aptX BT headsets with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far (not considering stock earpieces):
  

LG BTS1 - highly recommended
  
​ 
 Elecom PAR500 - highly recommended (with reservation)
  

  ​QCY QY3 - recommended (with reservation)
  
​ 
 Elecom PAR400 - recommended (with reservation)
  

 ​Samsung HS3000 - recommended
  
​HTC BH S600 - not recommended​  ​ ​ ​ ​ ​


----------



## Class D

Giogio,
  
 What current an electronic device draws is very important when it comes to battery or portable power.  In regards to the Plantronics BackBeat Pro headphones, all I can think of, without opening the circuit to see for myself, is that there must be 2x power circuits to the antenna.  One uses a 2.5 mW power amp, and the other uses a much larger 100 mW pa.  A microprocessor switches from one circuit to the other depending on the software controlling the antenna.  So, Plantronics can say they have a battery life of 25 hrs.  What they haven't said is that this is true under the condition that this "smart" antenna is switched in the low power (2.5 mW) mode.  At any rate, a 100 mW transmission can't be sustained with a tiny battery for 25 hrs.
  
 Regarding your idea of a switching power source for BT antennas to allow you to be in low power mode while your portable device is in your pocket, and in high power mode while your portable device is in its cradle at home is possible in theory.  It would introduce extra weight and cost to the portable device.  This is contrary to design efforts of most portable electronics design engineers.  Their Marketing Department wants them to drive cost and weight down.
  
 Regarding 50m BT, this is always technically possible.  However, it is local communication regulators that specify what frequency bands can transmit at what power.  In the US the Federal Communications commission, FCC, regulates this.  If they should allow the BT 2450 MHz band falling under WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Network) to increase power output, then you could achieve greater range easily.  The FCC does things in collaboration with International Communications Standards.
  
 Regarding your linguistics question, "information" is what's known as a mass noun, and it gets a singular verb.  There are several mass nouns in English.  Sorry, you must memorize them.


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> I had visited that link immediately when you first posted the info about this product. I still do not understand how it works.
> Why does it have Bluetooth if it only works with wired headphones?


 
  
 Say if you already have a decent wired headphone and an aptX supported source (smartphone, PC, etc.) - now you want to listen to your headphone wirelessly (*maybe you just don't want to sit in front of your PC all the time, or you want to charge your smartphone on the power socket while listening to its music across the room), but without compromising SQ, what do you want then? An aptX supported, good sounding portable DAC/amp - E5 is one such device. Of course you can also get a BT / aptX supporting headphone, but you may or may not like it as much as the headphone you already owned, or maybe you just don't like to have too many pair of headphone.
  
 I am sure that's not that difficult to understand?


----------



## cattlethief

Got the Sony SBH80 to match up with the Sony A16 dap, both have APTX ,the headset is excellent and on a par if not better than there mh1,although the sony dap has aptx, my AK100 ii is a better match being more powerful with a better sq.Can APTX be implemented in the firmware of the AK to make it sound even better?Was very surprised at how good the sound was.


----------



## malk

james444 said:


> Got a new aptX headset via Amazon, the QCY QY3 (odd name). Its sound quality is very good, a bit on the warm side compared to the more analytical LG BTS1, but with good extension and driving power. Actually, it's the loudest aptX headset with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far.
> 
> However, on the downside, it needs a proprietary charging cable (USB to 3.5mm, included), and at least on my unit L/R stereo channels are reversed. The latter's no big deal for me, since Neutron Player offers a "reverse stereo" setting, but due to this flaw I can only recommend the QCY QY3 with reservation.
> 
> ...


 
  
 James,
  
 I am in the market for an apt-x receiver.  I have Audiotechnica M50's which I cable modded about 12 months ago so it has a 3.5mm female socket on it, and for the last 12 months I've had a BTR-006 standard BT receiver superglued on the side of it to go wireless and have been quite impressed.  As I use this mostly on high speed trains that frequently go through tunnels (in other words, a LOT of background noise), this receiver has served it's purpose well.  However, the cable for the receiver would get bumped when packing away and now I have lost the left channel completely due to the wires going in the cable/connection. So I'm looking to upgrade.
  
 I have been trying to find some information on the Mocreo "Latest 4.1 Bluetooth Receiver"  (who names these devices??). 
http://mocreo.com/portable-bluetooth-wifi-audio-music/latest-4-1-bluetooth-wireless-stereo-audio-streaming-receiver-adapter-for-3-5mm-devices-w-aptx-coding-nfc-hands-free-calling.html
  
 It uses a CSR 8645 chipset but I don't know anything about the company so I have no idea on whether they use a quality dac inside or not.  I came across your post on the QCY QY3 and found it has the same 8645 chipset, same shape, almost same dimensions (difference of only a couple of mm in all dimensions) and very similar button layout. There is a chance they are the same hardware with a slightly different shell.
  
 Is the QY3 miles behind the LG in terms of sound quality?  The LG appears to be around double the price and I'm not really willing to fork out that much for Bluetooth.
 Have you heard of Mocreo before?


----------



## kayza

malk said:


> James,
> 
> I am in the market for an apt-x receiver.  I have Audiotechnica M50's which I cable modded about 12 months ago so it has a 3.5mm female socket on it, and for the last 12 months I've had a BTR-006 standard BT receiver superglued on the side of it to go wireless and have been quite impressed.  As I use this mostly on high speed trains that frequently go through tunnels (in other words, a LOT of background noise), this receiver has served it's purpose well.  However, the cable for the receiver would get bumped when packing away and now I have lost the left channel completely due to the wires going in the cable/connection. So I'm looking to upgrade.
> 
> ...




I will give my experience with mocreo. I purchased a bluetooth speaker from them, basically a beats pill knockoff, on amazon for about $30. The sound was very tinny and thin. The connection only worked to about 10 feet in a straoght line with no obstruction. Needless to say, I returned it and wont buy another product of theirs.

With that being said, many people probably have similar opinions of Koss and other brands if they have only purchased their $10 earphones in the checkout line. Perhaps mocreo has high end stuff like Koss does..


----------



## james444

malk said:


> *Is the QY3 miles behind the LG in terms of sound quality?*  The LG appears to be around double the price and I'm not really willing to fork out that much for Bluetooth.
> Have you heard of Mocreo before?


 
  
 No it isn't, and I'm actually quite happy with it after prolonged use. If you don't mind the possibly reversed L/R channels, there's no reason to fork out more imo.
  
 Don't have any experience with Mocreo, I'm afraid.


----------



## lennyr

Does anyone know of a Bt 4.x / AptX / AptX-LL Class 1 Source/Transmitter that can plug into an analog 1/4" or 3.5mm jack?  I want to be able to use my Elecom LBT-PAR500 with my AVR. 
  
 I've found a few things like this http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00NMPKVQ8/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3HB86WKTMD39R&coliid=IMMJI5GMMKFPE but they all seem to have Class 2 radios.


----------



## ClieOS

lennyr said:


> Does anyone know of a Bt 4.x / AptX / AptX-LL Class 1 Source/Transmitter that can plug into an analog 1/4" or 3.5mm jack?  I want to be able to use my Elecom LBT-PAR500 with my AVR.
> 
> I've found a few things like this http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00NMPKVQ8/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3HB86WKTMD39R&coliid=IMMJI5GMMKFPE but they all seem to have Class 2 radios.


 
  
 If your AVR is in the same room, a Class 2 transmitter should be fine. BT Classes is just a indication of its transmitting power and not about compatibility. You can certainly mix and match different classes together as long as they are within the receiving range of each other.


----------



## b00tang

James,
 Thanks for the reviews. If you keep trying new headsets I hope you keep the updates coming. I decided to give the QCY QY3 a try based on your impressions and the super low price. I took a risk on a random seller (gearbest.com) so if I actually end up getting something that works in the mail I'll post impressions.


----------



## lennyr

clieos said:


> If your AVR is in the same room, a Class 2 transmitter should be fine. BT Classes is just a indication of its transmitting power and not about compatibility. You can certainly mix and match different classes together as long as they are within the receiving range of each other.


 
  
 Yeah, it would be fine in my living room, but I'd like to be able to walk about the house.


----------



## ClieOS

I just found these last night as I am searching around for an atpX USB adapter myself:
  
 http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B007PVKOO4/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AN1VRQENFRJN5
  
 http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B3%E3%83%AF%E3%82%B5%E3%83%97%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4-Bluetooth-USB%E3%82%A2%E3%83%80%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF-class1-MM-BTUD43/dp/B00HX64XUM/ref=pd_sim_computers_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1BZSCPHH9FTQRSVJF7YT
  
 Both are class 1 BT4.0, aptX supported. They are obviously being sold in Japan and no place else. But even with forwarding service fee included, they should still come out under US$50.


----------



## Giogio

lennyr said:


> Does anyone know of a Bt 4.x / AptX / AptX-LL Class 1 Source/Transmitter that can plug into an analog 1/4" or 3.5mm jack?  I want to be able to use my Elecom LBT-PAR500 with my AVR.
> 
> I've found a few things like this http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00NMPKVQ8/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3HB86WKTMD39R&coliid=IMMJI5GMMKFPE but they all seem to have Class 2 radios.


 
 Can you explain your setup?
 At first, I do not know what AVR stands for.
 Then, you talk of jack but then you say to ClieOS that those USB Dongles are what you look for.
 So, what have you planned?
 Apart for the AVR which I have no idea what it is, I have understood that you have some non bluetooth headphones which you transform in bluetooth with the Elecom receiver.
 Is this right?
 I suppose this Elecom is Class 1, for you to look for a Class 1 transmitter.
 But, WHERE do you need to plug this transmitter?
  


clieos said:


> I just found these last night as I am searching around for an atpX USB adapter myself:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B007PVKOO4/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AN1VRQENFRJN5
> 
> ...


 
 That is a nice info.
 People with a Plantronics Backbeat Pro (the only Class 1 Headphone on the Market) will be happy.
 I myself at home use another headphone at the moment. I wonder if a class 1 dongle will, when paired with a class 2 headphone, give still a better range than a class 2 dongle.


----------



## lennyr

giogio said:


> Can you explain your setup?
> At first, I do not know what AVR stands for.
> Then, you talk of jack but then you say to ClieOS that those USB Dongles are what you look for.
> So, what have you planned?
> ...


 

 I was mistaken re those USB dongles.  What I need is something with an analog stereo jack (1/4" or adapter-able) that will take that analog output, convert it to Bluetooth/AptX, and transmit it on a Class 1 radio. I will plug this into the headphone jack of my AVR (an Onkyo TX-NR818).

 AVR stands for "audio video receiver".

 Yes, I use normal headphones with the Elecom reciever, and it has a Class 1 radio. The headphones I usually use with it, fwiw, are Yuin PK3, AKG Q701, and AT AD900.

 I use the Elecom PAR500 with a variety of Bluetooth/AptX devices. They all have Class 2 radios.  There is no range improvement.


----------



## Giogio

lennyr said:


> I was mistaken re those USB dongles.  What I need is something with an analog stereo jack (1/4" or adapter-able) that will take that analog output, convert it to Bluetooth/AptX, and transmit it on a Class 1 radio. I will plug this into the headphone jack of my AVR (an Onkyo TX-NR818).


 
 It does not exist yet.
 Sorry.
 But keep searching, I may be wrong, or it may come soon.
 I know that Avantree is working on something with Antenna. It will be Class 2, but it will, at least, (they say) have more range, due to the antenna.
  
 There may already be other ones with antenna, I only know one which is not aptx.
 Avantree will be Low Latency Aptx.
 I am not aware ow any antenna adapter with Aptx, but you may have a look in Jessy Anderson website... List of Aptx Devices.


----------



## turbobb

@lennyr - also not aware of any Class 1 BT 4.0 transmitters featuring aptX but if you can live without those two features, the Miccus RTX is sorta class 1 (transmits up to 150') and you can hook it up to the HP (or line out) of your AVR.


----------



## Giogio

@Class D used to say that the Class is just a matter of antenna.
 So, if he is right, I suppose that if you make something like this miccus and it reaches the 150, it is Class 1. = Class 1 is anything which can reach at least 100ft. So, take a "class 2" device, mod it with a bigger antenna, and if it reaches 100ft, it becomes class 1.
 But in this way of seeing it there is something missing. Because the fact that BOTH devices must be Class 1, let me think to some kind of negotiation. Like in Aptx.
 Because, if it was just a matter of antenna like Class D says, then, if one Class 1 device can send the signal up to 100ft, it would reach a class 2 device placed within 100ft, so it should be enough that one is class1.
  
 Unless the real definitio of class 1 is "a device which can reach 50ft", so that two together meet at ther limit and make 100ft together.
 Which is kind of romantic.
  
 Anybody knows how it really is?
  
 And, as I am in mood for questions and i have eaten too much pizza to be able to sleep:
 Aptx is often compared to AAC.
 But, how does AAC work?
 If I have an AAC headphone and an AAC phone, and I play an mp3 file, will the phone encode the mp3 in AAC on the fly to transmit it to the headphone?
 Or will the phone use the AAC codec only if I play AAC files? Which kind of sucks, because it is 3, not 2 conditions: source, receiver, and file...
  
 Cheers


----------



## ClieOS

It isn't just a bigger antenna, you'll need bigger output power as well.
  
 AAC over Bluetooth is mainly an Apple's thing. As we all know, Apple like to use their own standard instead of going for the common solution (probably to have tighten control on who get to play with them), so aptX isn't likely going to be found on any Apple anytime soon. So to improve upon the basic SBC codec, Apple implements AAC over Bluetooth instead, and many Apple accessories maker follow suit. Basically it is around 250kbps encoded, so it is about the same as a 320kbps encoded mp3 - and yes, you need both the source (i,e, iPhone) and receiver (i.e. wireless headphone) to support AAC in order for it to work, or else they will fall back to SBC as default. But no, you don't need to play AAC only files. It only means the encoding and decoding on transmitter to receiver (*the actual Bluetooth transmission ) is AAC.


----------



## james444

turbobb said:


> @lennyr - also not aware of any Class 1 BT 4.0 transmitters featuring aptX but if you can live without those two features, the Miccus RTX is sorta class 1 (transmits up to 150') and you can hook it up to the HP (or line out) of your AVR.


 
  
https://miccusblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/bluetooth-music-and-latency/
  


> Can aptx technology help with this scenario as well? Yes! In fact, *our new long range transmitter (still in development) features aptx technology* ...


----------



## Class D

Hi Giogio,
  
 Actually, BT Class 1 will require more than just an improved antenna.  It will include a tiny Power Amp (PA) transistor and a capacitor to tune the antenna.  This would not be an easy modification to a BT Class 2 source.  Nevertheless, these components are relatively low cost.  Because of the PA driving the antenna, the overall power requirement of this BT source will go up.  This makes it impractical for portable applications, like a mobile phone or iPod, but okay for a BT source receiving its power from the mains.
  
 In my past life, I worked with a BT Class 1 dongle (prototype).  It was a small circuit board which received power from an 5V AC adapter.  I could pair it up to a BT Class 2 headphone and walk around the house and outside (approx. 100 ft) listening to audio content from an iPod, for instance.  Occasionally, the wireless connection would break and come back as I came into line of sight of the Class 1 source.  You will also experience the same thing with WiFi  in your home.  Nothing works perfectly with wireless consumer electronics.  As an aside, I have the Motorola S11-Flex HD BT headphones with Aptx.  They are Class 2, but Motorola claims extended range up to 150 ft.  I can verify that they have great range, although I've never measured it myself.  My guess is that Motorola has made some enhancements to the BT radio in these headphones.
  
 Just FYI, you can't take a radio that transmits to 50' and pair it with a receiver capable of 50' and expect the ranges to be additive.  You will simply lose your connection at anything over 50'.  You can blame Guglielmo Marconi, often credited as the inventor of radio, for this.
  
 Aptx, AAC, and MP3 along with many more are codecs.  They code and decode analog content for purposes of digitization and file compression.  Aptx is an enhanced codec that works with BT A2DP.  You will only see it used between a BT source and sink.  It is a replacement for the built-in sub-band coding, SBC, found in the BT spec.  Both the sink and source must be running Aptx, otherwise the transmission will use the default SBC codec.  AAC and MP3 codecs are used to store audio content in digital format on a disk drive or other storage medium.  They are software programs that require powerful microprocessors to code and decode analog content, like music.  There are lots of audio codecs out there used for various applications.
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_coding_formats
  
 An AAC headphone makes no sense to me.  The Aptx or SBC codec will decode the digital bitstream to an analog left/right signal and send it to the audio amplifier for volume control, mute, and equalization among other things in your headphone and then to the tiny speaker.  I've seen where some headphone manufacturers say their product is AAC or MP3 capable just to say the headphones work with Apple iPods (AAC) and MP3 players.  Your phone will likely have an AAC codec to read Apple iTunes files, most do.  The codec will decode the audio files stored in AAC format on your phone and create an analog stereo signal for your speaker, BT module, charging connector, or 3.5 mm output jack.  Some phones have the MP3 codec to handle .MP3 files on your phone.  MP3 is a very popular format used in today's audio, however, not all audio manufacturers support it because the royalties aren't cheap.  Nevertheless, it's a great codec.


----------



## Class D

Quote:  ClieOS 





> So to improve upon the basic SBC codec, Apple implements AAC over Bluetooth instead, and many Apple accessories maker follow suit.


 
  
 I wasn't aware that Apple was using the AAC codec as a replacement for the BT SBC codec in their BT source devices.  Thanks for the input.  The AAC codec would be a great improvement over the built-in BT SBC codec.  Sound Quality and latency would be very good.  I'd really like to see a professional comparison between AAC and Aptx as a replacement for SBC.
  
 I take back what I said about an AAC headphone........
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   Based on what ClieOS said, it now makes sense to me.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> It isn't just a bigger antenna, you'll need bigger output power as well.
> *Ok, but it is the same, I mean, you need antenna and power, but still this does not imply* *any negotiation between two devices, unlike for the Aptx thing.*
> *So, why must both devices be Class1?*
> 
> ...


 
  
  


james444 said:


> https://miccusblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/bluetooth-music-and-latency/
> *I would be careful with what those guys say. They do not write that on Dual Link mode (two headphones receiving the same signal, so that two people can listen same music at same time) the Aptx is switched off and the SBC is used instead.
> And I know for my researches with other products (like Avantree and Telme2) that this is how it works.*
> *But still interesting to know that they plan a long distance with Aptx.
> ...


 
  
  
@Class D, yes, this is what I was trying to explain, but I did not really explain, just implied it, because I took for granted that everybody knows that AAC is also a transmission Codec now, used by iPhones and several Headphones.
 About the Class, can you explain why the range is not addictive? I mean, if a receiver can "listen" to what is being transmitted within a range of x meters, and a transmitter can send a signal into this range of x meters, why should that not work? Why is it needed that the start of the signal (not the end of it), = the transmitter itself, is also within this range of x meters?


----------



## Class D

Hi Giogio,
  
 Well, not everyone knows that AAC is a BT transmission CODEC.  I found this interesting so I did some research on Apple and their implementation of BT on their devices, iPhones, iPods, iPads, and etc.  There is a specification for Apple developers that provides guidelines for the BT interface =>
  
https://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/BluetoothDesignGuidelines.pdf
  
 Although SBC is the default codec for interoperability between sink and source devices, the guidelines allow for A2DP enhancement by using either the MPEG-2/4 AAC LC codec.  This approach is similar to Aptx while circumventing royalties to CSR for their codec.
  
 Knowing this, anyone considering the purchase of a BT sink device, like a headphone, should look to see that it supports both the Aptx and AAC codec.  This will give you excellent sound quality and low latency across a variety of BT sources.  Additionally, these codecs require BT 4.0 for low power consumption and Enhanced Data Rate, EDR, for a wide data path and an advanced microprocessor to support these features.  These things will be advantageous to sound quality even if the default SBC codec is used. 
  
 Quote:  Giogio 





> About the Class, can you explain why the range is not addictive?


 
  
 The only way I can explain this is to say that the BT radio signal attenuates to a dB value below the noise level of the transmission frequency being used at x meters.  For the receiver, BT sink, beyond x meters from the BT source to recognize the signal amongst the noise, it would have to have a really good sensitivity spec.  This is certainly possible.  In fact, this is how GPS receivers work.  By the time the GPS signal reaches earth, it is so weak it is lost in the noise.  A good GPS receiver will be sensitive enough to dip down into the transmission noise and recognize the signal from the satellite.  With a BT Class 1 radio receiver, you would expect that it is more sensitive to weak signals than BT Class 2 and have the capability to dip into the noise and recognize the BT signal coming from the BT source.  Nevertheless, it would not be sensitive enough to recognize signals beyond its rated x meters.


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> *Ok, but it is the same, I mean, you need antenna and power, but still this does not imply* *any negotiation between two devices, unlike for the Aptx thing.*
> *So, why must both devices be Class1?*
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Q1: as Class D said, you will probably need the Class 2 receiver sensitive enough to pick up a Class 1 signal at distance.
  
 Q2: Class D already listed the official Apple doc. BT.org actually allows any extra implementation over SBC as along as it is still confirm to the spec and bandwidth. This is true to aptX as well as AAC. The good news is of course most of the current aptX supporting devices seem to support AAC as well, likely because CSR want to benefit over Apple's big iDevice market even though Apple has been avoiding aptX as much as possible.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> Q1: as Class D said, you will probably need the Class 2 receiver sensitive enough to pick up a Class 1 signal at distance.
> 
> Q2: Class D already listed the official Apple doc. BT.org actually allows any extra implementation over SBC as along as it is still confirm to the spec and bandwidth. This is true to aptX as well as AAC. The good news is of course most of the current aptX supporting devices seem to support AAC as well, likely because CSR want to benefit over Apple's big iDevice market even though Apple has been avoiding aptX as much as possible.


 
 There is no information in that Apple link. No information about if the AAC codec is used also when an MP3 file is played.
 Anyway Macs with OS X support Aptx.


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> There is no information in that Apple link. No information about if the AAC codec is used also when an MP3 file is played.
> Anyway Macs with OS X support Aptx.


 
  
 That's because Apple doesn't list any requirement asking to show whether AAC is used or not. It is all done automatically - meaning it will use AAC when both transmitter and receiver support it, or fall back to SBC when one of them doesn't. That is different from aptX implementation where it usually will display an icon or something to tell you whether aptX is in use or not.
  
 On the other hand, whether you are playing mp3, FLAC, m4a or ALAC has nothing to do with whether AAC is used over BT or not. When you play a file, regardless of format, it will always get decoded to PCM first (that's the universal lossless language for audio) before it is sent to the DAC to convert to analog sound. In Bluetooth, the same PCM signal is sent to the BT chip to be re-encoded to SBC / AAC / aptX (depends on which is supported) for the transmission, because PCM itself is too big to be sent over. That means, the BT chip will choose whatever compression format that is available to it regardless what file format you are playing - because on the basic level, the BT chip only see PCM on the input and nothing else.


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> About the Class, can you explain why the range is not addictive? I mean, if a receiver can "listen" to what is being transmitted within a range of x meters, and a transmitter can send a signal into this range of x meters, why should that not work? Why is it needed that the start of the signal (not the end of it), = the transmitter itself, is also within this range of x meters?


 


class d said:


> The only way I can explain this is to say that the BT radio signal attenuates to a dB value below the noise level of the transmission frequency being used at x meters.  For the receiver, BT sink, beyond x meters from the BT source to recognize the signal amongst the noise, it would have to have a really good sensitivity spec.  This is certainly possible.  In fact, this is how GPS receivers work.  By the time the GPS signal reaches earth, it is so weak it is lost in the noise.  A good GPS receiver will be sensitive enough to dip down into the transmission noise and recognize the signal from the satellite.  With a BT Class 1 radio receiver, you would expect that it is more sensitive to weak signals than BT Class 2 and have the capability to dip into the noise and recognize the BT signal coming from the BT source.  Nevertheless, it would not be sensitive enough to recognize signals beyond its rated x meters.


 


clieos said:


> Q1: as Class D said, you will probably need the Class 2 receiver sensitive enough to pick up a Class 1 signal at distance.


 
  
 As I posted earlier, the A2DP specification contains negotiation procedures. I'm not a expert in any way, but from my understanding that would require bidirectional communication between source and sink. Meaning, not only must the source be able to reach the sink, but also vice versa. Not comparable to GPS imo, which is just a one-way signal transmission.
  
 Here's an A2DP technology overview for developers, note how the communication arrows point both ways:
  

  
 (Just my 2c, and I may be wrong... like I said, I'm not an expert.)


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> When you play a file, regardless of format, it will always get decoded to PCM first


 
 That's kind of idiot.
 Why do they do that?
 Why cannot they directly send the Mp3 to the BT chip and encode it to SBC/Aptx/AAC?
 It is a lost of time, energy, and signal.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> As I posted earlier, the A2DP specification contains negotiation procedures. I'm not a expert in any way, but from my understanding that would require bidirectional communication between source and sink. Meaning, not only must the source be able to reach the sink, but also vice versa.


 
 I think I understand what you mean, it sounds like what Class D said about the two devices with 50m range placed at 100m from each other, and being able to meet in the middle, so that for my fantasy the first receiver should be able to take what the transmitter sent.
 But he means that the receiver must reach the transmitter where it physically is, not it waves somewhere in the middle.
  
 But, I still cannot understand.
 I mean, I cannot understand why, what are the technical and scientific reasons why this is so.
 For me it is so clear, if the transmitter A, placed at 100 m from the Receiver B, sends its waves till the point C, and the Receiver B is able with its range to take those waves in that point C, why should that not work?


----------



## ClieOS

james444 said:


> As I posted earlier, the A2DP specification contains negotiation procedures. I'm not a expert in any way, but from my understanding that would require bidirectional communication between source and sink. Meaning, not only must the source be able to reach the sink, but also vice versa. Not comparable to GPS imo, which is just a one-way signal transmission.
> 
> (Just my 2c, and I may be wrong... like I said, I'm not an expert.)


 
  
  
 Yes, that makes sense to me as well. BT is inherently a bidirectional design in core.
  


giogio said:


> That's kind of idiot.
> Why do they do that?
> Why cannot they directly send the Mp3 to the BT chip and encode it to SBC/Aptx/AAC?
> It is a lost of time, energy, and signal.


 
  
 Because mp3 is not actually a free codec to use. You need to pay license for commercial use. So adapting a low-fi codec like SBC that the BT.org has license of will be a lot cheaper and, more importantly, has more control over in the long run. Not to mention mp3 doesn't really offer much better compression over SBC. AAC is also not free, but Apple probably picks it because that's what Apple is using all the time (again, it is more about control over their own market), plus AAC is a better codec to use for compression, so a it offers better SQ on the same bitrate than SBC and mp3. aptX is pretty much the same story, except it is even better than AAC for compression purpose.


----------



## james444

clieos said:


> Because mp3 is not actually a free codec to use. You need to pay license for commercial use. So adapting a low-fi codec like SBC that the BT.org has license of will be a lot cheaper and, more importantly, has more control over in the long run. Not to mention mp3 doesn't really offer much better compression over SBC. AAC is also not free, but Apple probably picks it because that's what Apple is using all the time (again, it is more about control over their own market), plus AAC is a better codec to use for compression, so a it offers better SQ on the same bitrate than SBC and mp3. aptX is pretty much the same story, except it is even better than AAC for compression purpose.


 
  
 Moreover, A2DP transmits audio data in small packets, it's not like an mp3 file of several MB can be transmitted as a whole. Chopping mp3 audio data into blocks and recreating a seamless audio stream from these blocks is not a trivial task, especially when the file in question is variable bitrate. I'd think that's one more reason why they first decode everything to PCM and encode / decode for A2DP on a per block basis.


----------



## Giogio

clieos said:


> Because mp3 is not actually a free codec to use. You need to pay license for commercial use. So adapting a low-fi codec like SBC that the BT.org has license of will be a lot cheaper and, more importantly, has more control over in the long run. Not to mention mp3 doesn't really offer much better compression over SBC. AAC is also not free, but Apple probably picks it because that's what Apple is using all the time (again, it is more about control over their own market), plus AAC is a better codec to use for compression, so a it offers better SQ on the same bitrate than SBC and mp3. aptX is pretty much the same story, except it is even better than AAC for compression purpose.


 
 So, let me understand, you mean that when the AAC codec is used, and an AAC file is played, this file is not converted to PCM, but directly sent to the BT chip, while if another kind of file is played, than it is converted into PCM first?
 Or also AAC files are converted into PCM (which would be so much more a pity, considering the chance to directly stream something totally untouched)?
  
 While, for example, if the APTX codec is used, and a AAC file is played, than would this AAC converted into PCM first?


----------



## ClieOS

giogio said:


> So, let me understand, you mean that when the AAC codec is used, and an AAC file is played, this file is not converted to PCM, but directly sent to the BT chip, while if another kind of file is played, than it is converted into PCM first?
> Or also AAC files are converted into PCM (which would be so much more a pity, considering the chance to directly stream something totally untouched)?
> 
> While, for example, if the APTX codec is used, and a AAC file is played, than would this AAC converted into PCM first?


 
  
 Regardless of what file format you use, it will always get decoded to PCM first. Formats like mp3, AAC, FLAC or ALAC is just a container, they defines how files is stored in a particular way, but they doesn't tell what kind of data is inside. That data is PCM. So basically we have one way of saving PCM called mp3, another way called AAC, another called FLAC, etc. When these files (mp3 / AAC / FLAC / etc) are played, the computer 'restored' it back to the purest form first, which is PCM, then it is fed to the DAC (or the BT chip for further re-encoding for transmission).
  
 Taking your example:
 AAC files played -> convert to PCM -> send to BT chip -> re-encoded to aptX -> send the aptX to receiver -> receiver take the aptX and convert it to PCM -> fed to DAC and becomes analog sound.
  
 (*the red part can be SBC or AAC, depends on what is supported on both transmitter and receiver)
  
 If you think it is a pity that AAC get converted to PCM, then you have the wrong idea. PCM is one of the two most basic form of digital audio data (the other one is DSD). But PCM is too big to store, so we process it with codec like mp3 or AAC in order to compress it down to the file size (and quality) that we can live with. So converting AAC to PCM is basic a process of *restoration*. It is equal to unzipping a file to reveal the original data. If you don't ever want to unzip a file, how would you have any access to the data inside? Therefore the process is a MUST.


----------



## Class D

ClieOS,
  
 Thank you for your exhaustive explanation of how audio coding and decoding are performed over a wireless connection, such as, BT.  This is how I understand it, also.
  
 Giogio,
  
 Your ABC analogy of the physical layer of a BT connection is correct.  In the case of radio waves, Point C is actually the end of the universe, 450 billion light years away.  This is where they terminate.  This is also true of wires, the signal terminates at the end of the wire (it is then reflected back into the wire unless terminated properly, with resistance).  Regulatory authorities determine where Point B can exist from Point A and a radio connection is still possible.  It's the antenna output power that is regulated.  For instance, a 30 dBm (1 Watt) radio signal will go for x distance and attenuate rapidly (the radio signal is dropped or lost in the noise).  Point B must be located within x distance from Point A, as the signal strength is too weak beyond that point, except for a highly sensitive radio receiver.  Since the radio signal continues on to the end of the universe, it is theoretically possible with a highly sensitive receiver to make a BT connection at the edge of the universe.  The latency would be approximately 450 billion years and lip synch would be terrible, although sound quality would stay intact when decoded at the end of the universe.
  
 When it comes to Radio Frequency transmissions, it is governmental regulatory authorities that control the characteristics of the physical layer of the OSI model. 
  
  
  

 *OSI Model*
 *Layer*
 *Data unit*
 *Function*[3]
 *Examples*
 *Host
 layers*
 7. Application
 Data
 High-level APIs, including resource sharing, remote file access, directory services and virtual terminals
 HTTP, FTP, SMTP
 6. Presentation
 Translation of data between a networking service and an application; including character encoding, data compression and encryption/decryption
 ASCII, EBCDIC, JPEG
 5. Session
 Managing communication sessions, i.e. continuous exchange of information in the form of multiple back-and-forth transmissions between two nodes
 RPC, PAP
 4. Transport
 Segments
 Reliable transmission of data segments between points on a network, including segmentation, acknowledgement and multiplexing
 TCP, UDP
 *Media
 layers*
 3. Network
 Packet/Datagram
 Structuring and managing a multi-node network, including addressing, routing and traffic control
 IPv4, IPv6, IPsec, AppleTalk
 2. Data link
 Bit/Frame
 Reliable transmission of data frames between two nodes connected by a physical layer
 PPP, IEEE 802.2, L2TP
 1. Physical
 Bit
 Transmission and reception of raw bit streams over a physical medium
 DSL, USB
  

  
 Since BT operates in the ISM (Industrial Scientific Medical) frequency band which has the Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) limited to 4 Watts, this limits the range of transmission.  Here's how power output is specified for the ISM band (in the US).
Maximum Transmit Output Power in the ISM bands Several of the FCC part 15 rules govern the transmit power permitted in the ISM bands.  Here is a summary of those rules:
  

*      Transmit Power
 (dBm)**   Antenna Gain 
 (dBi) **EIRP
      (dBm)*  3063629938281240271542261844252146242448232750223052
 
 Maximum transmitter output power, fed into the antenna, is 30 dBm (1 watt).
 Maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) is 36 dBm (4 watt).
_You can obtain the EIRP by simply adding the transmit output power, in dBm, to the antenna gain in dBi  (if there is loss in the cable feeding the antenna you may subtract that loss)._
 If your equipment is used in a fixed point-to-point link, there are two exceptions to the maximum EIRP rule above:
In the 5.8 GHz band the rule is less restrictive. The maximum EIRP allowed is 53 dBm (30 dBm plus 23 dBi of antenna gain).
In the 2.4 GHz band you can increase the antenna gain to get an EIRP above 36 dBm but for every 3dBi increase of antenna gain you must reduce the transmit power by 1 dBm. The table below shows the combinations of allowed transmit power / antenna gain and the resulting EIRP.

 
 The responsibility for staying within these power limits falls on the operator (or, if professionally installed, on the installer).
  
 This is what limits your reception of a BT signal in your home.  If you have the Plantronics BackBeat Pro BT headphones which advertises, "Stream audio from up to 330 feet* away from your smartphone or tablet", then you have BT headphones with a highly sensitive radio receiver that will give you extended range (in most cases), even with a BT Class 2 smartphone.


----------



## gixxerwimp

Just thought I'd share my aptX experience with my Samsung phones and NAD D 3020 DAC/amp. I can't hear the difference between streaming FLAC files from a Samsung S3 (aptX) to the NAD, and optical in to the NAD (ZIN-5005HD>HDMI>Sharp TV>TOSLINK) when played through B&W M1 + Velodyne Impact-Mini subwoofer. Nor can I hear the difference between the aptX and optical sources when listening to DT 1350s out of the NAD's headphone jack. The tests results are the same with my Note 3 which also has aptX support.
  
 Having the BT aptX on this amp makes it very convenient as the UI on the ZIN-5005HD isn't very friendly, and I can stream from my NAS over Wi-Fi to the phone, which then pumps it to the amp over BT. Song selection and volume control are in the palm of my hand. I just have to remember to leave the phone in the living room when I go to the bathroom, otherwise the signal drops out.


----------



## lennyr

james444 said:


> https://miccusblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/bluetooth-music-and-latency/


 

 That's great news!


----------



## unbiased

Hello fellow Bluetooth headphone enthusiasts. I've recently purchased the Sony MDR-1RBTMk2 headphones and then bought the AZIO Bluetooth 4.0 APTX USB BDT-401 dongle, all from amazon.com here in the USA.
 I also purchased the Avantree Priva aptx capable transmitter. I can say that the MDR-1RBTMK2 sounds pretty good and balanced overall both wireless aptx and wired.
  
 I just received the AZIO USB 4.0 BDT-401 APTX adapter today and installed the CSR drivers on my Samsung laptop which runs Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit OS.  I loaded the CSR software and drivers from the provided mini CD before I plugged in the USB adapter. The software install went fine without a hitch. After the software installed, I immediately rebooted the laptop to make sure all the new things get loaded properly.  Then I plugged in the USB dongle and let it detect and find and load all the CSR drivers.  After that I had a Bluetooth icon in my task tray which I then used to add devices... namely my Sony MDR-1RBTMK2 headphones and it paired successfully and the APTX logo popped up in the lower right part of the screen telling me it paired in APTX mode.  That was all great.  But when I started to play my music files whether using iTunes or Windows Media Player, the sound was just terrible. The audio quality was not even close to what it normally is using wired output or compared with my Avantree Priva aptx Bluetooth transmitter.  The sound I am getting from the AZIO adapter paired in aptx mode just sounds washed out with diminished bass and just no liveliness to it.
 So for all you that have the AZIO BDT-401 aptx adapter, don't you notice that the sound quality is not as good?  I suspect a poor quality A/D converter or poor CSR CODEC.  It just does not sound rich and full like it should.
  
 The Avantree Priva aptx Bluetooth transmitter however has excellent audio sound quality.  The AZIO Bluetooth USB adapter while working just fine in all other respects and has good signal strength trashes the audio quality and I don't enjoy listening to my headphones while paired through it.  I wonder if it is the CSR stack codec and if there is a way to change it.


----------



## turbobb

Updated my post:

Re: Azio, it might have inadvertently set your Sony as the Default Communication Device. Right-click on your speaker icon and select Playback Devices and ensure that your Sony (Bluetooth Audio Renderer) is the Default Device. I have the Azio as well as the Orico BT adapters and they both sound really good.


----------



## Giogio

I've tried both adapters, and also the Sennheiser.
They all sound the same to me, and have same range.
The Avantree should eventually sound a bit worse due to the more passages (d to a, a to d, d t bt).
But it sounded as good as the others, and if there is a difference it needs an orchestra director with super ears or an instrumental test to notice it.
I also think it may be that the Sony were set as headset and not as headphones. You can check it from playback devices in audio, control panel (at least in win7), there should be two voices for the bt audio. See which one is active.
And also in the bt icon of csr, click on the mdr and see which profile is active.


----------



## Class D

Unbiased,
  
 I think Giogio and turbobb's advice only applies if you are running Win 7.  Audio rendering does not exist in Win 8 as it does in Win 7.  Win 8.1 will load all the drivers necessary for BT 4.0 A2DP (given your PC has BT 4.0 radio hardware).  The Azio website posts some usage notes about your BDT-401 dongle, namely, *Windows 8:* Please make sure .NET 4.0 is installed prior to installing CSR Harmony software.  There is a good chance that your laptop manufacturer, Samsung, provided you with the latest .NET 4.0.  However, this is worth checking.  You may have to get the software from Microsoft's website and install it.  Nevertheless, you should uninstall/re-install the CSR software on your laptop once you have verified that you have the latest .NET 4.0 from Microsoft.  You may also have .NET 3.5 running simultaneously with .NET 4.0, this is permissible.
  
 I have a Microsoft Surface Pro 2 running Win 8.1.  In my case, after booting up, I have to go to BT "settings" and disable the Surface Pro 2's built-in BT temporarily.  I can then insert the Azio BDT-401 dongle and select the CSR version of BT from the system tray.  You can then pair and connect any of your BT A2DP sink devices using the CSR BT stack.  Only one BT sink at a time.  Verify that your Sony MDR-1RBTMk2 is the connected device.  If you have another BT sink device on, and in range, the Azio dongle may connect with it and lock out your Sony MDR-1RBTMk2.  So, be sure other BT sink devices are switched off.
  
 Once you have the CSR BT software running and you verify it works well with your BT sink devices, you can go back to Win 8 "settings" and re-enable your laptop's built-in BT radio to get back your normal BT profiles for your mouse, keyboard, printer, and etc.  Any audio A2DP from iTunes, MS Media Player, YouTube, or system sounds will play through the Azio BT dongle to your BT sink device previously selected.  This will remain so until you shutdown.  You will have to go through the tedious process above each time you re-boot.
  
 There is a good chance that your built-in Samsung BT radio is not the same as the Microsoft Surface Pro 2 built-in BT 4.0 hardware.  If so, then you'll need to seek help from Samsung Support to prevent their BT drivers from interfering with the CSR BT stack.  It's my opinion that you are getting muddled audio in your Sony MDR-1RBTMk2 because of conflicts in your BT A2DP streams.
  
 Let us know if you have any success getting your Sony MDR-1RBTMk2 to work with your Azio BDT-401 dongle and your Samsung laptop.


----------



## turbobb

I'm on XPS8700 running 8.1 64bit and the BT Audio Renderer applies here as well (might be different on laptop/tablet?). Based on the symptoms @unbiased described, it seems he has already connected successfully via aptX thus I still have a strong feeling that it incorrectly set his Sony as Default Communication Device vs. just Default Device (playback). When this happens, the poor sound quality as he described will occur (at least that's been my experience with every single BT device I've ever paired regardless of aptX or not). Hopefully he can chime in when the opportunity affords. ^_^


----------



## unbiased

turbobb said:


> Updated my post:
> 
> Re: Azio, it might have inadvertently set your Sony as the Default Communication Device. Right-click on your speaker icon and select Playback Devices and ensure that your Sony (Bluetooth Audio Renderer) is the Default Device. I have the Azio as well as the Orico BT adapters and they both sound really good.


 
  
  


giogio said:


> I've tried both adapters, and also the Sennheiser.
> They all sound the same to me, and have same range.
> The Avantree should eventually sound a bit worse due to the more passages (d to a, a to d, d t bt).
> But it sounded as good as the others, and if there is a difference it needs an orchestra director with super ears or an instrumental test to notice it.
> ...


 

 Thanks for confirmation replies, but the default setting was already set to the CSR Bluetooth Audio Renderer it seems.  But I found out why the CSR Bluetooth stack sounded thin and weak compared to playing same music files through the 3.5mm headphone jack connection. My Samsung laptop PC has the Realtek sound device drivers and software which had Dolby Digital software enhancement turned on. That really enhanced the sound out of the 3.5mm headphone jack making the sound fuller and richer almost 3 dimensional sounding.  That's why the Avantree Priva transmitter which gets its feed from the 3.5mm jack sounded way better than the AZIO CSR aptx Bluetooth connection.  When I turned off the Dolby Digital sound enhancer, then both sound about equal in quality now.  So that was the cause of the sound quality difference that I was noticing before.


----------



## Giogio

unbiased said:


> When I turned off the Dolby Digital sound enhancer, then both sound about equal in quality now.  So that was the cause of the sound quality difference that I was noticing before.


 now i wonder why you kept the azio if with the Priva you can get better sound by enabling the Dolby...

Anyway i was thinking, here James make these tests to understand the contribution of the APTX...
Maybe the best way to find out what the APTX gives is a Sony headphone like yours and the test I've just asked you to do in as another thread, to see the difference in sound between aptx and sbc modes.
No other headphone or adapter can do this.
With this test we have same source, same receiver (the headphone's chip) and same headphone, just different codec...
Now there are good and bad sbc, so the difference can be much or few, but there should be one...


----------



## unbiased

giogio said:


> now i wonder why you kept the azio if with the Priva you can get better sound by enabling the Dolby...
> 
> Anyway i was thinking, here James make these tests to understand the contribution of the APTX...
> Maybe the best way to find out what the APTX gives is a Sony headphone like yours and the test I've just asked you to do in as another thread, to see the difference in sound between aptx and sbc modes.
> ...


 

 I tested between the 2 modes (Standared and AptX) with the Sony MDR-1RBTMK2 just now connected to my AZIO Bluetooth 4.0 AptX USB adapter plugged into my Samsung high end gamer laptop and I can confirm that in AptX mode the audio sound is smoother sounding than when in regular Standard SBC codec mode.  So AptX does improve the sound.


----------



## Class D

Unbiased,
  
 Some Sony headphones actually have 3 modes of BT using various CODECs which are selectable, i. e., Priority on Sound Quality, Standard, and Priority on Stable Connection.  I have the Sony MDR10RBT Wireless Headphones with V3.0 Bluetooth and NFC.  The Help Guide on the Sony website provides the directions below to switch between the 3 CODECs.  Switching between the 3 CODECs isn't graceful, but you will definitely hear a difference in SQ.  Most people would just set the Priority on Sound Quality and leave it there.  I'm not sure if your Sony MDR-1RBTMK2 headphones have this same capability, but it would be easy to find out using the Sony instructions below.
  
  
Selecting the sound quality mode of music playback
 The sound quality is set to the “Standard” mode (SBC high quality mode) as the default setting.

 When using an AAC or aptX compatible device, select the “Priority on sound quality” mode.
 
 If the connection is unstable, such as when producing only intermittent sound, select the “Priority on stable connection” mode.
 Sound quality and the indicator (blue) of each mode When the sound quality mode is switched, the headset indicates the remaining battery capacity by flashing the indicator in red first, and then in blue to indicate the sound quality mode. You can check the current sound quality mode by the number of flashes of the indicator (blue).
  

 Mode
 Sound quality
 Number of flashes (blue)
 Priority on sound quality
 SBC (high quality), AAC or aptX selected automatically
 3 times
 Standard
 SBC (high quality)
 Twice
 Priority on stable connection
 SBC
 Once

  
 Note

 When you turn on the headset by pressing the POWER button only, the headset does not indicate the sound quality mode with flashes of the indicator (blue).
 Selecting the sound quality mode Turn on the headset by pressing the POWER button for more than 2 seconds while holding the VOLUME + or VOLUME – button down.





To select the “Priority on sound quality” mode When the headset is in the “Standard” mode, turn it on while holding the VOLUME + button down. The “Priority on sound quality” mode is selected.
 From the “Priority on stable connection” mode, turn on the headset while holding the VOLUME + button down. Turn off the headset once, then turn it on while holding the VOLUME + button down again.
To select the “Priority on stable connection” mode When the headset is in the “Standard” mode, turn it on while holding the VOLUME – button down. The “Priority on stable connection” mode is selected.
 From the “Priority on sound quality” mode, turn on the headset while holding the VOLUME – button down. Turn off the headset once, then turn it on while holding the VOLUME – button down again.
 Notes

 The playback time may become shorter, depending on the sound quality and the conditions under which you are using the headset.
 
 Depending on the ambient conditions in the area where you are using the headset, intermittent sound may still occur, even if the “Priority on stable connection” mode is selected.


----------



## unbiased

class d said:


> Unbiased,
> 
> Some Sony headphones actually have 3 modes of BT using various CODECs which are selectable, i. e., Priority on Sound Quality, Standard, and Priority on Stable Connection.  I have the Sony MDR10RBT Wireless Headphones with V3.0 Bluetooth and NFC.  The Help Guide on the Sony website provides the directions below to switch between the 3 CODECs.  Switching between the 3 CODECs isn't graceful, but you will definitely hear a difference in SQ.  Most people would just set the Priority on Sound Quality and leave it there.  I'm not sure if your Sony MDR-1RBTMK2 headphones have this same capability, but it would be easy to find out using the Sony instructions below.
> 
> ...


 

 Hello Class D, yes I am aware of all the settings modes and yes the Sony MDR1RBTMK2 is exactly the same as your MDR10RBT setup.  I also just received my other pair of Sony MDRXB950BT today (from Japan) and they are configured exactly the same way using the power on/off button and the Volume Up/Down button presses sequences.  I always leave mine in High Quality Priority (AptX) mode.


----------



## josephkarthic

Hello,
  
 I'm also having the Sony MDR-1RBT MK2 and I usually listen to it via a non-aptx mobile phone (Xperia L) , Do you really see a huge difference between aptx and non aptx connection?
  
 Especially the *low bass*? Because I dont get much power(volume) on the low frequencies as much as I get when its wired. How is the low bass when both devices are on aptx compared to wired? 
  
 Could you please test this bass song ( Decaf - White Clouds) on an aptx *device* and a non aptx *device *and post your thoughts? 
  
 It would really help me if someone tests this because I will buy an aptx enabled mobile if the bass power is same as wired connection. thanks..


----------



## Class D

josephkarthic,
  
 As _unbiased_ has the Sony MDR-1RBT headphones and the capability of turning Aptx on/off from his BT source, he can provide you with the best analysis.
  
 Let me say that a wired connection to your source device will always outperform a wireless BT connection in almost all technical areas.  However, the Aptx codec comes very close to the lossless audio quality of a wire.  It also has excellent latency for a codec.  This is important when watching movies on your BT source.
  
 If you have a PC, then you can test the frequency response of the Aptx codec with a USB BT dongle having the Aptx BT stack.  There are several available for around $10 USD.  If you have an Apple PC, then you may already have Aptx built-in to your internal BT radio.
  
 I listened to Decaf - White Clouds on YouTube from my PC with the Azio  BTD-V401 USB BT dongle using the Aptx codec with my Motorola Buds.  The piano sound was excellent and the bass was powerful with no distortion.  It sounded like a 100 Hz to 150 Hz tone.  Personally, I think that frequency is way too low to add anything to the piano music.  My ears didn't bleed, but I'm sure that listening to that tone using Aptx for a couple of minutes would have given me a headache.  There are a few rap songs that use bass tones very effectively and are easy on your ears.  One such song can be found here on YouTube =>
  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sut_q4PhqMA
  
Although the instrumentals may be easy on your ears, the lyrics may make your ears cringe away.  Nevertheless, the bass frequencies have very good "punch" to them.  If you have a 500 Watt sub-woofer connected with the Aptx BT codec to your smartphone playing the YouTube song above, then I'm confident your neighbors down the street will hear the bass tones, even if they can't hear the unsavory lyrics.  
  
 If you want to test the sound quality and latency of Aptx, then get the movie _Step-up 4 Revolution.  _There is plenty of punchy bass tones throughout the movie with the final song in the movie being the best.  You will also note that the Aptx codec provides very low latency for very good lip-synch, including YouTube videos that you watch on your phone.


----------



## unbiased

josephkarthic said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm also having the Sony MDR-1RBT MK2 and I usually listen to it via a non-aptx mobile phone (Xperia L) , Do you really see a huge difference between aptx and non aptx connection?
> 
> ...


 

 As far as I have experienced with my MDR-1RBTMK2 AptX connection sounds smoother than non-AptX connections. I don't think it will make a difference in the amount of bass response you hear with AptX vs SBC connection. When I first got the headphones I thought I heard more of a mid-bass hump when listening wired vs Bluetooth AptX connected.  But I will say the sound is pretty darn close to straight wired connection when listening in AptX mode.  They are pretty neutral balanced headphones and sound very good to excellent on most any music genre I play through them. But if you are looking for fun headphone listening with lots of bass, I recommend the Sony MDR-XB950BT headphones.  They sound really smooth and fantastic with deep powerful bass emphasis. Some folks say the bass is too loose and uncontrolled, but I don't think it is.  It is just the powerful boost at a certain bass frequency range that sometimes makes it sound boomy.  Most of the time though I enjoy listening to this headphone over my 1RBTMK2 because it is so mellow sounding and fun. I use it mostly with the bass boost set to off though as the bass boost is way too much for most music I listen to (which is varied to all genre's of music from jazz to lounge to rock to oldies to techno, house, trance, bass, classical, etc.).
 For Bluetooth headphones, I think Sony did good on both of these headphones.  BTW, after I bought my 1st brand new pair of the XB950BT from an ebay seller in Japan for $135 and decided I liked them, I took a chance to buy two more Refurbished  for real cheap on and extra 10% off sale for cost of $76.10 each by another USA ebay seller called secondipity. They normally sell them for about $84.99. I got the two and they are like brand new! So happy about that. I took the chance on them because the seller ad said you can return them and they pay for return shipping too! So I jumped on it. Glad I did, I just looked at the ebay site and they took away the 10% off sale now.  Oh well it still a good deal at $84.99.  And free shipping to boot! Plus this seller ships fast and UPS delivered it to me from Texas to NY in 3 days!  Anyway, this is just fyi.  The MDR-1RBTMK2 is a great set of Bluetooth headphones but it is a bit expensive and only from Japan when amazon.com prime does not offer it.  I got mine when amazon.com Prime had it on sale. I am satisfied with both these model of Sony headphones for Bluetooth wireless listening.


----------



## cityle

HI,
  
 I'm looking to buy a bluetooth audio streaming receiver with the best quality of muisc for not too much money. It's for my K553 which are my on-the-go, replacing the MDR-10RBT which I don't like the sound very much but was loving having it bluetooth. So which ones below is the best option?

MOCREO long name thingy
QCY QY3
Sony SBH20B
 Elecom PAR500
  
 Thanks


----------



## cityle

Double post sorry


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> HI,
> 
> I'm looking to buy a bluetooth audio streaming receiver with the best quality of muisc for not too much money. It's for my K553 which are my on-the-go


 
 Why don't you buy the AKG K845BT?


----------



## cityle

Oups I didn't know about them. I bought the K553 because they were on Massdrop. But I think I will still mod the K553 because they have a better sound than the K550 (and the K845 thus) but it's sure they are interesting. Well I don't know at the end, because making the K553 wireless will cost around 80 bucks at the end, so it's worth it? Uguu... for one time I thought I make the right purchase, always something coming up afterward.


----------



## cityle

But the K845 do not have aptx also, so I think it will be better for the sound to buy a receiver... and will give me the ability to upgrade the receiver also. So ya, I think I will continue this way, so any recommendation for the BT receiver? (I'm thinking I will grab the QCY QY3)


----------



## Giogio

josephkarthic said:


> It would really help me if someone tests this because I will buy an aptx enabled mobile if the bass power is same as wired connection. thanks..


 

 I am having very serious problem understanding WHY exactly did you post this question in each single thread all over the internet and not in the mk2 thread.
  
 Anyway the question is pointless. You know very well that you will never be satisfied till you will get an aptx enabled phone.
 You have it inside, this feeling. And if somebody will tell you "they sound perfect without aptx" you will keep asking till 2 people tell you "they sound better with aptx".
 Just sell the L and buy a Z1 or 2 or 3.
  
 But if it is bass you want, specially THAT kinf of bass in that Decaf thing, you only have 5 options:
 1) Fidelio M2BT or M1BT
 2) UE9000
 3) Plantronics Backbeat Pro
 4) B&O BeoPlay H8
 5) ATH-WS99BT (this one will give you the most impactful bass and the very best overall sound, but you need to EQ the bass to make it shine. The other headphones in this list have a more boosted bass out of the box, so they sound more bassy without EQ, but are more limited in the hardware finally, so that when you EQ them they do not reach the level which the ATH can reach).
  
 Now stop spamming and buy a new headphone and a new phone.


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> But the K845 do not have aptx also, so I think it will be better for the sound to buy a receiver... and will give me the ability to upgrade the receiver also. So ya, I think I will continue this way, so any recommendation for the BT receiver? (I'm thinking I will grab the QCY QY3)


 

 you are right.
 Is the cable detachable?


----------



## cityle

No, AKG still had not made them detachable, maybe a K554 version later, so I have to mod them.


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> No, AKG still had not made them detachable, maybe a K554 version later, so I have to mod them.


 

 I ask that because if they had detachable cable (or if you are modding them so that they have detachable cable) then you may want to buy something like the btunes.
 I only have tried one receiver for wired headphones with not detachable cable, the Avantree Clipper.
 The quality of sound of the adapter is excellent, I am trying it now with my Sennheiser PX200ii and the adapter make them sound better than wired (wired they have too much bass and low mids, the adapter balances them).
 It is nice, little, and with a clip.
 I would suggest you to compare 2 or three receiver yourself. If you will do that, give the Clipper a try, Avantree is a really nice Company. The only one which I am aware of, together with Pendulumic, with such an high grade of passion and dedication and very good Customer Care.


----------



## cityle

The Avantree Clipper looks very interesting and much more trustworthy than the other options. I will definitely grab one. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## james444

josephkarthic said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm also having the Sony MDR-1RBT MK2 and I usually listen to it via a non-aptx mobile phone (Xperia L) , Do you really see a huge difference between aptx and non aptx connection?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I haven't heard the Sony MDR-1RBT MK2, but imo that's first and foremost not a question of aptX vs. non-aptX, but a question of using the inbuilt amplifier (wireless) vs. using your DAP's amplifier (wired).
  
 Inbuilt amplifiers in wireless phones are often less powerful than those in DAPs (to keep the battery small and save weight), so that's probably what you're hearing.


----------



## josephkarthic

giogio said:


> I am having very serious problem understanding WHY exactly did you post this question in each single thread all over the internet and not in the mk2 thread.
> 
> Anyway the question is pointless. You know very well that you will never be satisfied till you will get an aptx enabled phone.
> You have it inside, this feeling. And if somebody will tell you "they sound perfect without aptx" you will keep asking till 2 people tell you "they sound better with aptx".
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for your reply, First of all I'm from India and I dont have so many options here like western countries, everything here is expensive or not available, I bought the Sony MK2 for 320 USD from *ebay.com* including import tax and everything, where as the original price is 220$ ..
  
 Since it doesnt sound better without aptx I just want to confirm with as many people as possible before I make another wrong decision like I did with MK2. I should have spoken to you first  So right now I need to buy an aptx mobile and see if it sounds better, if its still the same then I need to buy the Fidelio M2BT which is the only headphone selling here in my sh**ty country for 170$ out of the 5 you listed..
  
 I dont want to pay extra hundreds of dollars to customs here for the imported products, I really like WS99BT but I hope the philips will be as good as that..But thanks for listing out the best BT headphones for me..Sorry if you felt I'm spamming..


----------



## Giogio

josephkarthic said:


> Thanks for your reply, First of all I'm from India and I dont have so many options here like western countries, everything here is expensive or not available, I bought the Sony MK2 for 320 USD from *ebay.com* including import tax and everything, where as the original price is 220$ ..
> 
> Since it doesnt sound better without aptx I just want to confirm with as many people as possible before I make another wrong decision like I did with MK2. I should have spoken to you first  So right now I need to buy an aptx mobile and see if it sounds better, if its still the same then I need to buy the Fidelio M2BT which is the only headphone selling here in my sh**ty country for 170$ out of the 5 you listed..
> 
> I dont want to pay extra hundreds of dollars to customs here for the imported products, I really like WS99BT but I hope the philips will be as good as that..But thanks for listing out the best BT headphones for me..Sorry if you felt I'm spamming..


 

 No, you should have not written to me first, you should have written in the MK2 thread (where, as said, I see that you have written in the past, so you know it).
 One single post there would get you more answer than all your posts all over the internet. Why? Because it is full of people who own the mk2.
  
 But you probably bought the wrong headphone since the beginning.
 I did not try it (it is not India, the Mk2 are not distributed in USA either, or in EU. We all must buy them at that price, and pay import taxes). But it is not famous for being a bassy headphone.
 Things like those Defc stuff (which, btw, thanks, I have downloaded all 36 zip files. It is not my kind of music, too much "you ******" and that kind of low level stuff, but the bass is nice. I still prefer Dubstep though).
 If you can send them back and get a refund, do it before it is too late, and buy the Fidelio and an Aptx phone. You may get both for the price you`ve paid for the MK2 alone.
 But if you cannot send them back, well, if you can live with this bass, then do not buy the aptx phone before that somebody confirms if it would improve the bass or not.
 But if you are determined to change headphone in case the bass cannot be improved, then, do it. Buy the phone, see by yourself what does it change, and if nothing changes buy the fidelio.
  
 But before you do all this, did you set the MK2 in High Quality mode by pressing the Vol+ and the Power On buttions together at startup?
 And, did you use the effects of your phone and the EQ of your player?
 In the Xperia you have a reverb setting, called studio, room, hall, etc. Set it on Studio. Then you have the Clear Bass thing. Set it on 6. Then you have the general EQ, above the Clear Bass. If the MK2 are muddy as I think they are, you could set the 400hz on -3db, the 1000 on -2, the 2500 on -1. The 6000 and 16000 you decide.
 Then, download Neutron and Poweramp and play with their EQ to get the best sound. Neutron has got a richer sound and a more powerful EQ, but also a more difficult to use.
 Poweramp is better for beginners. You can boost the bass from 40 to 80hz of 6db and from 10 to 40 and from 80 to 120 of 3bd.
  
 Cheers


----------



## josephkarthic

giogio said:


> No, you should have not written to me first, you should have written in the MK2 thread (where, as said, I see that you have written in the past, so you know it).
> One single post there would get you more answer than all your posts all over the internet. Why? Because it is full of people who own the mk2.
> 
> But you probably bought the wrong headphone since the beginning.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the reply, Yes I initially decided without much investigation to go for Sony MK2 on few google searches like "best bluetooth headphones" etc..What I meant is I should have posted in this bluetooth forum on my specification, MK2 is clearly not for me, I mentioned Decaf just for reference. 
  
 Anyways past is past and I cant get a refund on them as its too late,I have decided to give it as a gift to my uncle..
  
 I have tweaked it with every possible way like Viper4Android(plenty of features), neutron, poweramp, Sony walkman app equalizers, The sound clarity and comfort is good but no bass, not low enough..Im planning between WS99BT and M2BT, I wrote a PM when I got this post, please check it..thanks.


----------



## fnkcow

Are BT receivers essentially wireless amps or wireless DAC/amps? 


 


If they are wireless DAC/amps does it mean that the phone/transmitter is just a transport and doesnt matter if they sound good or bad originally as long as the BT connection is good like aptX and the BT receivers have good hardware?


 


 




Spoiler: Quote: Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post






> I think I have this discussion (somewhat) with James before. My thought is that the majority of the 'evil' in BT isn't inherently SBC (or any lossy codec for that matter), but more on poor implementation by various manufacturers. A lot of the older BT devices sound bad because either they uses low bitrate SBC (many are just 128kbps, 96kbps or even lower), having poor earpiece or poor amp section after the DAC (and sometime they didn't even have a dedicated amp section). Some of the newer BT headset still suffer from these problem because traditionally no one really care that much about the SQ over BT. Samsung, for example, pairs their good sounding HS3000 (with apt-X) with one of the worst sounding earpiece they have (EHS44). If they would have bother to use EHS64 instead, they would have a winning combo there. If I were in charge, I would have fire the guy who made the decision on HS3000+EHS44.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## StanD

fnkcow said:


> Are BT receivers essentially wireless amps or wireless DAC/amps?
> If they are wireless DAC/amps does it mean that the phone/transmitter is just a transport and doesnt matter if they sound good or bad originally as long as the BT connection is good like aptX and the BT receivers have good hardware?


 
 Some BT receivers have analog line outs, optical or coax SPDIF or any combination of the three but lack an amp. These are for connecting to external amps/stereos. I have one with apt-x that I connect to a headphone amp. Most of the small ones that have an integrated headphone amp that I tried were dissapointing as the amp was too weak for my headphones.
 But yes such devices just as a BT headphone would require an internal DAC and Amp if it is to drive a headphone.


----------



## fnkcow

Oops my bad
 I meant specifically:
  
 Are BT headsets with 3.5mm Headphone-Out essentially wireless amps or wireless DAC/amps? 
  
 If they are wireless DAC/amps does it mean that the phone/transmitter is just a transport and doesnt matter if they sound good or bad originally as long as the BT connection is good like aptX and the BT receivers have good hardware?
  
 Examples of the BT headsets:


james444 said:


> LG BTS1 - highly recommended
> 
> ​
> Elecom PAR500 - highly recommended (with reservation)
> ...


----------



## StanD

fnkcow said:


> Oops my bad
> I meant specifically:
> 
> Are BT headsets with 3.5mm Headphone-Out essentially wireless amps or wireless DAC/amps?
> ...


 
 Yes they are wireless DAC/Amps. Some have playback controls, nice and convenient. Some have microphones you you can answer calls from your phone.
 I wouldn't quite call these examples you gave as BT Headsets, they are not one piece integrated products.


----------



## fnkcow

stand said:


> Yes they are wireless DAC/Amps. Some have playback controls, nice and convenient. Some have microphones you you can answer calls from your phone.
> I wouldn't quite call these examples you gave as BT Headsets, they are not one piece integrated products.


 
  
 Yes I agree they shouldn't be called as BT headsets since they are not the one-piece like gaming headsets, that's why I was confused and called them as BT receivers in my initial post
  
 Strangely they are named as BT Headsets by their own companies:
 http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consumer/mobile/mobile-phones/accessories/BHS3000UMECWDT?subsubtype=bluetooth-headset
 http://www.aptx.com/product/lg-bts1-bluetoothr-stereo-headset
 Maybe it's because they came with their own earphones along with the receiver with mic


----------



## cityle

giogio said:


> I only have tried one receiver for wired headphones with not detachable cable, the Avantree Clipper.
> The quality of sound of the adapter is excellent, I am trying it now with my Sennheiser PX200ii and the adapter make them sound better than wired (wired they have too much bass and low mids, the adapter balances them).
> It is nice, little, and with a clip.


 
 Do you have a hiss sound with them when their is no music? Are we doom to have this white noise with any BT receiver?


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> Do you have a hiss sound with them when their is no music? Are we doom to have this white noise with any BT receiver?


 
 Zero Hiss. Not even the lesser. It is really an excellent product. I plug the headphones into the receiver, unplug them, and there is no difference. At first I thought it was broken 
 I play music, pause it, and zero hiss (most bt headphones turn the amp off after a few seconds without sound, and if there was a little hiss you can notice the difference).


----------



## cityle

giogio said:


> Zero Hiss. Not even the lesser. It is really an excellent product. I plug the headphones into the receiver, unplug them, and there is no difference. At first I thought it was broken
> I play music, pause it, and zero hiss (most bt headphones turn the amp off after a few seconds without sound, and if there was a little hiss you can notice the difference).


 

 Lucky you. There was definitely a hiss on my unit when I stop the song which last for 2-3 sec (and seemed to have also a faint white noise while playing songs). It annoyed me enough that I resend it to amazon for a refund and grab instead a AT-PHA50BT (it was at 89$ CDN so definitevely a good price for them)


----------



## StanD

cityle said:


> Lucky you. There was definitely a hiss on my unit when I stop the song which last for 2-3 sec (and seemed to have also a faint white noise while playing songs). It annoyed me enough that I resend it to amazon for a refund and grab instead a AT-PHA50BT (it was at 89$ CDN so definitevely a good price for them)


 
 That AT-PHA50BT outputs only 50 mW per channel at 16 Ohms so don't expect it to be able to drive many headphones. I'd keep it to sensitive IEMs. I checked the Japanese website, I can't understand Japanese but did see an apt-x logo.


----------



## cityle

stand said:


> That AT-PHA50BT outputs only 50 mW per channel at 16 Ohms so don't expect it to be able to drive many headphones. I'd keep it to sensitive IEMs. I checked the Japanese website, I can't understand Japanese but did see an apt-x logo.


 
 I will use it with my K553, so it will not have so much trouble to run these cans.


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> Lucky you. There was definitely a hiss on my unit when I stop the song which last for 2-3 sec (and seemed to have also a faint white noise while playing songs).


 are you talking of the Avantree clipper?


----------



## cityle

Yup, I'm speaking of the Avantree Clipper.


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> Yup, I'm speaking of the Avantree Clipper.


 

 You may have got a defective unit, or it may depends on what StanD said, maybe depending on which headphones is being used the Apm behaves differently, maybe it "overcharges"???
@StanD, can you explain that better? How do the mW and how the ohm values influence the performance? Can you make examples?


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> You may have got a defective unit, or it may depends on what StanD said, maybe depending on which headphones is being used the Apm behaves differently, maybe it "overcharges"???
> @StanD, can you explain that better? How do the mW and how the ohm values influence the performance? Can you make examples?


 
 The Amp's mW and headphone's sensitivty determines how loud your headphones can get, consider that against one's average listening volume one can deterimine how much headroom they have. The headhone or IEM's sensitivity determines how the ambient noise level of your amp plays into what you can hear. The mroe sensitive, the more apparent the background noise of the amp becomes. So for 50mW to play loudly one needs sensitive headphones/IEMs. but that makes the amp's noise more apparent.


----------



## Giogio

stand said:


> The Amp's mW and headphone's sensitivty determines how loud your headphones can get, consider that against one's average listening volume one can deterimine how much headroom they have. The headhone or IEM's sensitivity determines how the ambient noise level of your amp plays into what you can hear. The mroe sensitive, the more apparent the background noise of the amp becomes. So for 50mW to play loudly one needs sensitive headphones/IEMs. but that makes the amp's noise more apparent.


 

 So the best would be powerful amp and insensitive headphones?
 What is insensitive, a bigger or a lower value of ohm? As far as I know, it should be a bigger. I had the AKG K240 Monitor (mk1) 600ohm. The most cold insensitive headphones ever made, probably.


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> So the best would be powerful amp and insensitive headphones?
> What is insensitive, a bigger or a lower value of ohm? As far as I know, it should be a bigger. I had the AKG K240 Monitor (mk1) 600ohm. The most cold insensitive headphones ever made, probably.


 
 Sensitivity is not impedance.It is either given in dbSPL/mW or dbSPL at 1V RMS. An amp doesn't have to be powerful, just enough for the headphones you like and should have low noise. IMO for most mainstream headphones 50 mW/channel isn't going to do a great job.
 For example: My HE-500's are not sensitive and do well at 1W RMS, they are 38 Ohms and their sensitivity 89  dbSPL at 1 mW which reaches 119 dbSPL at 1W RMS, which is good headroom.
 Higher impedance headphones require a greater voltage swing to reach power levels, Ohms law. So a 300 Ohm or 600 Ohms headphone has additional demands that many low powered small portable amps have great difficulty with.
 Another example: My HD600's are 97 dBSPL at 1V RMS, they are 300 Ohms so their sensitivity is 102.2 dbSPL at 1V RMS. It takes 158.5 mW RMS to reach the same 119 dBSPL. Although it requires less power it requires about 6.9 V RMS to reach 158.5mW, yet the HE-500 reaches 1W with only 6.2 V RMS. That's because of the impedance difference and Ohms law. Amps amplify voltage and supply current to meet that voltage, if it cannot do either it clips (distorts).
 A SS amp that can only deliver 50 mW at low impedances is very unlikely to do well at higher impedances.


----------



## Giogio

I've always read that low impedance means you can use it with any device without need of an extra amp.
So, being newbie with these things i cannot really follow you.
If it is the sensitivity to determine how well they sound with a less powerful device, then what's the impedance for?
What's to be considered a good sensitivity for use with bt?


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> I've always read that low impedance means you can use it with any device without need of an extra amp.
> So, being newbie with these things i cannot really follow you.
> If it is the sensitivity to determine how well they sound with a less powerful device, then what's the impedance for?
> What's to be considered a good sensitivity for use with bt?


 
 Sensitivity determines how much voltage or power is required to drive the headphones to a particular loudness. Impedance determines the amount of current they will draw. A pure bluetooth headphone has everything built in, done correctly you are good to go, otherwise you have a turkey. When using a bluetooth adapter with an external headphone then all of this technical mumbo jumbo is important because the adapter must be able to drive your headphones and do so properly.


----------



## Giogio

stand said:


> Sensitivity determines how much voltage or power is required to drive the headphones to a particular loudness. Impedance determines the amount of current they will draw. A pure bluetooth headphone has everything built in, done correctly you are good to go, otherwise you have a turkey. When using a bluetooth adapter with an external headphone then all of this technical mumbo jumbo is important because the adapter must be able to drive your headphones and do so properly.


 

 Very very interesting point...
 So, the impedance is like the resistance?
 Something like this?

  
  
 For other electrical stuff I knew that it was the ampere to determine how much power does a device suck.
 Not to abuse of you but, as I am sick in bed with nothing else to do but I have no energy to read tons of google results instead of two lines of you, could you also explain how the impedance relates to the amperes? Please?


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> Very very interesting point...
> So, the impedance is like the resistance?
> Something like this?
> 
> ...


 
 Impedance is the resistance at AC, not DC. It can vary with frequency. In simple terms, Impedance relates to Current (amperes) by Ohms law, just use the impedance value in place of resistance. Wnen a headphone has a flat impedance curve, like a planar, then it's very simple.
 Get better.


----------



## Giogio

Thanks. It's just a cold, but the throat is in fire. I take a local analgesic which made also my tongue sleep. I speak like Sylvester Cat right now.
  
 So, I still did not understand how can the impedance be related to AC and not to DC if the Headphones work with DC.
 Am I missing something?


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> Thanks. It's just a cold, but the throat is in fire. I take a local analgesic which made also my tongue sleep. I speak like Sylvester Cat right now.
> 
> So, I still did not understand how can the impedance be related to AC and not to DC if the Headphones work with DC.
> Am I missing something?


 
 Audio is an AC signal, not DC. DC is not good to put through a headphone as it displaces the diaphragm to a fixed offset position and can even damage it if the voltage is high enough.
 Impedance is the resistance of a component at AC frequencies. Idealy a capacitor is an open circuit for DC, or infinite resistance at DC. It is a reactive component and exhibits an impedance that varies with frequency. The higher the frequency the lower the impedance (AC resistance).


----------



## Giogio

And when choosing the right receiver, must it deliver exactly that the headphones specs are? Or more?
 The problem is, many receivers do not report those kind of specs.


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> And when choosing the right receiver, must it deliver exactly that the headphones specs are? Or more?
> The problem is, many receivers do not report those kind of specs.


 
 Most receievers are light on power and driving voltage. Driving voltage is more importantfor high impedance headphones. I suspect that most are designed with reasonably sensitive IEMs in mind. I avoid audio products that have no specs.
 Extra power above headroom is not used so not necessary. Since these receivers tend to be light on power I'd be more concerned about having enough power rather than having too much.


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> I will use it with my K553, so it will not have so much trouble to run these cans.


 
 And the K553 are also the ones which gave you hiss with the Clipper?
 So, you have no hiss with the AT?
 Of course, not a fair comparison though 
  
 btw: as I wrote in my thread, the AKG K845BT ARE APTX.
 I just had the confirmation from their support.
 WHich, per se, would mean nothing to me, considering that (no offense meant) for what I see their Customer Care is a low level, low prepared, probably low paid call center based somewhere in Bosnia or similar places where people have surnames which end in isovic or ievik.
 And Beats Support keep saying people that the Studio Wireless support Aptx, while they clearly DO NOT.
  
 But in this case, I believe these guys, because the reason why i asked them is that I am (re)testing the K845 and I get the "connected with Aptx device" notification on both my pc and my phone. This can NOT happen, with a non aptx headphone.
 They told me "we forgot to write it in the documentation, I have just informed the right department so that this information will be updated".


----------



## Giogio

stand said:


> The Amp's mW and headphone's sensitivty determines how loud your headphones can get, consider that against one's average listening volume one can deterimine how much headroom they have. The headhone or IEM's sensitivity determines how the ambient noise level of your amp plays into what you can hear. The mroe sensitive, the more apparent the background noise of the amp becomes. So for 50mW to play loudly one needs sensitive headphones/IEMs. but that makes the amp's noise more apparent.


 

 I have been thinking again to this fact also because of the conversation in my thread, where I have just named you.
 So, to understand all well, I take the example of the K553.
 I read the have:
 Sensitivity: 114 dB SPL/V
 Max. Input Power: 200 mW
 Rated Impedance: 32 Ohms
  
 So, how do we read these values? And what should we read on the specs of a BT receiver in order to chose the right one?
 I am re-reading your answers, but you use terms I do not know.
 Like when you say "they are 38 Ohms and their sensitivity 89  dbSPL at 1 mW which reaches 119 dbSPL at 1W RMS, which is good headroom" which is like hyerogliphics to me.
 I have tried to document myself with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square and with http://blog.prosig.com/2008/04/14/what-is-db-noise-floor-dynamic-range/ but they have the tendency to explain things like for who already knows them. So that, who does not know them, will never understand them.
 Specially wiki, 2km of bla bla and they never explained what this rms really is, practically, in the daily life, for example, in your sentence above.
 I have understood that "headroom" is the space between the max which the headphone can take without clipping and the max it can take without being damaged, or something like that.
 But I am not sure of how I should use this in the practical way.
 I understand that 1 mW is one micro Watt, and 1W is one Watt, but, what is 1 W RMS???
  
 Now, Sensitivity, ok, 114 decibel sound pressur level. this /v means? On the second link I read "dBV Voltage measurement relative to 1V – regardless of impedance."
 Cool. I have no idea of what that should mean.
  
 Max imput power. What do they mean with max? That a higher one would kill the headphone? Or that it is just useless? Anyway, 200mW, so, we need a 100mW channel amp, right?
  
 Impedence 32 Ohms. Ok, normal. Besides, if the Impedence is not important because the only important thing is the power of the amp, why do they even bother writing about the impedence.
 What is the difference between two headphones, both with max imput power 200mW, but one 32 and one 600ohm?
 Or should BoTh values be matched?
 I mean, should we choose an amp which says 100mW channel und 16ohm channel?
 Some of your answers confused me because you said the impedence is not important of whatever.


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> I have been thinking again to this fact also because of the conversation in my thread, where I have just named you.
> So, to understand all well, I take the example of the K553.
> I read the have:
> Sensitivity: 114 dB SPL/V
> ...


 
 There's a lot to be confused about if you haven't worked with this stuff, so don't take it to heart. TO correct one thing you just wrote 1 mW is not 1 micro Watt, it is a milli-Watt or 1 X 10-3 Watts.
 Impedance is important, more so for high impedance headphones because an amp has to have a larger voltage swing to accomodate this. Also if the impedance of the headphones is too low then the amp may not be able to drive the headphone well as to provide electrical damping. A rule of thumb is that the amp should have an output impedance at least 1/8 or lower of the headphone's impedance. This ratio is less important for Magnetic Planar headphones.
 If they don't spec that max is 200 mW per channel or in total, you can't be sure, but I believe it is usually spec'd as per channel.
 Now 114 dBSPL at 1V is pretty sensitive. At 32 Ohms impedance this is 99 dbSPL/mW. So 15 mW should ring in at almost 111 dBSPL and 20 mW just over 112 dBSPL.  125 mW should take you just over 120 dBSPL which many consider to be the threshold of pain and sufficient headroom for most listeners. 200 mw should take you to just over 122 dbSPL. Notice that this is not linear. It takes 10 Db to double the loudness and 8 times the power only brings you to 9 dB, not quite doubling the loudness. I hope I haven't added to the confusion.


----------



## cityle

giogio said:


> And the K553 are also the ones which gave you hiss with the Clipper?
> So, you have no hiss with the AT?
> Of course, not a fair comparison though
> 
> ...


 

 Yes, the hisses were with the K553 and the Clipper. Don't know with the AT though because I still don't have them. (the first deal was a fake one, got a refund but I wait a little before buying again). And too late for the AKG K845BT as I already modded my K553 and hopefully will get a good bt receiver.


----------



## Giogio

cityle said:


> Yes, the hisses were with the K553 and the Clipper. Don't know with the AT though because I still don't have them. (the first deal was a fake one, got a refund but I wait a little before buying again). And too late for the AKG K845BT as I already modded my K553 and hopefully will get a good bt receiver.


 

 Why modded? Modded how? Why do you need to mod them if you just have to plug them into the receiver?
 Anyway, you could write to Avantree, they are really incredible in this, really open and craving for these feedbacks, I am totally impressed by their attitude, never seen anything like that before.
 Tell them about the problem you had with the Clipper, tell them about your needs of a good, powerful receiver with a good quality dac and enough power to drive that kind of headphone.
  
 I gave them an idea which I think could be extremely cool.
 Let me explain it and tell me what do you think: you know the clipper, ok? A thing with a 3.5 hole, for headphones with a fixed (not detachable) wire.
 Then you may know the kickstarter project btunes, a thing with a 3.5 jack which you plug into the hole of a headphones with detachable cable. It also comes in 2.5 version. If you have many headphones, some 2.5, some 3.5, you need to buy two of this thing.
 Now, imagine comething which is smaller and sexier than both these, with a form and dimensions and look which people would not feel like idiot plugging it in their headphones (I really do not like the btunes), with a good dac, and enough power for reasonably normal dimensions headphones, like yours.
 It would be, basically, a better Clipper actually, with these improved quality/dimensionss/form/look. Something with a 3.5 hole, but with two male to male adapters, 3.5/3.5, and 3.5/2.5
 This way you could use it to plug your wired headphone IN it, or plug it IN your (de)wired headphone, 3.5 or 2.5
 It would be also Low Latency Aptx, so that you can play games or watch videos with your headphones.
 So, there is already this btunes, yes, and the miccus is similar and it is low latency. But this would be the only one able to do all this.
  
 They are thinking about it.
 If you like the idea and you want to see it done, write them 
 You can name me.
  
 In any case, even just telling them of your experience with the clipper would help them improving it.


----------



## Giogio

stand said:


> There's a lot to be confused about if you haven't worked with this stuff, so don't take it to heart. TO correct one thing you just wrote 1 mW is not 1 micro Watt, it is a milli-Watt or 1 X 10-3 Watts.
> Impedance is important, more so for high impedance headphones because an amp has to have a larger voltage swing to accomodate this. Also if the impedance of the headphones is too low then the amp may not be able to drive the headphone well as to provide electrical damping. A rule of thumb is that the amp should have an output impedance at least 1/8 or lower of the headphone's impedance. This ratio is less important for Magnetic Planar headphones.
> If they don't spec that max is 200 mW per channel or in total, you can't be sure, but I believe it is usually spec'd as per channel.
> Now 114 dBSPL at 1V is pretty sensitive. At 32 Ohms impedance this is 99 dbSPL/mW. So 15 mW should ring in at almost 111 dBSPL and 20 mW just over 112 dBSPL.  125 mW should take you just over 120 dBSPL which many consider to be the threshold of pain and sufficient headroom for most listeners. 200 mw should take you to just over 122 dbSPL. Notice that this is not linear. It takes 10 Db to double the loudness and 8 times the power only brings you to 9 dB, not quite doubling the loudness. I hope I haven't added to the confusion.


 
 Let's say that I do not give up.
 For sure, you're better than wiki 
 I will number my questions so you can answer them easily.
 So, I understood that dbsplW is dbsplmW + 30.
 But,
 1) how you go from 114 dbsplV to 99 mW?
 I understood that 8 times the power is +9db, but,
 2) is this proportional? is 4 times the power +4.5db?
 "It takes 10 Db to double the loudness" I did not understand this.
 3) You mean that 120db is perceived as twice as loud as 110???
 But more importantly I did not understand why you did all these calculations. It looked like if you were choosin your options, trying to customize the desired final desired loudness, and chosing the power of the receiver according to how loud you want the final result to be.
 Which is cool, but I had understood that we were somehow limited in our choise at first by the fact of the hiss and headroom and noise floor and that we HAD TO choose an amp with AT LEAST as much output power as the max imput power of the headphone. so, in this case 200 or 2x200 in case that the specs are referring to one channel only (I do not think so anway).
 4) or not?
 Btw
 5) what do they mean with max imput power? I was expecting max out power and/or min imput power, not max imput power...
 What would then be a min imput power?
 6) so, the amp must match the impedance of the headphone, right? how? </= or >/=? I mean, must the amp have "same or inferiot to" impendance than the headphone, or "same or superior"?
 Or do amp have no impedence? It is still not clear to me how shoule I use the impedence value of the headphone when choosing the right receiver.
  
 I would have another question but I think you may answer it with these six. If not, I ask it later


----------



## cityle

giogio said:


> Why modded? Modded how? Why do you need to mod them if you just have to plug them into the receiver?
> Anyway, you could write to Avantree, they are really incredible in this, really open and craving for these feedbacks, I am totally impressed by their attitude, never seen anything like that before.
> Tell them about the problem you had with the Clipper, tell them about your needs of a good, powerful receiver with a good quality dac and enough power to drive that kind of headphone.
> 
> ...


 

 I've done a detachable cable mod. They are so much agreeable to use now ^^ But I returned the Clipper long time ago to amazon for refund and lazy to write to them.


----------



## StanD

giogio said:


> Let's say that I do not give up.
> For sure, you're better than wiki
> I will number my questions so you can answer them easily.
> So, I understood that dbsplW is dbsplmW + 30.
> ...


 
 1) The amount of power for 1 V at 32 Ohms (using the equations previously given) amounts to 31.25 mW. Using the below equation the difference  in power to 1W is -15.1 dB, thus at 1 mW it's 98.9 dB SPL.
*dB = 10 * Log (Pout / Pin)*
 2) 4 times the power is +6 dB. It is not linear thus not proportional. See the above formula in #1.
 3) Yes 10 dB is percieved by humans as twice as loud. I picked a few power levels to give you an idea of what happens. One does not need to get to the maximum power level that headphones can handle, one needs to get to a level that does not cause harm to one's hearing, Keeping this in mind the consideration of how much power is required vs. S/N ratio and DR is not all that simple. The DR of recordings is a factor, however, since there is an undetermined amount of volume compression in recordings it's not cut and dry. Genreatlly one would be optimal to be able to reach a peak of 115 to 120 dB SPL, however, many people are very satisfied with lower numbers, especially with highly compressed rock/pop/hip hop, etc.
 4) Answered in #3
 5) The maximum sustained power that when exceeded will damage your headphones.
 6) The Amp's output impedance required to drive a pair of headphones is determind by the attenuation (loss of volume) formed by the voltage divider of the Amp's output impedance and the Headphone's impedance. When using a headphone with a flat impedance curve (the impedance doesn't change much with frequency) the FR remains constant and one only needs to consider the possible dB loss by attenuation. As stated previously Magnetic Planar headphones are considered to be resistive and thus have a flat impedance curve. Many dynamic headphones have varying impedance curve and so the ratio of the amp's constant output impedance and headphone's varying impedance changes the attenuation with frequency thus makes the FR vary. That is why it is important to use an amp with an ouput impedance that is much lower than the headphone's impedance. Plus there is the Damping Ratio to consider.


----------



## zzffnn

Can we please get back to the original topic of AptX? Members view this thread because of its topic -AptX.

Headphone impedance/sensitivity/amp power is a different topic, which has been discussed elsewhere. Maybe take it to PM or open a new thread please. Thank you.

StanD is generally correct and clear. Also note that in 99% of CDs, dynamic peaks do not go over 35 db higher than RMS (~average) volume. So if you listen at 75-80 db on average like most people do, you may happy enough with 110-115 db peaks (and the amount of amp power to reach 110-115 db). For example, if I calculated it correctly, Creative E5 AptX amp can drive my Audeze LCD-2 headphones to over 110 db, which is good enough for my music listening volume (average 75 db).


----------



## StanD

zzffnn said:


> Can we please get back to the original topic of AptX? Members view this thread because of its topic -AptX.
> 
> Headphone impedance/sensitivity/amp power is a different topic, which has been discussed elsewhere. Maybe take it to PM or open a new thread please. Thank you.


 
 I think we've covered the OT stuff. Back to apt-x.


----------



## Giogio

zzffnn said:


> Can we please get back to the original topic of AptX? Members view this thread because of its topic -AptX.


 
 One of the first things I posted in this thread was this same sentence of yours.
 Referred, in that case, to @james444 posting reviews of atpx receiver instead of talking of the aptx itself.
 It was said to me, that "the theme aptx per se has been talked so much that there is nothing more to add. Since then people talk here of applications of aptx".
  
 If talking of which aptx receivers have the best quality is not off topic, why should it be talking of how to chose the right aptx receiver?
  
 Anyway. I kind of became allergic lately to off topic claims, so, it may be me.
 Let's say that I do not want to discuss anymore.
 I will eventually think about continuing asking elsewhere, if I need so


----------



## zzffnn

giogio said:


> One of the first things I posted in this thread was this same sentence of yours.
> Referred, in that case, to @james444
> posting reviews of atpx receiver instead of talking of the aptx itself.
> It was said to me, that "the theme aptx per se has been talked so much that there is nothing more to add. Since then people talk here of applications of aptx".
> ...




I actually consider James444's review of AptX on topic and helpful. It is difficult to dicuss AptX codec without mentioning actual implementation - products.

The " how to choose" questions you were asking are very basic questions that apply to all amplifiers and have nothing specific to BT AptX receiver/amp. Over the past two pages, StanD has already explained everything clearly - I suggest carefully reading that and other existing discussions and try to spend some time to understand it (instead if asking more off topic questions). In addition to what StanD and my previous posts told you on that topic, here are three more threads that you can read on or ask questions in (the third thread is a q and a thread for you):
http://www.head-fi.org/t/668238/headphones-sensitivity-impedance-required-v-i-p-amplifier-gain
http://www.head-fi.org/t/748297/confused-with-impedance-and-sensitivity
http://www.head-fi.org/t/607282/headphone-amp-impedance-questions-find-the-answers-here

I found those threads simply by searching in Headfi using key words "amp impedance sensitivity power". If you stay on Headfi long enough, you would understand that almost every senior member would have those kind of questions at some point when they shop for amps, thus those questions have been asked and answered over and over again.

A more relavent question would be, out of AptX receiver A vs. B, which one provides more power (or sound better) with headphone XYZ? You can ask that specific question regarding specific AptX receivers, if you still cannot figure out the answer yourself by reading what have been provided herein.


----------



## Giogio

And I'm not even a senior 
I suppose one can see that the experience i have with Bluetooth headphones i do not have it with wired ones.
Yeah, i just could not leave Stan, knowledge is a contagious disease and i suffer of the mentoring syndrome, i always need to find someone who knows more than me and wants to transmit his knowledge.
But thanks for the links, they seems like the right place where to obtain contagion


----------



## cityle

I received the AT-PHA50BT and I really like them. I'm able to drive my K553 and my ATH-AD900x without problem (there is 16 steps of volume control and I stay at the 5th, 6th and 7th). I've only noticed a faint white noise while using them with my K553 (but you need to concentrate in order to perceive it and I will probably never notice it while on-the-go). I didn't notice any change in the sound and there is very little input lag compared to other bluetooth headsets I've used (usually there is like a 1-2 sec. of delay when you pressed on play or next track but not on these). Finally, they are smaller than what I though which is a plus.


----------



## ClieOS

I got the Creative BT-D1 a couple of weeks ago as my PC's aptX transmitter. One of the main reason for picking it is because it doesn't require any driver, and I reckon it was because Creative designed it in a way that the PC will see it as a USB DAC rather than a BT dongle - and I was right. Today, and just for fun, I plug it into my Xperia Z2 via an OTG adapter, fire up UAPP and HR Player and it works. Both see it as a USB DAC and I have it connects to my Creative E5's bluetooth without any issue. Of course I don't really need it to work on my Z2 since Z2 already has aptX built-in, but it is a proof of concept to add aptX support to Android smartphone that doesn't have aptX support. There is also a good chance that this might work on iOS via CCK, but I don't own any iPhone to test it. Just thought I'll report this in case anyone else wants to try.


----------



## fnkcow

Hey guys I have a question
 Could this be attributed to weak amp inside the Noble BTS?
  
 Quote:


fnkcow said:


> After waiting for 2 weeks due to some shipping mishaps, the Noble BTS has finally reached me today. It's much smaller than expected, as shown in photo below next to the white QCY and the black Elecom.
> 
> First thing I did was letting BTS charge fully for a couple of hours.
> 
> ...


 
  


fnkcow said:


> Dont have the BTS with me now atm.
> Depends on the IEMs I'm using. The bass is still there, but really weak, especially on my A12. To give you a rough idea it's like switching from K10 to ER-4S in the bass department.
> 
> Yes the bass difference for my IEMs are huge. I dont think it's the Bluetooth itself that's the issue though, as I have the other two Bluetooth dongles and also a Bluetooth headset Sony SBH80, all are aptx and Bluetooth 4.0 along with my sources, same as the BTS, but they output the sound with no issues like the BTS, and I already have the others for at least 3 months.
> ...


----------



## StanD

fnkcow said:


> Hey guys I have a question
> Could this be attributed to weak amp inside the Noble BTS?


 
 Maybe. Do you get any distortion on loud passages or peaks? They don't give much in the way of specs. What does it use for a battery?


----------



## fe-lixx

I know this topic is about aptX, but since it's in the Science section and you're already discussing the Noble BTS, I figured I might just ask here.
  
 No surprise, the chip in the BTS doesn't support aptX lossless, just the usual aptX, but Noble claims that it also supports ALAC (Apple Lossless) over Bluetooth. Is this even possible? I assume that only iOS devices would use ALAC, but could it be proven somehow that really ALAC is being used with the BTS and not just AAC, which the chip also supports?


----------



## Jabbah

From the Noble site the BTS uses the CRS8645 chip which supports aptX, MP3 & AAC but not mention of ALAC. I wonder if Noble made a mistake and it supports aptX lossless but someone put it down as Apple lossless.

http://nobleaudio.com/en/shop/wireless/

http://www.csr.com/sites/default/files/csr8645_bga_technical_overview.pdf

I also seriously doubt due to bandwidth constraints that FLAC / ALAC would be supported over Bluetooth. I think the max for this chip is 352kbps.


----------



## Jabbah

Actually it doesn’t look like aptX supports lossless at all. The lossless codec “aptX HD” is for non-BT applications:

http://www.csr.com/products/61/aptx-lossless

aptX will just use it’s 352kbps of bandwidth as efficiently as it can with as low as possible power requirements on the receiver.


----------



## fe-lixx

Nice find, I was under the impression that aptX lossless was a possibility for bluetooth devices, but the wording on that page is clear. Well, there's that.
  
 Another thing that makes ALAC very unlikely is that it's an asymmetric codec, meaning the encoding takes a lot of power, while decoding is very lightweight. It would be a very weird choice for a bluetooth codec, and the first time ever that I've heard anyone doing that. Even Apple themselves don't offer or advertise any third-party bluetooth devices that support ALAC, and if anybody should be doing it, it's Apple.
  
 Weird. Very weird.


----------



## UnityIsPower

I have the Sony SBH80 here and I've already noticed some cracking noise. It's more prominent if I play off my Amazon Music app but it's still audible with the Apple player and YouTube app. I'll keep playing with it. I'm on a iPhone 6.

The Stance S1 headphones I tried at a meet didn't have this issue in the time I auditioned them. I believe that's the last BT wireless gear I tried before these.


----------



## bemymonkey

Has anyone else noticed A2DP BT connection instability when around a lot of 2.4GHz WiFi?
  
 I use a MiFi when out and about (basically a portable WiFi router that takes a SIM card and redistributes 3G and LTE to my laptop, phone, tablet etc.) and it only does 2.4GHz WiFi. When my phone (the playback device) is connected to this, my Bluetooth headset skips a beat every 20-40 seconds.
  
 At home, where my phone connects to 5GHz WiFi, it plays skip-free. If I turn off WiFi on the phone, it also plays mostly skip-free.
  
  
 My headset is an old Sony MW600, which doesn't support APT-X yet... would upgrading to an APT-X headset help? I have a Denon Envaya Mini (which supports Apt-X) that doesn't seem to exhibit these symptoms, but I don't use that nearly as much as the headset, so I'm not quite sure whether it's the Apt-X support that helps here.


----------



## fnkcow

unityispower said:


> I have the Sony SBH80 here and I've already noticed some cracking noise. It's more prominent if I play off my Amazon Music app but it's still audible with the Apple player and YouTube app. I'll keep playing with it. I'm on a iPhone 6.
> 
> The Stance S1 headphones I tried at a meet didn't have this issue in the time I auditioned them. I believe that's the last BT wireless gear I tried before these.


 
 Hmm don't know about the pairing with iPhone as I use mine with Android phones but I don't experience the cracking noise. Maybe ask it over in the SBH80 thread and see if others have similar experience?
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/752491/sony-sbh80-wireless-to-the-next-level-review


----------



## arnyk

fnkcow said:


> Hmm don't know about the pairing with iPhone as I use mine with Android phones but I don't experience the cracking noise. Maybe ask it over in the SBH80 thread and see if others have similar experience?
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/752491/sony-sbh80-wireless-to-the-next-level-review


 
  
 I get this feeling that since they are really just computers, they suffer from the same problems as desktops did.
  
 Clicks and Pops  in computers were usually caused by the moral equivalent of trying to run too many of the wrong apps.


----------



## UnityIsPower

Posted some thoughts on that thread, thanks for the link!

Bemy, I'm sitting next to my Asus router for the most part and it's using both 2.4 and 5. This could be causing my cracking issue tho switching to the Amazon player also has its negatives.


----------



## UnityIsPower

Wifi on/off not much if any difference. I re-downloaded the Amazon player and it's now on the same level as the iOS player so whatever was happening seems to be with the app. The microwave on the other hand murders the connection in my kitchen.

I also now connected it to my iPhone 4 for good measure.

I should also mention I'll be taking my iPhone 6 to the Apple Store Friday as it's been randomly resetting itself.


----------



## Class D

BeMyMonkey asked:
  


> would upgrading to an APT-X headset help?


 
  
  
 Based on what you have said, the periodic streaming skip you are experiencing is caused by your MiFi, portable WiFi router, which is buffering your content stream.  You'll likely experience this buffering with video streaming as well.  You can test this with a YouTube video stream.
  
 As a result, Aptx won't help you as it has nothing to do with WiFi streaming.  You should look to your portable WiFi router manufacturer for resolution of your streaming issues (skipping beats).  Aptx won't resolve upstream audio issues.  Sorry.


----------



## UnityIsPower

My phone has software issues and I was told to restore it. I don't have a computer to save my non-Apple music collection and use multiple accounts so it'll be quite the hassle. I might just wait for iOS 9 and hope it gets fixed then.


----------



## dsf3g

I'd like to add a note or two to this discussion.
  
 I'm an Adroid phone owner, and pretty for a while now have only bought Adroid phones with APTX built in. These include HTC and Samsung models, the most recent being a Galaxy Note 3.
  
 I was first intrigued by the APTX codec when I traded in my trusty HTC Touch Windows Mobile phone for Android. With the old Windows Mobile devices you were able to significantly improve bluetooth streaming quality by delving into the registry and teaking values for bluetooth bitpool. In fact, after doing so, I found that the sound quality from my Sennheiser MM100 bluetooth headphones was as good as any wired set I owned. Before performing the tweak, high notes (such as crashing cymbals) sounded awful, with breaking and crackling redering certain songs almost unlistenable. But my first Android phone, an HTC Evo 4G offered no option for tweaking bitpool setting (other than rooting and installing a custom ROM) and so I largely gave up on bluetooth headphones because the sound was just awful.
  
 A few years later I bought a Samsung Galaxy S3 and a pair of APTX enabled headphones (the Harman Karndon BT) and was thrilled with the streaming music quality. This was the way music was *meant* to sound!
  
 Now, let me add here: I don't have golden ears. I don't hear every tiny little artifact in digitized music. You won't hear me bragging about my collection of 320kb encoded MP3's (let along lossless) because most of what I listen to is encoded in either 192kb AAC or 128kb MP3 and I'm quite satisfied with the sound. But music over bluetooth on early Android phones was so awful that even I couldn't stand to listen to it.
  
 Then, about a year ago I decided to go shopping for a bluetooth speaker. As you might imagine, APTX was top on my list of requirements. But I soon found myslef in a bit of a quandary. The speaker I really wanted was the Bose Soundlink Mini. This little marvel put out just an absurd amount of warm bass relative to its diminutive size. It was truly a speaker that could fill a reasonable sized room at a reasonable volume. But the Soundlink Mini didn't feature APTX. Nonetheless, in all my in-store testing, the Mini Soundlink sounded great. There was none of that awful crackle that I'd noticed years before on non APTX enabled headphones. So I bought one. And my experience at home mirrored what I's seen in the stores. Apparently in subsequent Android releases, Google has greatly improved its OS's music over bluetooth.
  
 All was well for me until one day, while working from home, I decided to pair my phone with both my Mini Soundlink and a bluetooth earpiece so I could take calls when they came in (the newest Soundlink Mini has speakerphone capability, but the 1st gen does not). Well, when I did that, suddenly the degradation of music quality was quite notable. That awful cymbal crackle was back.
  
 So, it appears that when you pair an Adoird phone with a bluetooth music device, as well as another device for the phone profile, bluetooth streaming bandwidth is split between the two and music quality is degraded. 
  
 The short term solution was simple: just stick to the speaker and take calls directly on my phone. 
  
 Problem solved? Not quite.
  
 That's because I recently decided to try out an Androidwear watch (the ASUS Zenwatch). This device is always paired to your phone via bluetooth, and guess what: the bandwidth demands of Androidwear also ave a deleterious effect on bluetooth music streaming quality. That was a real dissappointment to be because, even though I'm still experimenting with this watch (not 100% convinced I want to keep it) I really do enjoy not having to pull out my phone every time I get a text message.
  
 And this is the part of the story where APTX comes back in. Because what I've discovered in my testing is that if I'm listening to an APTX capable pair of headphones, music quality is still quite good, even if I've got my Androidwear device paired. In fact, quality is so good that I bought an APTX receiver dongle that I now plug into the AUX-IN port on my Bose Soundlink Mini. I no longer pair my phone with the speaker, instead allowing the APTX receiver to feed the speaker directly. Now sound quality is restored, and I don't have to yank a cable every time I get a phone call as I would if I simply plugged my phone into the speaker with a 1/4" patch cable.
  
 So there's my rather long APTX appreciation story. In short, I'm an APTX believer, and until Google fixes the issue with native bluetooth streaming quality, I'll stick with APTX devices.


----------



## interpolate

I personally don't think APT-X is the problem, rather it's the Bluetooth Protocol of low-power, high output -in other words compression/expansion whatever way you want to look at it. APT-X over Wi-Fi might not improve the sound quality over a stronger radio signal either although it will have a better chance of transmitting more data over the air. You would also need WPA2 enabled for peace of mind as well, I dare say in case someone steals your music...


----------



## peter123

In case anyone is interested I just posted my review of the Elecom LBT-PAR500, great little device:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/products/bluetooth-receiver-dual-amplifier-class1-nfc-black-japan-import/reviews/13692


----------



## davidhall

apt-X is actually a very ancient codec - it was initially developed as the company founder's PhD back in the late 80s. As far as I know it is a variation on ADPCM compression and offers a 4:1 compression ratio. As such 48kHz 16 bit stereo audio will result in a bit rate of 384kbps. It's noted for it's low delay and low computational power requirements. It is not lossless but the quality is exceptionally good. apt-X lossless is an entirely different more recent beast altogether.
  
 They originally targeted the codec towards broadcasters and some of the very early digital audio playout systems adopted apt-X before MPEG was even a thing. As a broadcaster myself, one of the companies I have worked for was a very early adopter and remained married to apt-X well into the mid to late 2000's. For FM broadcasting it was common to use a 32kHz sample rate for a bit rate of 128k mono or 256k stereo and an upper frequency response of 15kHz. There was no point recording frequencies that were going to get brick wall filtered before transmission.
  
 I presume the move into bluetooth is an attempt to broaden their customer base.
  
 In my experience I have always been impressed with its sound quality and haven't witnessed it falling apart on any source material in particular however some of my colleagues have assured me that very rarely it sometimes can. I have always found it quite safe to cascade with any MPEG style compression and perhaps even with itself if absolutely unavoidable.
  
 By far the biggest disadvantage with apt-X is the licensing fees; it is a very expensive codec to license.


----------



## Class D

Davidhall,  You are right about the vintage status of Aptx.  The codec has been around for a while.  Over time Bluetooth sink manufacturers have used the codec in their products because of its impressive wireless audio performance.  Unfortunately, there aren't as many Bluetooth source manufacturers who have used Aptx.in their products.  Only a few mobile phone manufacturers have used the codec in their handsets.  HTC, Sony, and Nokia being most notable.  Since the acquisition of Cambridge Silicon Radio by Qualcomm last week, it's not clear what the future of the codec will be.  Qualcomm has even changed the name of the company from CSR to Qualcomm Technologies International.
  
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2015/08/13/qualcomm-completes-24-billion-acquisition-csr
  
It seems CSR will become an R&D center for communications technologies at Qualcomm in Europe.  Unless Qualcomm wants to promote and support the codec in their customer base, Aptx will likely die a quiet death.  If so, this thread will likely die along with it.


----------



## CrystalSound

Quote:


james444 said:


> Got a new aptX headset via Amazon, the QCY QY3 (odd name). Its sound quality is very good, a bit on the warm side compared to the more analytical LG BTS1, but with good extension and driving power. Actually, it's the loudest aptX headset with 3.5mm HPO I've heard so far.
> 
> However, on the downside, it needs a proprietary charging cable (USB to 3.5mm, included), and at least on my unit L/R stereo channels are reversed. The latter's no big deal for me, since Neutron Player offers a "reverse stereo" setting, but due to this flaw I can only recommend the QCY QY3 with reservation.


 
  
 I have a rather simple question for you. What is the playable range distance you have found for the QCY QY3?

 I am specifically looking for a clip-on type of receiver with bluetooth 4.0 + APTx. Ideally has track skip/volume control and a slim profile because my use scenario is in the gym resistance training (not jogging/sprinting). The QCY QY3 seem to fit the criteria best as it is the smallest. Only question I have is the range as it uses the same chipset as the MOCREO that has amazon reviews stating a 6 foot range. 
  
 Other options I have looked at are: Avantree Clipper or the Elecom PAR500. ​  
Open to suggestions and I am planning to pair it with a Klipsch X10 + LG G4 + Google Play music at high quality. ​


----------



## james444

crystalsound said:


> I have a rather simple question for you. What is the playable range distance you have found for the QCY QY3?
> 
> I am specifically looking for a clip-on type of receiver with bluetooth 4.0 + APTx. Ideally has track skip/volume control and a slim profile because my use scenario is in the gym resistance training (not jogging/sprinting). The QCY QY3 seem to fit the criteria best as it is the smallest. Only question I have is the range as it uses the same chipset as the MOCREO that has amazon reviews stating a 6 foot range.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I can leave my Galaxy S3 in the living room, go to the bathroom and still listen to music from about 20 feet away, with 2 walls between the phone and receiver.
  
 The PAR500 has even better range and more output power, but it's also a lot bulkier.


----------



## CrystalSound

james444 said:


> I can leave my Galaxy S3 in the living room, go to the bathroom and still listen to music from about 20 feet away, with 2 walls between the phone and receiver.
> 
> The PAR500 has even better range and more output power, but it's also a lot bulkier.


 
 Awesome, thanks for the input. Looks like the QCY will work for my scenario. Hopefully gearbest.com isn't selling fakes, I couldn't find a seller on amazon.


----------



## Dieucocto

(Edited) I found my answer.


----------



## ph0n6

Before I wasn't very interested in bluetooth audio, but since the Windowsphone is doomed to not receiving USB OTG feature, I think I don't have much of a choice. Luckily it seems that they do support aptx though, so I guess bluetooth is the way to go here. Just have a few question:
 - How does it stream music through bluetooth from my phone using a bluetooth DAC? Does it compress the digital signal using aptx codec and sent it directly to the DAC of the bluetooth receiver?
 - I was looking at the Mass Fidelity Relay, Arcam miniblink and Arcam rLink. Currently most interested in the Relay as it looks damn good and their reviews praise them alot. Just wondering had anyone tried them with a powerbank (portable battery charger)? They seems to provide 5V/1A or even 5V/2A these days, are they enough for portable uses?


----------



## Jabbah

Yes, the DAC is a digital to analog converter so the data will only go through a DAC once, otherwise it would have to go through an ADC to convert it back to the digital domain. In this case the DAC used will be in the BT headphones or headphone amp with a BT receiver (ie after the BT signal is received). What will happen is that your audio will be transcoded from it's current format (eg MP3 / FLAC) straight to the AptX format for more efficient use of the BT bandwidth. This will probably lead to some loss of quality as AptX lossless is not available for BT. The BT standard does support transmission using the original encoding, but this doesn't seem to be something that manufacturers advertise if they support or not unfortunately.


----------



## Class D

ph0n6,
  
 It seems you are looking for a Bluetooth receiver to connect to your audio equipment and you want to have a high fidelity connection with low latency, right?  Does your audio equipment have a  S/PDIF Digital Audio Coax Cable connector for input?  If so, the DAC is already in your audio equipment and you can keep the audio path completely digital using something like the Yamaha YBA-11 Bluetooth Wireless Audio Receiver for Yamaha AV Products.  I use this to connect stereo content to my AV equipment using the Aptx codec in my BT source devices, like a Windowsphone with WP 8.1 denim or a PC with an Aptx BT dongle.  The Yamaha receiver uses an AC adapter for power.  It's a simple solution providing high fidelity BT audio at low latency.  The Yamaha receiver is a fraction of the price of the receivers you are looking at (probably because the onboard DAC is so expensive on the Mass Fidelity and Arcam receivers).


----------



## ph0n6

Got the ME Relay and got to say it is pretty neck to neck with my DX50 player, if not somewhat better testing through headphones and streaming FLAC file from my aptx Lumia 1520 with both running through the same amp. It maybe lossy but personally I don't find any detail missing, treble range (which is suppose to be the weakest point of aptx as I have read here https://support.microsoft.com/vi-vn/kb/89879) sounds just fine. Tried it with and iPhone 4 (no aptx) and the sound is worse than Lumia 1520 with aptx, so I guess aptx does work here.


----------



## cursor75

Hi,
       I had been using this AptX Bluetooth receiver in both office and at home. 
       I can't insert any pic so I provide the link to the pic of my office setup (hope the link works).   Btw if you can see the pic, is the one on top.   Lower one is a DAC/headphone amp.
  
http://www.dropbox.com/s/aykmr57sxte2vdv/2015-10-26%2014.44.38%20HDR.jpg?dl=0
  
 This BT receiver is not the cheapest in the market.  But it provide both digital and analog output so it is quite easy to swap from one system to another should you happen to need both output sources.
 I do find that there is slight different in audio quality between the analog and digital output of the BT Receiver.  Digital do sound slightly better to me.  Maybe the external DAC do a better job then what the BT receiver does.
 I can't really pick out any difference in Audio Quality when using this BT receiver (in digital output) compare to playing the flac direct from PC to the same DAC or direct from my AV receiver at home.
 The best part is there is no lag in audio when using streaming audio thru this BT receiver.  Cos it kind of annoying when there is a lag in audio when I am watching movies on my tablet or hand phone while audio is stream to other bluetooth speakers that don't support AptX.   Hence my point is AptX do improve a lot on the audio quality. 
 But I must say,  I am not a audiophile nor I had a set of golden ears.  So best is you try on a AptX supported devices that you can get hold on.


----------



## tayano

So has there been any conclusion about BT-AAC? According to Apples Bluetooth guidelines, IOS supports a AAC bitrate up to 264kpbs.
 Does that mean that a AAC 256kbps file will sound as good with BT as wired? 
  
 The biggest limits with bluetooth was the codec, but with AAC this should be solved?
 I think that AAC 256kpbs is great for portable use.


----------



## Rurouni

Apt-x to my ears still sounds better than AAC over bluetooth. This is based on an uncontrolled test between a mac streaming in Apt-X and an iPhone, to a pair of Sony 1ABTs.


----------



## tayano

rurouni said:


> Apt-x to my ears still sounds better than AAC over bluetooth. This is based on an uncontrolled test between a mac streaming in Apt-X and an iPhone, to a pair of Sony 1ABTs.


 

 What quality was the music file? Lossless?


----------



## Rurouni

Streamed files from spotify as well as some of my ALAC files via iTunes.


----------



## 329161

Re: the thread title....aptx is NOT lossless. Is it? In any event I don't notice any difference between aptx, AAC or the normal one, over bt with any audio at 256 Kbps or higher. Otherwise there are some "artefacts " that become audible....like you experience with <100 Kbps lossy.


----------



## tayano

rurouni said:


> Streamed files from spotify as well as some of my ALAC files via iTunes.


 

 So *if *BT-AAC is as good as AAC, you can hear a difference between ALAC and AAC 256 kpbs? 
 According to apples guildelines, the AAC-codec used for bluetooth is the usual one. Have you checked that it streams in AAC and in a high bitrate using bluetooth explorer?
  
 So if the sound degradation is not in the codec, where could it else be?


----------



## dabotsonline

aptX HD has just been announced by Qualcomm, available on the CSR8675 Bluetooth SoC, allowing wireless transmission with a 24-bit depth and unknown sample rate (hopefully 192kHz).
  
 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/qualcomm-aptx-hd-delivers-high-resolution-audio-over-bluetooth-300199425.html
  
 https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/01/05/introducing-aptx-hd-meeting-need-hi-resolution-wireless-audio


----------



## watchnerd

^^^
  
 Huh, I find that really surprising...
  
 I'm not sure how big the Venn diagram intersection is between 'people who like Bluetooth streaming' and 'people who listen to high resolution audio'.


----------



## vnmslsrbms

watchnerd said:


> ^^^
> 
> Huh, I find that really surprising...
> 
> I'm not sure how big the Venn diagram intersection is between 'people who like Bluetooth streaming' and 'people who listen to high resolution audio'.


 
 True.  When I'm doing bluetooth I just want to walk around, not doing serious listening.  Being able to control from another room etc is a plus.  Sound quality if good enough is good enough.  Doesn't need to be hi-res.


----------



## NiHaoMike

At 2.1Mbps, Bluetooth 2.0 and above have enough bandwidth to stream uncompressed audio at up to 48kHz. (And Bluetooth 3.0 and above has the option of as much as 24Mbps, although I'm not sure how many devices actually implement it.) I actually wonder if that's what Nvidia is doing with their Shield TV remote. It's Bluetooth, but it sounds much better than regular Bluetooth. The chipset inside doesn't support aptx so I think they're using their own proprietary protocol. (They needed to for their Wifi based game controller anyways so it wouldn't be very much extra work.)


----------



## watchnerd

nihaomike said:


> At 2.1Mbps, Bluetooth 2.0 and above have enough bandwidth to stream uncompressed audio at up to 48kHz. (And Bluetooth 3.0 and above has the option of as much as 24Mbps, although I'm not sure how many devices actually implement it.) I actually wonder if that's what Nvidia is doing with their Shield TV remote. It's Bluetooth, but it sounds much better than regular Bluetooth. The chipset inside doesn't support aptx so I think they're using their own proprietary protocol. (They needed to for their Wifi based game controller anyways so it wouldn't be very much extra work.)


 
  
 What's the range on Bluetooth 2.0 and 3.0?


----------



## davidmthekidd

james444 said:


> BT-aptX isn't lossless, but it sounds better to my ears than the usual BT-SBC encoding. As far as I know, there's no BT-AAC and your AAC files will be re-encoded to SBC for BT streaming.
> 
> That said, according to this comparison, even good old SBC has very good audio quality at 320kbps, with artifacts below hearing threshold.
> 
> ...




Perfect analogy.


----------



## watchnerd

aptX just doesn't fit my use case (so far).
  
 I don't walk around my house and play stuff from my phone.  And I already have lossless streaming set up over AirPlay.
  
 aptX for my car might be cool, though.


----------



## Giogio

davidmthekidd said:


> Perfect analogy.


 

 But wrong. AAC is not only a compression format but also a BT audio Codec, the only alternative to SBC in iOS devices till now.


----------



## Giogio

watchnerd said:


> aptX just doesn't fit my use case (so far).
> 
> I don't walk around my house and play stuff from my phone.  And I already have lossless streaming set up over AirPlay.
> 
> aptX for my car might be cool, though.


 

 Well, you can still walk around your house and play stuff from your Mac, and use a BT headphone, and APTX, for that.
 OSX supports Aptx natively.
 I only use headphones lately, no speakers. Because I moved a lot in the last years.
 And the freedom of BT headphones is a bliss. Never EVER again wires for me.
  
 Now, if there were AirPlay headphones, this would be nice.
 I suppose it is not possible or people would have done this already, at least, wifi headphones...


----------



## watchnerd

giogio said:


> Well, you can still walk around your house and play stuff from your Mac, and use a BT headphone, and APTX, for that.
> OSX supports Aptx natively.
> I only use headphones lately, no speakers. Because I moved a lot in the last years.
> And the freedom of BT headphones is a bliss. Never EVER again wires for me.
> ...


 
  
 When I have speakers in 3 different rooms, I don't really have a reason to do that.


----------



## Giogio

watchnerd said:


> When I have speakers in 3 different rooms, I don't really have a reason to do that.


 
 Then you either have very nice and permissive neighbours, or no neighbours at all, and nobody else living with you, or you do not like to listen to music at loud volume late at night.


----------



## watchnerd

giogio said:


> Then you either have very nice and permissive neighbours, or no neighbours at all, and nobody else living with you, or you do not like to listen to music at loud volume late at night.


 
  
 I own my own house, neighbors are far enough away, and I do have a wife who indulges my listening habits.


----------



## Giogio

watchnerd said:


> I own my own house, neighbors are far enough away, and I do have a wife who indulges my listening habits.


 
 The day I find the right woman I wish she will indulge my listening to Dubstep or Techno at max vol at 3 in the night.
 That would be my twin soul.
 Happy that you found one


----------



## watchnerd

giogio said:


> The day I find the right woman I wish she will indulge my listening to Dubstep or Techno at max vol at 3 in the night.
> That would be my twin soul.
> Happy that you found one


 
  
 Oh, 3 am? No...I've got a job.
  
 Listening usually ends around midnight.


----------



## Giogio

watchnerd said:


> Oh, 3 am? No...I've got a job.
> 
> Listening usually ends around midnight.


 
 Oh, yeah, me too, but I do not work on weekends, and have long forced pauses from time to time when weather is not good, so I find myself enjoying night often, which I like, as my natural rhythm is being awake at night.
 And even when I have to work I do not start too early in the morning, I must leave home at 7:45, so I can even wakeup 7:30 if I was too late the night before. Which is usually not 3, but can be after midnight. As said, I like night.
  
 Anyway, we are going off topic.
 Enjoy your speakers


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> But wrong. AAC is not only a compression format but also a BT audio Codec, the only alternative to SBC in iOS devices till now.


 
  

Don't think I've been wrong when I posted that in 2013. Afaik there weren't any BT chips available that supported AAC back then.
Read this post. A2DP is a packet oriented protocol. I'm pretty sure that even AAC to BT-AAC involves re-encoding.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> Don't think I've been wrong when I posted that in 2013. Afaik there weren't any BT chips available that supported AAC back then.
> Read this post. A2DP is a packet oriented protocol. I'm pretty sure that even AAC to BT-AAC involves re-encoding.


 
 Oh, did not see it was an old post. The quoter did a lot of reading apparently.
 I did not say anything about not re-encoding. I was involved in that conversation as you see. So I remember that. But I still wish to have other opinions about it. I can't believe it is like that.
 It is just a useless extra passage, it adds latency, it may degrade the sound, it is pointless.


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> Oh, did not see it was an old post. The quoter did a lot of reading apparently.
> I did not say anything about not re-encoding. I was involved in that conversation as you see. So I remember that. But I still wish to have other opinions about it. I can't believe it is like that.
> *It is just a useless extra passage, it adds latency, it may degrade the sound, it is pointless.*


 
  
 Bluetooth uses adaptive frequency hopping to avoid device interference and ensure that transmission works well, even in crowded environments. BT-audio transmission is a continuous stream of small packets being concurrently sent over multiple frequencies. The chopping of audio at the source and reassembling at the sink is anything but pointless, it's in fact _absolutely essential_ to ensure a robust transmission. If there existed a fast and efficient method to chop audio (particularly vbr) into packets without re-encoding, now that would be great, but afaik there is none.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> Bluetooth uses adaptive frequency hopping to avoid device interference and ensure that transmission works well, even in crowded environments. BT-audio transmission is a continuous stream of small packets being concurrently sent over multiple frequencies. The chopping of audio at the source and reassembling at the sink is anything but pointless, it's in fact _absolutely essential_ to ensure a robust transmission. If there existed a fast and efficient method to chop audio (particularly vbr) into packets without re-encoding, now that would be great, but afaik there is none.


 

 Well, Aptx does re-encoding anyway. And AAC too, when not playing an AAC file. So what I do not understand is why should all files be converted to pcm before being converted to aptx or aac. Specially when playing AAC files in AAC codec, which would give the possibility to transmit directly to AAC (given that it is the codec used, so it should not be needed any other "conversion". Otherwise what are codecs for?).


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> Well, Aptx does re-encoding anyway. And AAC too, when not playing an AAC file. *So what I do not understand is why should all files be converted to pcm before being converted to aptx or aac*. Specially when playing AAC files in AAC codec, which would give the possibility to transmit directly to AAC (given that it is the codec used, so it should not be needed any other "conversion". Otherwise what are codecs for?).


 
  
@ClieOS already posted a perfect explanation. Really not much to add, except that you need constant bitrate to efficiently chop audio into packets, which is another reason for PCM as an intermediate format.
  


clieos said:


> Regardless of what file format you use, it will always get decoded to PCM first. Formats like mp3, AAC, FLAC or ALAC is just a container, they defines how files is stored in a particular way, but they doesn't tell what kind of data is inside. That data is PCM. So basically we have one way of saving PCM called mp3, another way called AAC, another called FLAC, etc. When these files (mp3 / AAC / FLAC / etc) are played, the computer 'restored' it back to the purest form first, which is PCM, then it is fed to the DAC (or the BT chip for further re-encoding for transmission).
> 
> Taking your example:
> AAC files played -> convert to PCM -> send to BT chip -> re-encoded to aptX -> send the aptX to receiver -> receiver take the aptX and convert it to PCM -> fed to DAC and becomes analog sound.
> ...


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> @ClieOS already posted a perfect explanation. Really not much to add, except that you need constant bitrate to efficiently chop audio into packets, which is another reason for PCM as an intermediate format.


 

 You had already given the link to that conversation (where, as said, I took part).
 The fact is, I might be in dumb mode but I still do not understand why.
 He just says what happens, "computer does that". He does not explain why that happens. He eventually just say "because it is needed" or "because you need to unzip a file to read the content".
 Which is clear, I got it.
 But somehow, it must be something related to language (no native for me) or to way of thinking, because the way he talks of it makes me still feel like "it should be possible" and I just miss a real "WHY" that is not possible.
 It's difficult to explain 
 I will probably ask to somebody else, maybe it is just, you know, one of those cases where you need to find somebody with a similar way of thinking who would explain things the way you will understand.
 Thanks


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> You had already given the link to that conversation (where, as said, I took part).
> The fact is, I might be in dumb mode but I still do not understand why.
> He just says what happens, "computer does that". He does not explain why that happens. He eventually just say "because it is needed" or "because you need to unzip a file to read the content".
> Which is clear, I got it.
> ...


 
  
 Maybe if you try to think of mp3, aac, flac, etc... just as storage formats. These are different ways to store audio data and save space in doing so. But they are not directly playable without prior decoding. The only directly playable audio formats with current computer technology are PCM and DSD. What you want isn't impossible per se, but simply not implemented in current technology.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> Maybe if you try to think of mp3, aac, flac, etc... just as storage formats.


 
 I understood that already.
 But my brain gets in short when he talks of unzipping.
 I see PCM like bits. The bricks of informations. So, for me it is not unzipping or converting.
 It is just, reading.
 Anyway, if PCM is the basic brick, why is so important if the file is AAC when using AAC codec? At the end it is, apparently (or according to you two) impossible that an AAC file is streamed directly in AAC, no matter if transmitter and receiver both uses the AAC codec.
 So, it should really make no difference at all if we use aac or aptx as codec, as long as the codec allows enough data transfer to preserve the original quality.
  
 I should suppose that the size of the PCM file obtained after "unzipping" of the aac/mp3/flac/wave file will be bigger of smaller depending on the original format? Or would lot of empty bits added like when converting from mp3 to wave?


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> I understood that already.
> But my brain gets in short when he talks of unzipping.
> I see PCM like bits. The bricks of informations. So, for me it is not unzipping or converting.


 
  
 That's a misconception. All digital information is composed of bits, and digital audio is no exception. Different audio formats use different algorithms (follow different rules) to store audio information, but the result is always a collection of bits. PCM is such a format and is usually stored as WAV files on Windows PCs or AIFF files on MACs. Other formats like FLAC, AAC and MP3 store the same (= lossless) or almost the same (= lossy) audio information, but according to different rules. Converting a WAV / PCM file to FLAC is an exact analogy to zipping, a lossless conversion from a format that occupies more space to a format that occupies less space, while retaining the same information.
  


giogio said:


> ... why is so important if the file is AAC when using AAC codec? At the end it is, apparently (or according to you two) impossible that an AAC file is streamed directly in AAC, no matter if transmitter and receiver both uses the AAC codec. So, it should really make no difference at all if we use aac or aptx as codec, as long as the codec allows enough data transfer to preserve the original quality.


 
  
 As yet, the popular codecs for BT-transmission are all lossy (SBC, AAC, aptX). A lossy codec will never fully preserve the original information. Even though the degradation of sound quality may be inaudible or almost inaudible, it still makes sense to use the best codec available.
  


giogio said:


> I should suppose that the size of the PCM file obtained after "unzipping" of the aac/mp3/flac/wave file will be bigger of smaller depending on the original format? Or would lot of empty bits added like when converting from mp3 to wave?


 
  
 A constant bitrate (CBR) audio format like PCM will always use the same number of bits / second, regardless of its content. Doesn't matter if you convert something from mp3, AAC or FLAC, the resulting 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM file will always use 1411kbps to store its digital audio information.


----------



## watchnerd

james444 said:


> That's a misconception. All digital information is composed of bits, and digital audio is no exception. Different audio formats use different algorithms (follow different rules) to store audio information, but the result is always a collection of bits. PCM is such a format and is usually stored as WAV files on Windows PCs or AIFF files on MACs. Other formats like FLAC


 
  
 This is not correct:
  
 FLAC is not "another format" from PCM.  It's just a container to hold compressed, lossless audio.  The same for ALAC.  The audio data is PCM.
  
 FLAC is just as much PCM as AIFF or WAV.
  
 Also, WAV exists on the Mac, too, as well as Linux.  It's not PC-specific.


----------



## james444

watchnerd said:


> This is not correct:
> 
> FLAC is not "another format" from PCM.  It's just a container to hold compressed, lossless audio.  The same for ALAC.  The audio data is PCM.
> 
> ...


 
  
Wikipedia on audio file formats:
  


> There are three major groups of audio file formats:
> 
> Uncompressed audio formats, such as WAV, AIFF, AU or raw header-less PCM;
> Formats with lossless compression, such as FLAC, Monkey's Audio (filename extension .ape), WavPack (filename extension .wv), TTA, ATRAC Advanced Lossless, ALAC (filename extension .m4a), MPEG-4 SLS, MPEG-4 ALS, MPEG-4 DST, Windows Media Audio Lossless (WMA Lossless), and Shorten (SHN).
> Formats with lossy compression, such as Opus, MP3, Vorbis, Musepack, AAC, ATRAC and Windows Media Audio Lossy (WMA lossy).


 
  
 Would you agree to "losslessly compressed PCM" for FLAC vs. "uncompressed PCM" for WAV or AIFF then? Just head over to xiph.org/flac/, they themselves call FLAC an audio format and use the Zip analogy.


----------



## watchnerd

james444 said:


> Wikipedia on audio file formats:
> 
> 
> Would you agree to "losslessly compressed PCM" for FLAC vs. "uncompressed PCM" for WAV or AIFF then? Just head over to xiph.org/flac/, they themselves call FLAC an audio format and use the Zip analogy.


 
  
 It gets confusing because the term 'format' is used both for "file format", in which case they're all different vs "audio format", in which case they're not -- all the lossless ones are PCM.
  
 Contrast this to DSD/DSF which is a completely different audio format and file format.


----------



## castleofargh

it's the difference between compression and conversion. FLAC will only compress PCM, but the practical result is the same, some precessing has to be applied to FLAC before it's PCM again and can go to the DAC, or can be processed to be sent through BT. so it's a different format IMO. just like .zip is a different format.


----------



## davidmthekidd

After spending two weeks with a NON APT-X Headphoes (ParrotZik 2.0) I would say that APT-X makes a HUGE difference, to the point that the compression level on my Zik got a bit too obvious and heavy. I had to return the Zik's 2.0 and instead got the Sennheiser's Momentum Wireless, oh boy, what a difference. I can't really tell the difference between WIRED or APT-X Wireless, its that GOOD. A+++ to the guys at CSR, loving this codec.


----------



## amature101

hi, im looking for a usb bluetooth with aptx. Anyone know of a good one to recommend?


----------



## amature101

clieos said:


> I got the Creative BT-D1 a couple of weeks ago as my PC's aptX transmitter. One of the main reason for picking it is because it doesn't require any driver, and I reckon it was because Creative designed it in a way that the PC will see it as a USB DAC rather than a BT dongle - and I was right. Today, and just for fun, I plug it into my Xperia Z2 via an OTG adapter, fire up UAPP and HR Player and it works. Both see it as a USB DAC and I have it connects to my Creative E5's bluetooth without any issue. Of course I don't really need it to work on my Z2 since Z2 already has aptX built-in, but it is a proof of concept to add aptX support to Android smartphone that doesn't have aptX support. There is also a good chance that this might work on iOS via CCK, but I don't own any iPhone to test it. Just thought I'll report this in case anyone else wants to try.


 
 hi, is it truly plug and play for windows? worth to get it?


----------



## ClieOS

amature101 said:


> hi, is it truly plug and play for windows? worth to get it?


 
  
 Yes it is true PnP. Well worth the money if you need aptX transmitter for Windows. However, you should consider the newer BT-W2 first, as it supports the newer apyX Low Latency and also voice input (for BT headset with mic). It is true PnP as well.


----------



## Giogio

Anybody here with experience with AAC+ who could compare Aptx, AAC and AAC+?
 I also wonder if both devices must support AAC+. I suppose it should be so, like with Aptx Low Latency, if one device is LL and on not, the connection is not LL.
 So I suppose that if an AAC device is paired with an AAC+ device, the connection is AAC.
  
 I cannot find much info though, not even a list of devices which support AAC+.


----------



## Giogio

james444 said:


> That said, according to this comparison, even good old SBC has very good audio quality at 320kbps, with artifacts below hearing threshold.


 
 Searching this thread for 320kbps I have only found your post. But I remembered that somebody here told me that Aptx can stream 320kbps uncompressed.
 Any info about that?
  
 About that comparison, it is for audio codecs, not for bt codecs.
 I cannot find any comparison of bt codecs, do you know of any?


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> Searching this thread for 320kbps I have only found your post. But I remembered that somebody here told me that Aptx can stream *320kbps uncompressed*.
> Any info about that?


 
  
 That's an oxymoron.
  


giogio said:


> About that comparison, *it is for audio codecs, not for bt codecs*.
> I cannot find any comparison of bt codecs, do you know of any?


 
  
 BT codecs are audio codecs.


----------



## Giogio

Oxymoron may be, but I meant "not more compressed", which means that aptx should let 320 pass without compressing it more.
Right?

Aptx is not really audio codec. No music in aptx, but i know what you mean.


----------



## james444

giogio said:


> *Aptx is not really audio codec.* No music in aptx, but i know what you mean.


 
  
You bet!


----------



## Giogio

James, Chinese on (that was the automatic correction of my handy. I meant, come on...).
You know what I mean.
There is no music in aptx format, or in sbc. And no mp3 bt codec.
Precise OK, finicky, hmm... 
Pity that aptx is not in that comparison...

So. Can aptx reproduce 320 without bottleneck effect?
I knew that even the best sbc can.
So I'm not sure why the CEO of V-Moda says that only AAC+ can...


----------



## SparkOnShore

giogio said:


> Well, you can still walk around your house and play stuff from your Mac, and use a BT headphone, and APTX, for that.
> OSX supports Aptx natively.
> I only use headphones lately, no speakers. Because I moved a lot in the last years.
> And the freedom of BT headphones is a bliss. Never EVER again wires for me.
> ...




I just need to comment on your remark "never ever again wires for me"! Unless you speak about full size headphones only, about which you are right that there is no cable at all, but on the other hand they are so bulky and "on your head " anyway, speaking about convenience of Bluetooth iems is really funny imho. When I see these so long, non folding necklaces with the wires hanging down on your chest, I really wonder where the convenience exists...A wired iem has a lot smaller form factor, being able to get tangled around your phone and put in your pocket! How can you put those necklaces in your inside pocket together with your phone??? Do I have to always go around and talk to people with wires hanging from my neck??? And I need to charge one more device everyday, with the always existing latency on watching videos...

It's a good idea, but still has a long way to go in order to present real convenience over high quality wired iems...


----------



## Jazic

AptX vs SBC?
  
 I've been messing around with BT amps over the past few days... Specifically I'm using the "Audio-Technica AT-PHA50BT" and having great results! 
  
 I currently have a Nexus 6 with Viper4Android (EQ over BT?! WOOT!) and Tidal Hifi audio as my source. I'm getting absolutely awesome sound from bluetooth and is 95% as good as wired. I barely barely notice some cymbal compression but it's like the difference between 44.1Khz/16bit (1440mbps) CD quality and 320kbps. The difference is there but it's so damn close it's hard to hear. 
  
 The Audio-Technica receiver/amp absolutely rocks in quality over a Soundblaster E5 and even my *gasp* Chord Hugo via BT. I'm guessing it's that the ATH amp processes the SBC codec while the E5 and Hugo do not. There is a very noticeable difference in quality between those two and the ATH amp as I say. 
  
 Now to the point.. the Nexus 6 does not have AptX and only uses A2DP-SBC for stereo BT. I tested it with an old Samsung S4 that has AptX support and shows on the ATH amp but for the life of me I cannot hear a difference. I've listened to song that I know backwards and forwards and can't hear any difference. If anything all there is a very minor reduction in the compression sound on the high end of the spectrum (cymbals) with the AptX vs the A2DP.
  
 For now I feel as though I'm not missing anything by not having AptX and when/if I end up with another AptX phone I'll be happy especially now that I can use the Hugo and E5 more often. 
  
  
 Am I the only one who's experienced this or am I the only one? /shrug
  
  
 EDIT: Forgot to mention that on the ATH and another BT Amp I've tried they have very high passive noise levels compared to the E5 and Hugo. That said this is using a pair of SE846's which are extremely sensitive. MORE IMPORTANTLY, going back to the quality differences between AptX and SBC being very minor and hardly noticeable, much like the white noise levels it goes away when any outside noise is introduced. If I'm traveling or using my SE846's anywhere besides a dead silent location (which is very seldom) I'm barely going to notice the background noise and quality difference at all.


----------



## SparkOnShore

jazic said:


> AptX vs SBC?
> 
> I've been messing around with BT amps over the past few days... Specifically I'm using the "Audio-Technica AT-PHA50BT" and having great results!
> 
> ...




Is there delay via SBC when watching a video between audio and visual information?


----------



## Jazic

sparkonshore said:


> Is there delay via SBC when watching a video between audio and visual information?




With my nexus 6 and Netflix I'm noticing a microscopic amount of delay/lag. If I had to put a number on it I'd have to say at absolute worst it's 50ms if that. I honestly can't see any lag with lip sync. 

On a large screen it might be a much bigger issue but on a 6" screen it's not an issue at all. As for games that depend on timing... Can't speak for that. 

Maybe certain companies have synced video and audio somewhat to better help with lag. I know my Samsung s4 was horrible for lag with well over 500ms if not one full second delay and that is with AptX.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm an android noob, but I bet there are video players that allows to enter a resync timing for audio. but for utube and such, don't know if there is a method.


----------



## apaar123

If my headphones have aptx then should my phone also have aptx ??


----------



## StanD

apaar123 said:


> If my headphones have aptx then should my phone also have aptx ??


 
 If you want aptx to function it should be supported at both ends.


----------



## Partlys4int

Any opinions on asynchronous bluetooth (Audioquest Beetle) vs Aptx? I'm trying to decide whether to buy the Audioengine B1 or to wait for the Audioquest Beetle.


----------



## Denon2010

What Aptx vs SBC? what kinda of real world blind test difference is there with 320k MP3 on a $73 Sony Bluetooth Headphone?


----------



## Jazic

denon5220 said:


> What Aptx vs SBC? what kinda of real world blind test difference is there with 320k MP3 on a $73 Sony Bluetooth Headphone?


 
  
 I use an older $100 Audio Technica BT amp with my IEM's (Earsonics S-EM9, Custom JH Angie, SE846, etc) with my Nexus 6 which doesn't support SBC.
  
 That said streaming Tidal with my setup via BT sounds freaking amazing. It sounds better than the headphone out jack on my Nexus 6 by a bit.
  
 Even though the Audio Technica amp supports APTx and all but the most bleeding new technologies SBC works perfectly fine for me. For on the go it's about as good as I can get without having to lug around a huge Mojo or the like when to me being completely wireless is better.
  
 Honestly, use your ears. If it sounds right and not artifacty and slurry sounding like a compressed MP3 then you're good. I've tested SBC on my Nexus 6 and Aptx on my Samsung S4 and I can not hear a difference to save my life. Both sound amazing.


----------



## Denon2010

jazic said:


> I use an older $100 Audio Technica BT amp with my IEM's (Earsonics S-EM9, Custom JH Angie, SE846, etc) with my Nexus 6 which doesn't support SBC.
> 
> That said streaming Tidal with my setup via BT sounds freaking amazing. It sounds better than the headphone out jack on my Nexus 6 by a bit.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hey this is good news.
  
 Here is the thing I bought this headphones it should arrive next week
  
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TA4HRMQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  
 ^ Got it for $44 refurbished. Now I have a generic CSR 4.0 bluetooth USB Dongle that I had bought last year to connect a PS4 controller to my PC.
  
 What are your thoughts on this? should I stick to this USB device? I paid $8 US for it do you think it has SBC? it is simply one of the countless mini gold plated Generic CSR Bluetooth 4.0 USB adapters on Amazon. But I have absolutely no idea if it supports Aptx or what.
  
 I am assuming it has SBC? what do you think? whats the worst case scenario? I would prefer not waste anymore money on another bluetooth dongle.


----------



## Jazic

denon5220 said:


> Hey this is good news.
> 
> Here is the thing I bought this headphones it should arrive next week
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 If it was a cheap USB dongle then it probably wont support Aptx since it probably has a licensing fee to use. SBC if I'm not mistaken is like MP3 and pretty difficult to protect as easily. 
  
 That said, just hope it sounds decent. Be sure to tweak the settings with the adapter to get the best quality possible.
  
 At the very worst you have a decent pair of BT headphones for your phone. 
  
 I personally have a $30ish BT amp I got from Amazon and some Koss KSC75's for $15 and I use it with my FireTV at night when my wife is sleeping to watch TV or whatever. There's a slight delay by a few hundred milliseconds but it's not a huge deal considering I'm completely wireless.
  
 At the end of the day if it sounds good then who cares if it has the newest technology... I'd rather have it than not but my Nexus 6 doesn't support aptx and I'm not crying. Not that it'd matter even if I did.


----------



## Denon2010

jazic said:


> If it was a cheap USB dongle then it probably wont support Aptx since it probably has a licensing fee to use. SBC if I'm not mistaken is like MP3 and pretty difficult to protect as easily.
> 
> That said, just hope it sounds decent. Be sure to tweak the settings with the adapter to get the best quality possible.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Aah nice yeah I feel the same way in order to get rid of the wires I would happily sacrifice some SQ especially when I am traveling I have a Nexus 4 phone. Having listened to a number of different headphones over the years high end headphones that is, and realizing there is no difference between FLAC and 320k mp3 to the human ear, or realizing most headphones above $100 hardly has any improvement in quality I think I will make do with these Sony.
  
 If the battery lasts me 4 years I am cool with that won't bother replacing it by that time we will have Bluetooth 5.0 or whatever and i am certain way better stuff so when that time reaches I am sure I would end up investing a lot more into a much better wireless setup


----------



## lampuiho

cheap usb bluetooth 4.0 dongle uses csr chip and has aptx support.
 But back to the main subject, aptx is not that great unless the source is from a lossless source. M4a may employ different MP4 part3 profiles to encode audio. To support m4a fully, you need to support all the profiles, not just AAC-low complexity. Decoding mp4 and encoding the decoded signal with aptX means that the original now passes through two lossy channels which means noises from two different sources are added to the original signal. The aptX codec can't tell whether the peak in the spectrum comes from the noise or not and still use the noise to mask the nearby spectrum, thereby destroying the details unintentionally.
 Samsung iconx and apple products do support m4a fully so they sound a great deal better when playing back those mp3/mp4 music. But for the rest of the headphones that use CSR8645, not so much.
 I hate it when people are trying to make their own proprietary stuff instead of using the standards. If you truly believe your stuff is better, just go to the standard discussion meeting and propose a change instead of making a product that is not standard.


----------



## Francisk

Proprietary means business for some companies


----------



## Roseval

> So I suppose that if an AAC device is paired with an AAC+ device, the connection is AAC.


 
 What I can imagen is that sender and receiver do device enumeration.
 Of course they do find SBC (mandatory) but there might be other codecs as well.
 Let’s assume both support AAC and decided to use this.
  
 The audio is send to the Bluetooth sender.
 Here the audio is encoded to a lossy format (AAC in this case) that fits into the bandwidth and of course decoded to raw PCM at the receiver because the receiver contains a DAC and DACs do not understand anything at all about any audio formats. The only thing they do understand is LPCM most of the time over I2S.
 This is how codecs work and this applies to any codec be it SBC, APT-X, AAC, MP3, etc.
  
 Suppose we play an ACC file. Will it be send straight to the Bluetooth Radio?
 I do think this highly unlikely.
 Select a AAC file in the media player.
 The media player invokes a codec (AAC of course) and expand the audio to raw PCM.
 If we want to use any kind of DSP e.g. volume control, it has to.
 If we use DS, we send it to the Win mixer so it must be raw PCM.
 As far as I know, it  is pretty difficult to do any kind of DSP on compressed formats.
 Hence I expect a media player to decode any format to PCM.
 This makes the scenario of sending any compressed file e.g. AAC straight to a Bluetooth sender highly unlikely.


----------



## castleofargh

I wondered about that myself, just digital volume(and of course any DSP) would need to extract the file. it's not like compressing to AAC twice at an OK bit rate is going to ruin the song, but it's not optimal. I wonder how much the BT drivers really impose on the "media player".


----------



## reg66

i'd like to know from anyone who has Creative BT-W1 or BT-W2. i'm thinking of getting one but as my laptop already has bluetooth 4.0, i'm wondering if there is any noticable difference with audio quality between standard BT 4.0 and BT 4.0 + aptX. is it worth it?  
  
 my system is HP probook 450 G2 and Dali zensor 1 ax speakers (which support aptX) 
 (new member so can't open my own thread) thanks


----------



## lampuiho

castleofargh said:


> I wondered about that myself, just digital volume(and of course any DSP) would need to extract the file. it's not like compressing to AAC twice at an OK bit rate is going to ruin the song, but it's not optimal. I wonder how much the BT drivers really impose on the "media player".


 
 Actually, you can apply gain directly to an AAC file / AAC transmission. I do not know how exactly BT music playback is implemented but it's entirely possible to send stream of AAC signal directly to the receiving end and let it decode..


----------



## StanD

lampuiho said:


> Actually, you can apply gain directly to an AAC file / AAC transmission. I do not know how exactly BT music playback is implemented but it's entirely possible to send stream of AAC signal directly to the receiving end and let it decode..


 
 The receiving end would require a proper codec / firmware to be able to decode AAC. None of my existing BT cans/IEMs has this.


----------



## lampuiho

stand said:


> The receiving end would require a proper codec / firmware to be able to decode AAC. None of my existing BT cans/IEMs has this.


 
 The only ones I know are apple airpods and samsung iconx


----------



## StanD

lampuiho said:


> The only ones I know are apple airpods and samsung iconx


 
 Neither of these two are headphones or sound good.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> Neither of these two are headphones or sound good.




How do you know about airpods? Have you heard them yourself? They are not out yet, isn't it? Or are you basing upon internet "reviews" by "experts"??


----------



## StanD

sparkonshore said:


> How do you know about airpods? Have you heard them yourself? They are not out yet, isn't it? Or are you basing upon internet "reviews" by "experts"??


 
 I've read many unfavorable reviews, I've never heard a pair of earpods that sound any good. The only type of such devices that I've ever listened to that sounded good were ones that insert into the ear canal and form a seal, not pod devices. Are you betting that Apple will produce a great sounding device? They have never done so for such a device.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> I've read many unfavorable reviews, I've never heard a pair of earpods that sound any good. The only type of such devices that I've ever listened to that sounded good were ones that insert into the ear canal and form a seal, not pod devices. Are you betting that Apple will produce a great sounding device? They have never done so for such a device.




Sealing the ear has some positive and some negative effects. Bass increasing for sure when sealed, but I don't know how accurate it is for the sound in general...Just suggesting to listen first for yourself and don't base upon other people's assumptions...Open earphones or headphones are closer to the sound of loudspeakers due to the openness of the soundstage and this is preferable for some people...I can't bet on anything, I just guess they will be good enough for many applications...You can try the Solo3 and BeatsX wireless which will both have the new W1 chip by Apple. The newest Beats headphones have nothing to do with the old ones and they are quite praised for their sound here in HeadFi...


----------



## SparkOnShore

And one more thing: Apple actually has been producing really high quality sounding earphones through the years: Apple in ears double armature have been praised all around for their sound and have presented one of the 10 most balanced FR in all earphones...


----------



## StanD

I've listened to all of Apple's earpods and they don't ring my bell. I have hybrid dynamic/BA IEMs that I feel sounds way better than anything that Apple has to offer.
 I have open Planar/Ortho headphones that have phenomenal bass with great sub bass, so open doesn't mean that bass will be lacking. Solo and Beats headphones tend to have poorly controlled bass and U or V FR shapes which means the mids are lacking and trebles are exaggerated which is not to my tastes. I keep trying them and although they've improved over the years, I can get far better SQ for the same money.
 If anyone enjoys earpods or airpods or anything else, they should continue to enjoy them.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> I've listened to all of Apple's earpods and they don't ring my bell. I have hybrid dynamic/BA IEMs that I feel sounds way better than anything that Apple has to offer.
> I have open Planar/Ortho headphones that have phenomenal bass with great sub bass, so open doesn't mean that bass will be lacking. Solo and Beats headphones tend to have poorly controlled bass and U or V FR shapes which means the mids are lacking and trebles are exaggerated which is not to my tastes. I keep trying them and although they've improved over the years, I can get far better SQ for the same money.
> If anyone enjoys earpods or airpods or anything else, they should continue to enjoy them.




As far as I see you are what we call "audiophile", and for sure you are not after simple and medium priced solutions. What are you looking for in BT then? I don't think you can find the quality you enjoy with the hybrids in a BT set. I am looking forward to the Apple's BT option, but I never use so expensive headphones as you do, so for me BT is fine but for you I guess it is not...


----------



## StanD

sparkonshore said:


> As far as I see you are what we call "audiophile", and for sure you are not after simple and medium priced solutions. What are you looking for in BT then? I don't think you can find the quality you enjoy with the hybrids in a BT set. I am looking forward to the Apple's BT option, but I never use so expensive headphones as you do, so for me BT is fine but for you I guess it is not...


 
 I'm not a purist nor a subjectivist audiophile. I haven't found wired earbuds under $100 that I enjoy, but do not spend over $500 on IEMs either. I do have some BT headphones that are not inexpensive nor are they very expensive. Without a question my two Planars/Orthos and Senn HD600 are my favorites, but these are for fixed position home use.
 I have a pair of Samsung Level Over BT headphones (aptx, anc) that I got for a one day low price at BestBuy, probably because they made a mistake and honored it. I was going home on a bus and saw this one their web site, so I got of the bus and scooped it up. The next day the price was $75 higher. These are the over ear. not under ear.
 recently I picked up a pair of Jabra Halo Smart BT earbuds with a collar that sound decent for $80. Not aptx or anything exotic, the transducers seem to make the difference and when commuting one doesn't need the absolute best as the environment is not conducive to critical listening. I changed the tips to Comply memory foam which is more comfortable and provides better isolation.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> I'm not a purist nor a subjectivist audiophile. I haven't found wired earbuds under $100 that I enjoy, but do not spend over $500 on IEMs either. I do have some BT headphones that are not inexpensive nor are they very expensive. Without a question my two Planars/Orthos and Senn HD600 are my favorites, but these are for fixed position home use.
> I have a pair of Samsung Level Over BT headphones (aptx, anc) that I got for a one day low price at BestBuy, probably because they made a mistake and honored it. I was going home on a bus and saw this one their web site, so I got of the bus and scooped it up. The next day the price was $75 higher. These are the over ear. not under ear.
> recently I picked up a pair of Jabra Halo Smart BT earbuds with a collar that sound decent for $80. Not aptx or anything exotic, the transducers seem to make the difference and when commuting one doesn't need the absolute best as the environment is not conducive to critical listening. I changed the tips to Comply memory foam which is more comfortable and provides better isolation.




I refuse to pay more than 150-200 eur for headphones. Since I always use iPhones that cost around 900 to 1000 eur and do WAY more things for me, I think that headphones with just drivers, even good ones, should never cost more than the 10-20% of the phone's value. Otherwise it's like stealing to me...

I can listen to and enjoy good music with 50-60 or 100 euros iems. I am fine like that since my ears never understood huge differences in some tests that I have done over the years, with much more expensive gear...I liked the wired Solo2, a little expensive for me but enjoyable sound and quite balanced I may say. Most probably I will go with the BeatsX wireless, since it will include the W1 chip, keeping I guess the same new Beats sound which is just fine for me. Neckband cable seems to be of good quality and quite flexible, so I guess I will be ok...


----------



## james444

roseval said:


> Suppose we play an ACC file. Will it be send straight to the Bluetooth Radio?
> I do think this highly unlikely.
> Select a AAC file in the media player.
> The media player invokes a codec (AAC of course) and expand the audio to raw PCM.
> ...


 


castleofargh said:


> I wondered about that myself, just digital volume(and of course any DSP) would need to extract the file. it's not like compressing to AAC twice at an OK bit rate is going to ruin the song, but it's not optimal. I wonder how much the BT drivers really impose on the "media player".


 
  
  
 Regardless of DSP, the mere fact that A2DP is a packet oriented protocol makes recompression mandatory imo:
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/601665/what-are-head-fi-members-views-on-apt-x-lossless-codec-over-bluetooth/165#post_11403295
http://www.head-fi.org/t/601665/what-are-head-fi-members-views-on-apt-x-lossless-codec-over-bluetooth/285#post_12298826


----------



## StanD

sparkonshore said:


> I refuse to pay more than 150-200 eur for headphones. Since I always use iPhones that cost around 900 to 1000 eur and do WAY more things for me, I think that headphones with just drivers, even good ones, should never cost more than the 10-20% of the phone's value. Otherwise it's like stealing to me...
> 
> I can listen to and enjoy good music with 50-60 or 100 euros iems. I am fine like that since my ears never understood huge differences in some tests that I have done over the years, with much more expensive gear...I liked the wired Solo2, a little expensive for me but enjoyable sound and quite balanced I may say. Most probably I will go with the BeatsX wireless, since it will include the W1 chip, keeping I guess the same new Beats sound which is just fine for me. Neckband cable seems to be of good quality and quite flexible, so I guess I will be ok...


 

 We'll have to disagree on that. I believe headphones make the big difference and when I sit down to enjoy music the proper kit makes a huge difference. I will not spend thousands on DACs and Amps nor buy a $5K set of Stax electrostatics cans, however, the cheapest headphones I've ever found that sound great are Senn, HD600's which just break the budget you've outlined, but not by much. I'll use a smartphone as a USB source but at home connect to a decent external DAC and headphone Amp. With the right set of headphones the sound is awesome. One can catch the impact of drums and the metallic clink and clang of cymbals with incredible realism. The bass extends way down low and does not boom so one can clearly hear and make out each individual note in the melodic line of the bass. I can always enjoy music with any decent kit, however, stepping it up a bit makes a big difference to me. No, I will not go overboard with DACs and Amps that have specs that exceed human perception as I'm not interested in pleasing the lab equipment used for measurements.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> We'll have to disagree on that. I believe headphones make the big difference and when I sit down to enjoy music the proper kit makes a huge difference. I will not spend thousands on DACs and Amps nor buy a $5K set of Stax electrostatics cans, however, the cheapest headphones I've ever found that sound great are Senn, HD600's which just break the budget you've outlined, but not by much. I'll use a smartphone as a USB source but at home connect to a decent external DAC and headphone Amp. With the right set of headphones the sound is awesome. One can catch the impact of drums and the metallic clink and clang of cymbals with incredible realism. The bass extends way down low and does not boom so one can clearly hear and make out each individual note in the melodic line of the bass. I can always enjoy music with any decent kit, however, stepping it up a bit makes a big difference to me. No, I will not go overboard with DACs and Amps that have specs that exceed human perception as I'm not interested in pleasing the lab equipment used for measurements.




I've listened and produced music myself on different systems, in studios and at home; passive speakers with amplifiers, monitor speakers, brands like Dynaudio, Genelec and the like...To be honest with you when I first plugged a Shure SE215 which costed me 80 eur to an iPhone 5s, I said my God!! It's equal or even better than many systems I had heard...To each their own, but my opinion is that good headphone can be made with less money. It can't cost more than the actual device it plays from, which gives you so so many different uses. Maybe you ask for more though, so I can't judge, but for a simple and as accurate as possible music's presentation, my experience says that there is no need to fork out a lot...Just my opinion of course...


----------



## StanD

sparkonshore said:


> I've listened and produced music myself on different systems, in studios and at home; passive speakers with amplifiers, monitor speakers, brands like Dynaudio, Genelec and the like...To be honest with you when I first plugged a Shure SE215 which costed me 80 eur to an iPhone 5s, I said my God!! It's equal or even better than many systems I had heard...To each their own, but my opinion is that good headphone can be made with less money. It can't cost more than the actual device it plays from, which gives you so so many different uses. Maybe you ask for more though, so I can't judge, but for a simple and as accurate as possible music's presentation, my experience says that there is no need to fork out a lot...Just my opinion of course...


 

 No doubt that the more expensive the headphone the bigger the gap is between the selling price and cost of materials. Better headphones require more labor, better QA and sell in lower volume which are probably factors in the higher cost, also it's what the market will bear. So unfortunately it costs more. So it's a question of how far one is willing to go.
  
 I will say those Samsung Level Over cans (aptx) over Bluetooth with my Galaxy Note 3 sounds awfully good, despite the whinging of bluetooth naysayers. The Android app for the Level Overs has OK EQ, however, I much prefer the EQ in the better player apps that I use.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> No doubt that the more expensive the headphone the bigger the gap is between the selling price and cost of materials. Better headphones require more labor, better QA and sell in lower volume which are probably factors in the higher cost, also it's what the market will bear. So unfortunately it costs more. So it's a question of how far one is willing to go.
> 
> I will say those Samsung Level Over cans (aptx) over Bluetooth with my Galaxy Note 3 sounds awfully good, despite the whinging of bluetooth naysayers. The Android app for the Level Overs has OK EQ, however, I much prefer the EQ in the better player apps that I use.




I agree with you. I think BT can give good audio quality as well as a natural sound presentation nowadays. I plan to turn to BT as well for when I am out...Bored of tangled cables...)


----------



## StanD

sparkonshore said:


> I agree with you. I think BT can give good audio quality as well as a natural sound presentation nowadays. I plan to turn to BT as well for when I am out...Bored of tangled cables...)


 

 I also have a Nyrius Bluetooth receiver that supports aptx and has optical TOS and RCA line outputs and not so important NFC for pairing. I use this with my Galaxy Note, DAC and Headphone Amp. Purists will scoff at the Bluetooth connection but it sounds pretty good and aptx works with it. Of course I also use a USB OTG connection between my Android devices and the DAC or a LIghtning CCK to USB connection from my iPod Touch to my DAC.
 I also have a similar Bluetooth connection to my Home Theatre system, works nicely.


----------



## SparkOnShore

stand said:


> I also have a Nyrius Bluetooth receiver that supports aptx and has optical TOS and RCA line outputs and not so important NFC for pairing. I use this with my Galaxy Note, DAC and Headphone Amp. Purists will scoff at the Bluetooth connection but it sounds pretty good and aptx works with it. Of course I also use a USB OTG connection between my Android devices and the DAC or a LIghtning CCK to USB connection from my iPod Touch to my DAC.
> I also have a similar Bluetooth connection to my Home Theatre system, works nicely.




Those are many devices!! I prefer to be light and simple, especially when out...I found out that iPhone + iems or ever better iPhone + wireless BT earphones are more than enough for me to enjoy good sound. Just the happiness of being so light and at the same time get so high grade audio, is a rare feeling that I personally would not change for the addition of a brick type device with possibly little better tremble or probably kind of deeper bass extension...


----------



## StanD

sparkonshore said:


> Those are many devices!! I prefer to be light and simple, especially when out...I found out that iPhone + iems or ever better iPhone + wireless BT earphones are more than enough for me to enjoy good sound. Just the happiness of being so light and at the same time get so high grade audio, is a rare feeling that I personally would not change for the addition of a brick type device with possibly little better tremble or probably kind of deeper bass extension...


 

 You have to compare the two to hear the difference, it is very noticeable as in big and has more to do with the headphones rather than anything else. Contemporary Bluetooth isn't such a big factor as some people make it out to be. I've compared it all.


----------



## reg66

sorry to disturb your conversation guys! i understand this is a headphone site but you may be able to help
 i'm wondering if can enlighten me on this:
 i have a laptop with regular BT 4.0 paired to some Dali zensor 1 ax's (plus BK sub for extension). i'd like to know if i can expect a significant enhancement by using BT 4.0 with aptX?
 i'm thinking of getting a Creative BT-W2 USB Transceiver (low latency aptX) to plug in my laptop, but £30+ is a fair bit just for BT adapter especially if it's only going to make a marginal difference, if any at all.
  
 cheers
  
 @StanD you seem pretty clued up, any opinions?


----------



## StanD

reg66 said:


> sorry to disturb your conversation guys! i understand this is a headphone site but you may be able to help
> i'm wondering if can enlighten me on this:
> i have a laptop with regular BT 4.0 paired to some Dali zensor 1 ax's (plus BK sub for extension). i'd like to know if i can expect a significant enhancement by using BT 4.0 with aptX?
> i'm thinking of getting a Creative BT-W2 USB Transceiver (low latency aptX) to plug in my laptop, but £30+ is a fair bit just for BT adapter especially if it's only going to make a marginal difference, if any at all.
> ...


 
 I find that unless you have pretty bad Bluetooth components in the chain, aptx is not nearly as important as a good headphones or speakers.
 In this case the Dali's come with aptx so you might as well harness it.  I would look carefully at the Dali's as I'm not a fan of Class D Amps which are not linear but are PWM switching amplifiers. But then again I haven't heard them so I really can't say. Have you been able to listen to them in a proper setting so that you could evaluate them? Have you listened to good quality systems so that you know what to listen for? The Creative BT-W2 USB Transceiver is Bluetooth 2.1 which is old, but at least has EDR. I might look for a BT transmitter that is more up to date.


----------



## lampuiho

stand said:


> Neither of these two are headphones or sound good.


 
 That's not the point of the discussion. You should be comparing BT headphones with similar construct and response that use aptX with those that have proper AAC decoder.


----------



## StanD

lampuiho said:


> That's not the point of the discussion. You should be comparing BT headphones with similar construct and response that use aptX with those that have proper AAC decoder.


 
 Firstly there are few that support AAC and they are nothing to write home about, so if one is looking for good sound then the exercise has no value. My point being that you can have the best decoding circuitry with a lousy transducer and it will perform poorly and a product without aptx or ACC but has good transducers will sound much better. Perhaps down the road there will be a selection of improved AAC devices, until them it's not for me. If one feels otherwise, they make their own value judgements, I'm just expressing my opinion.


----------



## lampuiho

stand said:


> Firstly there are few that support AAC and they are nothing to write home about, so if one is looking for good sound then the exercise has no value. My point being that you can have the best decoding circuitry with a lousy transducer and it will perform poorly and a product without aptx or ACC but has good transducers will sound much better. Perhaps down the road there will be a selection of improved AAC devices, until them it's not for me. If one feels otherwise, they make their own value judgements, I'm just expressing my opinion.


 

 This thread is about codec and future development, not about available headphones.
  If headphones that can decode AAC directly do sound better than aptX ones with similar transducer quality, we should be having those in the top quality headphones instead of the lousy aptX that does not comply with standard


----------



## reg66

stand said:


> I find that unless you have pretty bad Bluetooth components in the chain, aptx is not nearly as important as a good headphones or speakers.
> In this case the Dali's come with aptx so you might as well harness it.  I would look carefully at the Dali's as I'm not a fan of Class D Amps which are not linear but are PWM switching amplifiers. But then again I haven't heard them so I really can't say. Have you been able to listen to them in a proper setting so that you could evaluate them? Have you listened to good quality systems so that you know what to listen for? The Creative BT-W2 USB Transceiver is Bluetooth 2.1 which is old, but at least has EDR. I might look for a BT transmitter that is more up to date.


 

 thanks for the reply Stan and apologies for my late one. i have gone for a bluetooth adapter with BT 4.0 (incl aptX), it gets very mixed reviews but i think most people aren't disabling other BT stacks and therefore problems occur or having driver issues. i'm pretty ok with tinkering on pc's so hopefully i'll get it all up and running.
  
 re quality systems etc, i like to have a fairly descent sound but i'm not massively fussy. i have no probs with class D or PWM after having built (from kit and upgraded BOM) my own amp and dac and being pleased with the results. the dali's do sound good for what they are but i know i've made a sacrifice in audio quality over using separates and wired passives. that said, i really wanted the best sound for my budget AND with minimal clutter. this is important for me, so to have a really simple rig of just source (laptop or phone) and speakers with no external amps, dacs, discs etc and minimal cables was the deciding factor.
 the dali's, being 50W p/c, do lack a bit of bass which is why i bought the BK XLS 200 but there's still a little punch/impact [not too clued up on the technical jargon] missing from beats such as with dire straits - money for nothing intro. hard to explain, the deeper tones are there with the aid of the sub but there's presence missing from the mid beats (toms?) when compared to my old B&W's with 8" drivers (the dali's have 5.25"), but that's only to be expected given their size. that's my only qualm with them. other than that i love them!
 EDIT: almost forgot, i do have another issue with the dali's. the tweaters struggle with specific female vocals, alela diane - pirates gospel or white as as diamonds and first aid kit vocals for example (not so much with the latter), at above 60-65% volume. they start to distort. forgot about that as i rarely have them up above those levels, so not too much of an issue for me. but again, they aren't really built for power so it can be forgiven. no doubt others would less understanding!
  
 so anyway, thanks for your help (and pointing out the creatives are only BT 2.1; hadn't realized). at least i'll know i'm making use of the aptX, even _if_ at this level of fidelity i can't tell!!!
  
 cheers, james


----------



## StanD

lampuiho said:


> This thread is about codec and future development, not about available headphones.
> If headphones that can decode AAC directly do sound better than aptX ones with similar transducer quality, we should be having those in the top quality headphones instead of the lousy aptX that does not comply with standard


 
 I'll just state my case one last time, it's not worth bothering with great codecs when the transducers are not good. You may feel otherwise, however, IMO it's just a distraction as to me there is nothing worth buying.


----------



## StanD

@reg66 Is the BK XLS 200 Bluettoth connectable? I can see that you are carefully considering the tradeoffs and know what you are getting into, good thinking.


----------



## reg66

stand said:


> @reg66 Is the BK XLS 200 Bluettoth connectable? I can see that you are carefully considering the tradeoffs and know what you are getting into, good thinking.


 

 no, lovely bit of british quality (again, for my budget), but it's connected direct to sub out port on the dali's. an extra cable, but then then the power cable to the speaker was there anyway, just tidied them up with a cable wrap (also contains cable to the TV).


----------



## lampuiho

stand said:


> I'll just state my case one last time, it's not worth bothering with great codecs when the transducers are not good. You may feel otherwise, however, IMO it's just a distraction as to me there is nothing worth buying.


 

 Can you even read? I am not talking about buying consumer products. I am talking about headset design.


----------



## StanD

lampuiho said:


> Can you even read? I am not talking about buying consumer products. I am talking about headset design.


 
 Just stop already. I can read so don't be insulting.


----------



## thekash

I have both the Momentum 2.0 over-ear wireless and the Bowers and Wilkins P7 and i can tell you that wireless vs. wired there is a noticeable difference in the precision of sound through the headphones when using wires compared to apt-x. I'm using the Avantree bluetooth apt-x adapter with Fiio E-18, surface and direct through forced apt-x on my MacBook. I feel like the momentums sound similar in both wireless/wired mode but only when ANC is activated so it may be processing within the headphones as well even in wired mode. The P7 however sound like a different pair of headphones in wired mode. Anyone else have any experience with these two? i'm wondering if there are different revisions of the apt-x codec and if that's maybe giving different performance between devices.


----------



## Denon2010

I have a Sony bluetooth headphone and I have had other bluetooth headphones including an Audio technica.
  
 Let me say first off the problem with bluetooth headphones is NOT bluetooth please don't fall for this lie. Bluetooth is nearly perfect at this point and bluetooth 5.0 will make it indistinguishable from wires. It will be like running a direct fibre optic toslink both are digital.
  
 The problem with bluetooth headphones are the DAC/AMP are built onto the headphones because the signal is digital. But even then that is not much of an issue now adays with ESS Sabre DAC you can have audiophile grade DAC into bluetooth headphones if companies wanted.
  
 So what is the real problem? the problem is most bluetooth headphones are trash the design and drivers are trash. There are no open back bluetooth headphones in audiophile range, the battery is non removable so you will be tossing a $400 pair of audiophile headphones in the trash in 3 years. None of us would ever do that with wired ones. That is the main problem with bluetooth headphones they are only designed for portable use so there are no real Audiophile grade.
  
 The solution? an all in 1 DAC/AMP with dual male to male headphone plugs so you can use them with headphones that have detachable cables. To ensure the quality is perfect we are waiting for bluetooth 5.0
  
 There is 1 other issue, you don't get to use a fancy alloy decorated cable and you don't get to turn the fancy aluminum knob on  your fancy DAC/AMP setup and see the fancy analogue needle move in those classic design European and Russian tube amps


----------



## apaar123

Is aptx a lot better?


----------



## bladefd

What adapter do you guys use if you want to use the onboard microphone too on bluetooth headset?? The Azio adapter with aptx seems to be soldout on amazon and b&h and everywhere else. I see the sennheiser btd800 is there but costs $65.. I mean I could buy it, but if there is something cheaper that gets the job done...


----------



## StanD

bladefd said:


> What adapter do you guys use if you want to use the onboard microphone too on bluetooth headset?? The Azio adapter with aptx seems to be soldout on amazon and b&h and everywhere else. I see the sennheiser btd800 is there but costs $65.. I mean I could buy it, but if there is something cheaper that gets the job done...


 

 If you're looking for apt-x, I don't think the Sennheiser btd800 has it.


----------



## bladefd

stand said:


> If you're looking for apt-x, I don't think the Sennheiser btd800 has it.




I emailed asking Sennheiser. They said btd800 does support aptx. 

I asked: "Does btd800 use aptx?"
Sennheiser support: "BTD800 plays aptx if your computer will support it. The dongle will show a purple LED when playing aptx."

Anyways, I found azio bt adapter on airturn.com for like $16 shipped so I just ordered it from there. I never heard of airturn, but I used amazon pay so should be good.


----------



## StanD

bladefd said:


> I emailed asking Sennheiser. They said btd800 does support aptx.
> 
> I asked: "Does btd800 use aptx?"
> Sennheiser support: "BTD800 plays aptx if your computer will support it. The dongle will show a purple LED when playing aptx."
> ...


 
 Cool. I looked at Sennheiser's web site and they listed all sorts of tech info, but they didn't list apt-x.


----------



## bladefd

stand said:


> Cool. I looked at Sennheiser's web site and they listed all sorts of tech info, but they didn't list apt-x.




Yeah, that's why I was wondering too! 

We will see how the azio adapter does. If it doesn't work too well, I can always get the BTD800.


----------



## james444

bladefd said:


> I emailed asking Sennheiser. They said btd800 does support aptx.
> 
> I asked: "Does btd800 use aptx?"
> Sennheiser support: "BTD800 plays aptx if your computer will support it. The dongle will show a purple LED when playing aptx."


 


stand said:


> Cool. I looked at Sennheiser's web site and they listed all sorts of tech info, but they didn't list apt-x.


 


bladefd said:


> Yeah, that's why I was wondering too!


 
  
 It's mentioned in the user manual. Most user manuals are downloadable these days and often more informative than the tech specs.


----------



## Justin Hu

I own a pair of BT over-the-ear headphone, the Sennheiser Momentum wireless 2.0. The iphone6s+ doesn't support the APTX codec, so I could only stream music from spotify premium and TIDAL HIFI through the SBC codec with it. In the second scenario, I have also a APTX CSR certified BT dongle, so I also tried to stream from my PC for comparison, though it might cause some bias since the PC may induce some noice interference in itself side by side to the iphone setup. But according to my resilent though less than perfect comparisons of the two set-ups using BT streaming, I found that the premium Spotify streaming itself may not suffer much from the SBC codec since its bitrate/sec is within the bandwidth of the BT's range (<345 kbps for stereo), provided that Spotify streams at 320 kbps. However, when I use the HIFI streaming service from TIDAL, since the the bitrate per sec surpasses the bandwidth that BT could provide, that is severe distortion in sound when trying using the SBC codec, and some but not so severe distortion and loss of spatial orientation with the APTX codec. Also, I believe the IP6S+ has a pretty decent BT dongle or chipset likewise so the SBC codec itself may not cause real problem when streaming over the top streaming premium 320kbps music. In conclusion, the APTX codec is not supported in the iphone but only the imac (some kind of hidden feature), the SBC codec streaming is more than enough to handle everyday music streaming unless you are trying to stream your FLAC music with BT wireless, even though with the APTX codec, you suffer some decent portion of the music inevitably. Moreover, the dac chipset and the BT receiver in your BT headset also make a difference in the listening experience, there maybe less than noticible difference if you are just using some low quality BT headset since the sound quality is less than appreciable in the very first place


----------



## Roseval

> However, when I use the HIFI streaming service from TIDAL, since the the bitrate per sec surpasses the bandwidth that BT could provide, that is severe distortion in sound when trying using the SBC codec, and some but not so severe distortion and loss of spatial orientation with the APTX codec.


 
 No, this has nothing to do with the Codec and/or the bit rate.
 I can play 24/96 on my PC and listen to it over Bluetooth.
 First any Hires has to be down-sampled to 16/44 otherwise the Bluetooth receiver can't stomach it.
 The raw PC is send to the BT dongle and there the SBC or APT-X applies the lossy compression.
 Your problem give the impression that something is going wrong in the transmission to the dongle, say CRC errors on the USB


----------



## reginalb

roseval said:


> No, this has nothing to do with the Codec and/or the bit rate.
> I can play 24/96 on my PC and listen to it over Bluetooth.
> First any Hires has to be down-sampled to 16/44 otherwise the Bluetooth receiver can't stomach it.
> The raw PC is send to the BT dongle and there the SBC or APT-X applies the lossy compression.
> Your problem give the impression that something is going wrong in the transmission to the dongle, say CRC errors on the USB


 
  
 Unless the transcoder in use is garbage for the format it's fed from Tidal.


----------



## Justin Hu

The CSR chipset in the BT dongle is responsible for the APTX coding providing a better algorithm for tje inevitbale compression . However, APTX codec provides a more authentic playback when decoding this special codec instead using the SBC coding,


----------



## 329161

This is a bit off topic, but can anyone confirm if the Sony XA is aptx capable?


----------



## thekash

Yeah the A series all have aptx. but from my testing of the NW-ZX100, A17 and pioneer XDP-100R aptx makes a big difference but the player makes just as big a difference. So far the XDP-100R has the best detail, soundstage and clarity with aptx followed by the ZX100 then the Z17 from what i can tell. I initially was under the impression that it wouldn't matter what player i was using since aptx is a encoding codec and will depend on the headphones decoding the info, however the players EQ combination effects with aptx make a substantial difference at how well the aptx performs in real life.


----------



## ClieOS

dcfac73 said:


> This is a bit off topic, but can anyone confirm if the Sony XA is aptx capable?


 
  
 It is listed on its white paper, so yes.


----------



## StanD

Are there any proper scientific studies that prove apt-x is definitively superior to a good non-apt-x Bluetooth 4.0 implementation? I am not too confident in anecdotal experiences.


----------



## thekash

stand said:


> Are there any proper scientific studies that prove apt-x is definitively superior to a good non-apt-x Bluetooth 4.0 implementation? I am not too confident in anecdotal experiences.




Sound quality is and always will be subjective... but yes if you go over to the aptx website there is 'some' scientific information on how it's better... but as far as it being tested I don't know...


----------



## StanD

thekash said:


> Sound quality is and always will be subjective... but yes if you go over to the aptx website there is 'some' scientific information on how it's better... but as far as it being tested I don't know...


 
 I'd like to see the results of a proper blind test, ABX would be nice.


----------



## DJ The Rocket

stand said:


> Are there any proper scientific studies that prove apt-x is definitively superior to a good non-apt-x Bluetooth 4.0 implementation? I am not too confident in anecdotal experiences.




This is a case where perhaps you should be. For example, do you need to see DBT methodology/results to know if an HD650 is really better than a Beats by Dre? No, because the difference isn't subtle. There's no mistaking the difference there, no bias is going to be that strong. 

It's the same with apt-x vs sbc or whatever else

(I've never heard anything using the straight mp3 codec, which I've always presumed would be the best, since as long as you're using an mp3 file, I gets transmitted verbatim, no extra step compressing an already compressed file. But for some reason nobody uses it. Maybe I understand wrong, who knows.)


----------



## PaulQinUSA

I can't start a new thread yet but this question seems to fit right in here. I have read many pages of this thread but there is so much!
  
 I am trying to determine if I would even potentially benefit from getting an apt-x player. At what bitrate/quality of file does Bluetooth start to cause a degradation in sound? I am trying to figure out, for example, if I have music MP3 encoded at 256kbps, does Bluetooth degrade that or transmit all of the information so it's relatively equivalent to wired? Does Bluetooth handle a 320kbps file? When does Bluetooth start to negatively impact your music file?
  
 If it's at something like 192kbps, I am certainly missing out on a lot of the music's qualities.
  
 (I am a novice here - forgive me if that is a misinterpretation of this whole situation)


----------



## watchnerd

Regardless of protocol, I have never heard wireless headphones that sound as good as well-regarded wired cans.
  
 Until that changes, I regard wireless headphones as something suitable for convenience, like when I go to the gym.


----------



## StanD

dj the rocket said:


> This is a case where perhaps you should be. For example, do you need to see DBT methodology/results to know if an HD650 is really better than a Beats by Dre? No, because the difference isn't subtle. There's no mistaking the difference there, no bias is going to be that strong.
> 
> It's the same with apt-x vs sbc or whatever else
> 
> (I've never heard anything using the straight mp3 codec, which I've always presumed would be the best, since as long as you're using an mp3 file, I gets transmitted verbatim, no extra step compressing an already compressed file. But for some reason nobody uses it. Maybe I understand wrong, who knows.)


 

 I have a Bose QC35 that I use when commuting which doesn't have apt-x and sounds scary good despite being a Bose. Tyll Hendersen at Inner Fidelity is putting that headphone on their Wall of Fame. Perhaps at faster bluetooth 4.x connections SBC doesn't compress as much as to completely crappify the audio. I do have rather good Planar Mag headphones, not Beats, to compare with using wired as a reference point. I've tried other Bluetooth headphones that were very disappointing.


----------



## james444

stand said:


> Perhaps at faster bluetooth 4.x connections SBC doesn't compress as much as to completely crappify the audio.


 
  


james444 said:


> ... according to this comparison, even good old SBC has very good audio quality at 320kbps, with artifacts below hearing threshold


----------



## Jazic

I personally have no issues with sbc on my Nexus 6. I've tried several Bluetooth amps and all sound good. I can't really hear a diff between Tidal hifi and high though.


----------



## DJ The Rocket

stand said:


> I have a Bose QC35 that I use when commuting which doesn't have apt-x and sounds scary good despite being a Bose. Tyll Hendersen at Inner Fidelity is putting that headphone on their Wall of Fame. Perhaps at faster bluetooth 4.x connections SBC doesn't compress as much as to completely crappify the audio. I do have rather good Planar Mag headphones, not Beats, to compare with using wired as a reference point. I've tried other Bluetooth headphones that were very disappointing.




it's certainly awesome to hear you're loving the Bose on SBC. Should go without saying it's all about the implementation (see my review of the AK XB10 for an example of fantastic implementation), perhaps Bose nailed it on the 35, I've never heard one. For comparison's sake, have you heard a JBL E40 on bluetooth? It sounds good enough for me to not have any specific complaints, and I'll use it when a cord can actually be dangerous, but I wouldn't say it sounds great. Good though, for sure.


----------



## StanD

dj the rocket said:


> it's certainly awesome to hear you're loving the Bose on SBC. Should go without saying it's all about the implementation (see my review of the AK XB10 for an example of fantastic implementation), perhaps Bose nailed it on the 35, I've never heard one. For comparison's sake, have you heard a JBL E40 on bluetooth? It sounds good enough for me to not have any specific complaints, and I'll use it when a cord can actually be dangerous, but I wouldn't say it sounds great. Good though, for sure.


 
 Nope, I haven't heard those JBL's. To my pleasant unexpected surprise, the Bose QC35 sounds more than good enough, they actually sound very good.


----------



## Traveller

dabotsonline said:


> ... aptX HD has just been announced by Qualcomm, available on the CSR8675 Bluetooth SoC, allowing wireless transmission with a 24-bit depth and unknown sample rate (hopefully 192kHz)...


 

 Maybe HeadFi's search engine is not 100% but the above post would seem to be the only mention of AptX HD on this thread... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 In any event, I'm quite excited about the potential of AptX HD, albeit, there are only a handful of devices that are currently making use of the codec. LG's G5 is maybe the only smartphone that is Apt-X HD capable and less than a handful of headphones... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But nevertheless I am optimistic. I'm off to a good start despite the limited HW with A&K's XB10 BT headphone "dongle" as well as an AK3xx DAP which have recently been upgraded (updated...) from AptX to AptX HD. I'm hoping to do away with the dongle if/when eventually more AptX-HD headphones hit the market. B&W's P7 or V-moda's Crossfade Wireless could perhaps benefit with the additional codec.
  
 A&K made a simple but nice comparison table between SBC / AptX & AptX HD and from this, the most interesting aspect is the compression ratio (SBC -> 1/20, AptX & AptX HD -> 1/4). The next note-worthy point is the transfer rate (SBC@328kbps < AptX@384kbps < AptX HD@576kbps).
  
 Unfortunately I have less understanding of AAC / AAC+ but these do not appear to present higher rates than AptX / HD... . Of course I am more than willing to hear from those that prefer AAC codecs to better understand what the advantages, if any, are.


----------



## StanD

I don't buy into 24 bit as one can't find any recordings that exceed 16 bits, or come close to 16 bit DR. One would be hard pressed to find a DAC implementation that can deliver 24 bits of DR, perhaps 21 or 22 bits is more like it. So IMO the HD thing may be a bit over rated. Next what is the spec for SBC compression at Bluetooth 4.0 or 4.1 under good conditions and how does EDR come into play?


----------



## AnakChan

stand said:


> *I don't buy into 24 bit as one can't find any recordings that exceed 16 bits,* or come close to 16 bit DR. One would be hard pressed to find a DAC implementation that can deliver 24 bits of DR, perhaps 21 or 22 bits is more like it. So IMO the HD thing may be a bit over rated. Next what is the spec for SBC compression at Bluetooth 4.0 or 4.1 under good conditions and how does EDR come into play?


 
  
 Sorry if I misunderstood but wouldn't most of the 80's and beyond be mastered on tape rather than digital? Therefore those could still be ADC-ed to beyond 16 bit as such the likes of HDTracks and DSD/SACD primarily of old records?


----------



## LajostheHun

anakchan said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood but wouldn't most of the 80's and beyond be mastered on tape rather than digital? Therefore those could still be ADC-ed to beyond 16 bit as such the likes of HDTracks and DSD/SACD primarily of old records?



Anything can be encoded with big numbers doesn't mean it will do any good. Analog recordings are below 16bit "resolution" so why bother to throw them into big digital buckets? Like Stan says there is no recording out there that even approach 16bit's DR, using more bit depths will just increase the file size nothing more.


----------



## castleofargh

anakchan said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > *I don't buy into 24 bit as one can't find any recordings that exceed 16 bits,* or come close to 16 bit DR. One would be hard pressed to find a DAC implementation that can deliver 24 bits of DR, perhaps 21 or 22 bits is more like it. So IMO the HD thing may be a bit over rated. Next what is the spec for SBC compression at Bluetooth 4.0 or 4.1 under good conditions and how does EDR come into play?
> ...


 

 it's like scanning old camera films in a way. we get good scan ability, but what we record is the grain on the old films and whatever effect time had on them. for old tapes, there are pretty much 2 situations and usually a mix of both:
 -the tapes were copied often enough to avoid having it degrade too much with the years. from generation loss you kill close to a bit each time with noise(anybody knows for sure with tape to tape copies how much we lose?).
 -old tapes have been stored for many years and the possible damages probably more than surpass a few bit loss.
  
 so it's not easy to get great old stuff in practice (sadly). and that's not accounting for remastering that some do every X years purely to renew copyrights
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## StanD

anakchan said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood but wouldn't most of the 80's and beyond be mastered on tape rather than digital? Therefore those could still be ADC-ed to beyond 16 bit as such the likes of HDTracks and DSD/SACD primarily of old records?


 

 Most modern studio recordings are saddled with compressors and limiters. Analog kit has noise, analog tapes have noise, live situations have gobs of ambient noise, noise is everywhere. How many recordings of music can be identified that have such a large DR, recordings that people care to listen to? The old stuff has gobs of noise baked into the recordings, so I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.


----------



## Traveller

stand said:


> ...One would be hard pressed to find a DAC implementation that can deliver 24 bits of DR, perhaps 21 or 22 bits is more like it. So IMO the HD thing may be a bit over rated...


 
  
 I don't quite understand what you mean by no "24-bit DR -capable DAC". There are many DACs out there that (at least claim) 24bit or higher. The specs on my Mojo  go to 32 bit... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 As for ADCs... I'm no expert and can only ask why some sites / studios / ... claim 24~32-bit ADC processing?
  
 For instance, I have a copy of a test recording made by JAPRS and the recording conditions are documented here. Most notable (to an amateur like me):
  
_"...files were prepared by capturing an identical analog output signal of API console of CR-506 studio of NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai: Japan Broadcasting Corporation) with six DAWs, Avid ProTools for PCM 48kHz, 96kHz, 192 kHz and Merging Pyramix/Horus for 384kHz/32bit, DSD 5.6MHz, DSD 11.2MHz simultaneously..."_
  
 http://www.avid.com/pro-tools/compare#Pro-Tools-General
 Suggests 32-bit 192KHz
  
 and the other goodies listed are beyond my comprehension but FWIW:
 http://www.merging.com/products/networked-audio/horus
 http://www.merging.com/products/pyramix
  
 But anyway, I have no issue stating this stuff is_ way over my head_. My only interest is getting the best possible sound from currently available (and affordable) technology.
 If 24-bit (re)production means nothing more than better imaging (if not increasing DR), it's still worth checking out imho... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 In terms of _real-world media availability_, ok, that's an (even steeper) uphill battle. For example I purchased Davis' Kind of Blue in 24b-96KHz format without even having any background of where it was sourced _(assumption being of course the original analog masters)_ or the equipment / studio used to convert it. They sound better than my own CD rips _(to uncompressed WAV files)_ but that's no proof of hi-res' authority because maybe my CD was made with a low-quality ADC etc. I think the above JAPRS "exercise" is as close as anyone will get to a fair comparison.


----------



## castleofargh

there is a difference between the ability to generate 24bit files and actually resolving 24bit. also in the studio they usually don't sing at 144db+whatever the noise level is in the room, so the album can have 24bit of actual dynamic ^_^. 
  
 the best we can do is in effect pretty low. and let's not forget the headphone/speakers that really aren't highres compliant. if transducers were significantly better, I'm guessing we might have less of a hard time passing blind tests with some of the lossy codecs like those used for BT.


----------



## StanD

traveller said:


> I don't quite understand what you mean by no "24-bit DR -capable DAC". There are many DACs out there that (at least claim) 24bit or higher. The specs on my Mojo  go to 32 bit...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 A true playback of a 24 bit sound above the ambient noise level would be harmful to a human being. 32 bits might cause a geological event. The noise level in your kit is not compatible with a 24 bit DR, so 32 bit is not in the cards. And of course where are you going to find recordings that you want to listen to that can even challenge a 16 bit DR? Be mindful of the marketing department, that have been taken over by the dark side of the force.


----------



## watchnerd

traveller said:


> If 24-bit (re)production means nothing more than better imaging (if not increasing DR)


 
  
 24bit does not mean better imaging.
  
 That idea doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Traveller

castleofargh said:


> ...the best we can do is in effect pretty low. and let's not forget the headphone/speakers that really aren't highres compliant. if transducers were significantly better, I'm guessing we might have less of a hard time passing blind tests with some of the lossy codecs like those used for BT.


 


stand said:


> ... A true playback of a 24 bit sound above the ambient noise level would be harmful to a human being. 32 bits might cause a geological event. The noise level in your kit is not compatible with a 24 bit DR, so 32 bit is not in the cards. And of course where are you going to find recordings that you want to listen to that can even challenge a 16 bit DR? Be mindful of the marketing department, that have been taken over by the dark side of the force.


 
 Thanks for your feedback gents. clearly I've got the wrong idea or at best I've over-simplified things. I picture sound as waveform that has to be digitally represented by "slices" and the more slices, the closer we get to reproducing that waveform more accurately.
 So without turning this into a futile attempt to convert me into a Sound-Science groupie 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 what level of sampling and resolution does it take to avoid audible distortion / noise (quantization) while representing the full audible range along with what some audiophiles denote as less tangible qualities like the "air" around the instruments etc.? I'm just asking for a set of numbers and not the math behind the Nyquist-Shannon theorem


----------



## DoctaCosmos

traveller said:


> Thanks for your feedback gents. clearly I've got the wrong idea or at best I've over-simplified things. I picture sound as waveform that has to be digitally represented by "slices" and the more slices, the closer we get to reproducing that waveform more accurately.
> So without turning this into a futile attempt to convert me into a Sound-Science groupie  what level of sampling and resolution does it take to avoid audible distortion / noise (quantization) while representing the full audible range along with what some audiophiles denote as less tangible qualities like the "air" around the instruments etc.? I'm just asking for a set of numbers and not the math behind the Nyquist-Shannon theorem



http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
Could help. There are also some charts that give you a good visualization of what's going on but can't recall what pages they're on.


----------



## watchnerd

traveller said:


> So without turning this into a futile attempt to convert me into a Sound-Science groupie
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 For playback, 16bit is more than enough to get everything you need for music.
  
 All the audiophile attributes you're talking about have nothing to do with bit depth -- they're due to recording / mixing / mastering differences.


----------



## Traveller

watchnerd said:


> ... All the audiophile attributes you're talking about have nothing to do with bit depth -- they're due to recording / mixing / mastering differences.


 
 I thought the topic was hi-res sources and their (de)merit...  if a 24b96K file _would_ preserve more of the original source, wouldn't we want to try to obtain gear that can play it back to us.
  
 But I think all of you have made yourselves clear that you are confident >16bit is all but useless.


----------



## StanD

traveller said:


> I thought the topic was hi-res sources and their (de)merit...  if a 24b96K file _would_ preserve more of the original source, wouldn't we want to try to obtain gear that can play it back to us.
> 
> But I think all of you have made yourselves clear that you are confident >16bit is all but useless.


 

 If all of that resolution cannot produce any humanly detectable results then why waste the resources? As I've stated in the past, go and find recordings that you want to listen to that actually have a DR that exceeds the ability of 16 bit resolution. Once you find that, let us know what they are and how many you found. I suspect that you won't be able to scare up anything worthy of a mention. There are sites that sell HR recordings, however, they have nothing with exceptional musical DR. A better mix or mastering is what one needs, hirez doesn't make the difference.


----------



## castleofargh

if that's clear enough, can we go back to aptx?


----------



## watchnerd

traveller said:


> But I think all of you have made yourselves clear that you are confident >16bit is all but useless.


 
  
 Yes, that is what we're saying.
  
 I know it's hard to digest because it flies in the face of all the people trying to sell high resolution digital, but it's the truth.  My audio life became so much easier when I realized regular lossless was fine.


----------



## Traveller

castleofargh said:


> ...if that's clear enough, can we go back to aptx?


 

 Yes... back to AptX.
 AptX and AptX HD... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 
  
 EDIT:
 I *think* I have found at least one possible use for AptX HD. It will help to avoid down-sampling of 24-bit media. While not the main point of the thread below, this comment was an eye-opener _(nothing new, just a reminder of the potential pitfalls of working with "Hi-res" media):_
  


gregorio said:


> ... Using 24bit or even using an upsampling DAC and going from 16bit to 24bit is not likely to be detrimental, it's just that there won't be any benefit either.
> Going the other way, 24bit to 16bit could be quite detrimental unless a good quality dither is used as part of the process. Most consumer programs will truncate when going from 24 to 16bit. In other words, the last 8bits are just hacked off. Truncation is not good, it introduces quantisation distortion which is correlated to the audio material and it's results are unpredictable. It could mean that you get unwanted tones or harmonics in the mix which may be noticeable. Some consumer programs 'round' the result, still not good but better than truncation. The effects of rounding are unlikely to be heard by most people but the chances are that some audiophiles would notice. Dither is the only real option if you are serious about SQ.


 
  
 Foobar is good enough to offer a dithering option for down-sampling and I sure as hell hope most TOTL DAPs will also take the high road but what of the average Smartphone...


----------



## a-LeXx

After many years of being satisfied with my current rig I decided it's time to get somerhing new for mobile use.
This time wireless.

I had a very limited experience with BT prior to that, so, believing the advertisment, i thought BT with just SBC would sound just 'ok' and I'd need aptX for sure.

Now, with my new Momentum Wireless, the experience is very different from my expectations, and surprized by what I'm hearing I digged into the technical implementarion of SBC and aptX and came to a conclusion that aptX is only a marketing thingy. Ok, marketing and low latency.

I compared my Momentum with an iOS device (no aptX, Momentum does not support AAC) and a sony Z3(aptX) as sources. The difference in sound quality is about 0.

Now to the technical explanation, why the sound quality is the same:

SBC is a subband codec that works with 4 or 8 subbands.
aptX is a subband codec that works with 4 subbands, around 5kHz per subband. Means, SBC and aptX can be identical in this regards, if SBC is configured to divide the signal into 4 subbands.

aptX is using a fixed bit allocation for each band (in the BT implementation) following the pattern of 8:4:2:2 for each subband. It has a fixed compression ratio of 4:1
SBC is using a flexible bit allocation, that is, as the name suggests, flexible. It can be the same 8:4:2:2, or e.g. 8:3:3:2, depending on a signal it's fed. It can be also less bits per band, which means, for BT, SBC can be identical to aptX and have a compression rate of 4:1, or have less bits per band and a higher compression.

Both SBC and aptX use kind of ADPCM for encoding of the subbands and no psychoaccustics, SBC usually cuts everything above 20kHz with a hard band-pass filter.

Conclusion: aptX in the BT implementatin has fixed parameters and always delivers the same quality. SBC however has some flexibility and hence can sound exactly the same as aptX, but can also be used for higher compression with quality loss. Theoretically, SBC can even deliver better quality then aptX, because it has adaptive bit allocation per subband, and hence, if the source signal calls for it, can vary amount of bits used per frequency subband, while aptX in the BT implementation will alway allocate e.g. 8 bits for the lowest 5kHz and only 2 bits for the highest 5kHz (15-20kHz band).

This means, aptX is less a 'better' technology, but a bit more like a 'THX' logo for BT - you always know, what you are getting, it's a 4:1 compression, period.
SBC can have identical quality, but it depends on an actual implementation and bit rate, with lower bit rate and higher compression the quality will suffer.

I guss that most reputable manufacturers nowadays would use the full bandwidth available for SBC, that means, SBC and aptX will produce the same sound quality, since the technical implementation of both compression standards is almost identical.


----------



## Traveller

a-lexx said:


> ...This means, aptX is less a 'better' technology, but a bit more like a 'THX' logo for BT - you always know, what you are getting, it's a 4:1 compression, period.
> SBC can have identical quality, but it depends on an actual implementation and bit rate, with lower bit rate and high compression the quality will suffer. I guess that most reputable manufacturers nowadays would use the full bandwidth available for SBC, that means, SBC and aptX will produce the same sound quality, since the technical implementation of both compression standards is almost identical.


 
 Very interesting indeed, T4S! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Does anyone know of a way to force a source device (smartphone, notebook...) to use one or the other codec? I have a BT dongle that supports all the common codecs (SBC, AptX & AAC). I'd love to be able to compare codecs using the same source


----------



## james444

a-lexx said:


> After many years of being satisfied with my current rig I decided it's time to get somerhing new for mobile use.
> This time wireless.
> 
> I had a very limited experience with BT prior to that, so, believing the advertisment, i thought BT with just SBC would sound just 'ok' and I'd need aptX for sure.
> ...


 
  
 Great, informative rundown! That said, the devil _may _be in the details... for instance, ADPCM encoding, for which aptX claims "additional techniques for accurate linear prediction and inverse quantization". And robustness in transmission, for which aptX claims superiority of sample-based encoding over SBC's frame-based approach (which may force the latter to lower bitrate if too many frames are dropped).
  
 Anyway, that's merely citing from and speculating based on what little in-depth information seems to be out there...
  
http://www.edn.com/design/consumer/4326740/Bluetooth-Sufficient-fidelity-even-for-average-listeners-
https://www.design-reuse.com/articles/15836/audio-coding-for-wireless-applications.html
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-aptx-3134709
http://www.sereneaudio.com/blog/how-good-is-bluetooth-audio-at-its-best
  
 Subjectively, I'll say that while I tend to prefer aptX in general, the best SBC implementations I've heard sounded better than the worst aptX implementations.


----------



## castleofargh

> Subjectively, I'll say that while I tend to prefer aptX in general, the best SBC implementations I've heard sounded better than the worst aptX implementations.


 
 my experience too. even though I don't have any mean to be sure I was playing aptx. if the streaming encounters too much difficulties does it revert to SBC by default and then proceeds to lower the rate again and again until we're good? or do the devices stick to one protocol once they successfully started with it?
 all I know is that bad connection(distance, weak source...) never sounds good. plus the sound drops when it's really too bad.


----------



## StanD

I suspect that if  the two devices are in close proximity then one might get a quality SBC SQ.


----------



## Traveller

_I gotta try... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## REXNFX

traveller said:


> _I gotta try...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Hows the sound v Usb?


----------



## quasides

i want do add 2 points to the discussion, dunno if it was already said since the threat is already aweful long so i say it again 

number one. aptx doesnt only give you a supposed better quality it does give you defently better latency.
you may wonder why this matters in playback.. well play a video and you know what i mean 

segular bluetooth audio have a horrible latency, resulting in the old tale bt audio and movies or games are impossible to mix and this is true to an extent.
software made progress, so in android youtube you wont see a difference because the software already take this into account and play video a little bit after the audio

however not all software is that forgiving, since i use aptx only i cant tell which apps today still lagging but i remeber well that netflix and vlc mediaplayer where uneuseable over sbc at all, let alone games

1 second lag is simply too much. which aptx its reduced to a few miliseconds, low enough toactually enjoy that content without going insane 


second, if you think aptx makes a hearable difference i have something for you even better.
viper4android - its by far the best audio processing software on mobile you can find
with features you wont find in any other software solution in mobile (or even regular windows audio driver stack if you dont usw a daw and asio)

before i relist all its features just google it and make up your own mind


however i have to warn you. to get it running is not a piece of cake but its worth it
deping on ur rom you need to flash it seperatly and in some cases even edit a file or switch selinux to permissive which require root on ur device
theres plenty of documnetation on the web how to implement it on which manufacturer but not aleays easy to find
best eay togo for this is the xda forums


however u may think ahh too much trouble, well its really worth it
it doesnt matter if ur equipment is a piece of crap or highend, it even includes sound profiles of over 500 headphones, among other dsp stuff 
ofc it can lift your output gain in fact its the only solution on android that works anymore to make your audio louder (thanks to various regulations its level down to an inacceptable level specially for better headphones)

have fun


----------



## lennyr

Has anyone tried the Avantree Clipper Pro?  It looks interesting, in that it supports AptX - Low Latency, and is Bluetooth 4.2.


----------



## StanD

I just got a pair of Jaybird X3's. They are not apt-x but they are BT 4.1 and with EDR they do not have the compression issues that everyone is so concerned with when using the SBC codec. It has an AAC codec (for Apple folks) and some form of modified SBC codec (whatever that means). They happen to sound very good and that's what counts. There's an app for android and iOS that allows you to draw and save EQ curves. The EQ is done inside the IEMs, so you don't need the app to be running once it is set.


----------



## cityle

Combined the ear-in from Sony with my ath-im02 inorder to have the LDAC codec with sound of my lovely ath-im02. Works great. It's a big plus that now Android O have baked in support for aptX, aptX hd and LDAC.


----------



## turbobb

Giving this a necro-bump rather than starting a new thread since my question is related to the three flavors of aptX but don't see it covered so far.

I have a Bluewave Get that features aptX HD on order, in corresponding with the developer, he mentioned that the Get should be backwards compatible with regular aptX and aptX Low Latency (LL), it'll use the corresponding codec depending on the paired device and what is being played (e.g. if video, it should automatically use aptX LL).

I recently got the V30 and when paired with Mixcder's HD601 (which features aptX LL) it only connects via regular aptX. The V30 doesn't give any indication as to which codec is being used, I can only tell by the LED color on the HD601. This seems to indicate that either the V30 doesn't support aptX LL or aptX HD isn't backwards compatible with it. Would anyone know for sure?

TIA!,
Tim


----------



## Dulalala

turbobb said:


> Giving this a necro-bump rather than starting a new thread since my question is related to the three flavors of aptX but don't see it covered so far.
> 
> I have a Bluewave Get that features aptX HD on order, in corresponding with the developer, he mentioned that the Get should be backwards compatible with regular aptX and aptX Low Latency (LL), it'll use the corresponding codec depending on the paired device and what is being played (e.g. if video, it should automatically use aptX LL).
> 
> ...



The V30 doesn't support aptX HD or aptX LL. Funnily enough though, the V20 does support aptX HD.


----------



## cityle

Also, you can look in the developer options of your phone. Under the networking section, you can see which codec is currently used.


----------



## turbobb

@Dulalala - the V30 does in fact feature aptX HD as confirmed on aptX's site (https://www.aptx.com/products/lg-v30-smartphone) as well as by users (https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-v30/help/aptx-aptx-hd-indication-v30-t3718127). I unfortunately don't have an aptX HD headphone yet so can't confirm on my own.

@cityle - I've enabled Dev Options but would you mind telling me where can I see which codec is in use?

Thx!,
Tim


----------



## Dulalala

turbobb said:


> @Dulalala - the V30 does in fact feature aptX HD as confirmed on aptX's site (https://www.aptx.com/products/lg-v30-smartphone) as well as by users (https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-v30/help/aptx-aptx-hd-indication-v30-t3718127). I unfortunately don't have an aptX HD headphone yet so can't confirm on my own.



Oh, you're right I must have missed it when I looked on the site.


----------



## cityle (Jan 6, 2018)

turbobb said:


> I've enabled Dev Options but would you mind telling me where can I see which codec is in use?


You go to Bluetooth Audio Codec in the Developer options and there you can establish which codec to use by default (if possible) and it displays which codec is currently used when you're currently using a bluetooth device. And there is other settings, like when you're using LDAC like me to decide between adaptive bitrates, prioritize connection, and prioritize quality.

And another useful setting is Disable absolute volume, which allows you to crank up to max the bluetooth volume on your device and adjust the volume on your headphone separately afterward, allowing for a more granular control of the volume.


----------



## turbobb (Jan 6, 2018)

@cityle - ah, it seems to be only available w/Oreo, I'm still on Nougat... Can't wait til they release Oreo for the V30. Thanks for pointing this out, very helpful!


----------



## LajostheHun (Jan 6, 2018)

Dulalala said:


> The V30 doesn't support aptX HD or aptX LL. Funnily enough though, the V20 does support aptX HD.


The V30 most definitely support Aptx HD

https://www.aptx.com/products?field_aptx_type_tid=483&page=1


oops never mind someone already corrected you


----------



## turbobb

Bummer, LG support just got back to me stating that the V30 doesn't support Low Latency. It's weird that they wouldn't have included this as well. I've read that aptX HD's latency can be adjusted (to as low as 1ms vs. LL's 32ms) but does anyone know what the native latency is? Any experiences you can share re: audio sync while watching video?


----------



## Michial

I’ve listened to the highest quality on the WH100XM2 and the same on my B&O H6 Gen 2 with wires, and the H6 produces a far superior sound than Bluetooth. Perhaps as was suggested when 5.0 is ubiquitous it will exactly the same as wired, until then I think not.


----------



## LajostheHun

Michial said:


> I’ve listened to the highest quality on the WH100XM2 and the same on my B&O H6 Gen 2 with wires, and the H6 produces a far superior sound than Bluetooth. Perhaps as was suggested when 5.0 is ubiquitous it will exactly the same as wired, until then I think not.


That's like listening to 2 different speakers , not to mention  your confirmation bias.


----------



## turbobb

LajostheHun said:


> That's like listening to 2 different speakers...


+1 to this

@Michial - I assume that by highest quality you mean either aptX HD or LDAC and I get that you're trying to convey that wireless can't (yet) compete with wired but your example is really an apples to oranges comparison. I'll be honest that I have a tough time distinguishing between regular aptX and wired using the same headphone (leaving out the subtle differences due to powered vs. passive) so I'm quite happy with the state of BT at the moment but that's not to say I don't look forward to continued improvements. Even if I can't distinguish them, it satisfies me mentally... 

It's my opinion that in a blind study where participants do not know the make or model of a headphone with a fake wire connected to one of the better BT cans (by this, I mean ones that don't have tell tale white noise, hiss or connection blips), most participants wouldn't be able to tell if that connection was truly wired or BT (stay thy pitch forks, I said most...  lol)


----------



## Michial

LajostheHun said:


> That's like listening to 2 different speakers , not to mention  your confirmation bias.


I left wired headphones three years ago and have been Bluetooth until a few months ago. I’ve tried the QC35, WH1000XM2, B&W and Sennheiser $400 Plus Bluetooth headphones, and found the wired Sennheiser 569,579, 598 as well as the mdr1a, m100, B&O H6 all sound superior. I’m not an audiophile, but my conclusion must be it’s more than just driver differences, but wires. Some of these headphones are a third of the price as the best Bluetooth sets out today, yet are far superior in sound to me. Sure most wont tell the difference or don’t care but I can, and these 400 dollar headphones must have their money value for something other than sound. It must be paying for noise cancellation or dsp. Not sure but my $200 wires blow them away. That’s all I’m saying.


----------



## LajostheHun

you forgot amplifiers, cup design and how that actually project sound into your ear because of your unique ear shape etc... so no your "test" at least on this forum is inadequate to put it mildly...


----------



## Michial

LajostheHun said:


> you forgot amplifiers, cup design and how that actually project sound into your ear because of your unique ear shape etc... so no your "test" at least on this forum is inadequate to put it mildly...


Lol. Of course it is.


----------



## esprithk

Only SONY LDAC supports True CD quality 16bits/44.1kHz in music (at receiving end, the headphone)
*yes, you are listening to lossless CD Quality by LDAC tehcnology (but you must also have a device that support LDAC transmission.

Luckily, from Android OREO (8.0), many Android devices are already built-in LDAC support, such as some Huawei smartphone and HTC U11.
To active the option to select "which codec to use" for bluetooh transmission, you must go to settings of your smart device and enable "developer's options menu" (secretly pressed certain section of the setting 10 times).

Once you enable Developers' Option Menu, you have the option select which code (usually, it is listed A2DP, aptX, LDAC)


----------



## Dulalala

esprithk said:


> Only SONY LDAC supports True CD quality 16bits/44.1kHz



LDAC is a lossy codec so I don't know what you mean by "true" CD quality. If you mean indistinguishable from CD quality, aptXHD claims to do that too.


----------



## esprithk (Jan 22, 2018)

Dulalala said:


> LDAC is a lossy codec so I don't know what you mean by "true" CD quality. If you mean indistinguishable from CD quality, aptXHD claims to do that too.



It is lossless at 16bits/44.1kHz

(It is capable to fully reconstruct the 16/44.1 data in the receiving end)

Its transmission is more than enough to cover beyond 16/44.1

However, for 24/96, it is lossy as not possible to transmit such hugh data in the current LDAC technology.

Further reading here

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/what-is-sony-ldac-and-how-does-it-do-it-408285


----------



## james444

esprithk said:


> It is lossless at 16bits/44.1kHz
> 
> (It is capable to fully reconstruct the 16/44.1 data in the receiving end)
> 
> ...



I've read through it, where do they confirm that 16/44.1 is actually lossless?


----------



## Dulalala (Jan 23, 2018)

esprithk said:


> It is lossless at 16bits/44.1kHz
> 
> (It is capable to fully reconstruct the 16/44.1 data in the receiving end)
> 
> ...



From what I can tell, it's just what the marketing department said and the author of the article himself seems to have reservations on that response. Also haven't seen any other sources that verify this claim either.

The original statement seemed to imply it's part lossy part lossless, which doesn't exactly make much sense. If it's part lossy part lossless, wouldn't that just make it lossy since information is being thrown out anyways? I also don't understand how they would fit a 16/44 lossless file (equivilant to ~1400 kbps) into 990 kbps without any compression. Most lossless compression hover at around ~57% of the original file. If it truely was lossless compression it would mean that the lossless compression would be further compressed another 30-40% which seems a bit too good to be true.


----------



## bigshot

If it's lossless, it wouldn't be transcoding PCM to anything else.


----------



## Roseval

Good read: https://www.androidauthority.com/sony-ldac-codec-790690/


----------



## castleofargh

Roseval said:


> Good read: https://www.androidauthority.com/sony-ldac-codec-790690/








this graph out of context really pisses me off. this is the kind of dynamic we can achieve in an anechoic chamber with unique tones where the loudest signal is set where it starts to be painful. it's absolute BS when presented in the context of listening to music in everyday life. 

about the lossless nature of 16/44 when used at max LDAC setting, the bandwidth is good enough to deal with something like most 16/44flac files at average compression level, so lossless 16/44 isn't technically out of question.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> this graph out of context really pisses me off. this is the kind of dynamic we can achieve in an anechoic chamber with unique tones where the loudest signal is set where it starts to be painful. it's absolute BS when presented in the context of listening to music in everyday life.



+1



castleofargh said:


> about the lossless nature of 16/44 when used at max LDAC setting, the bandwidth is good enough to deal with something like most 16/44flac files at average compression level, so lossless 16/44 isn't technically out of question.



Yup, but why don't they explicitely state it then? First lossless A2DP streaming would be one hell of a selling point. My guess is because it isn't...


----------



## esprithk (Jan 24, 2018)

james444 said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, but why don't they explicitely state it then? First lossless A2DP streaming would be one hell of a selling point. My guess is because it isn't...



First, convert the spec to kbps


http://www.audiomountain.com/tech/audio-file-size.html

And then it is just simple math, you will find out LDAC transmission is more than enough to transmit 16bits/44.1kHz size  of data
(Actually, LDAC is like breaking and compressing the data, then in the receiving side, it decompress and put the data back together as a whole)

Second, the confusion is because SONY marketing dept advertise the product in focus of 24bits/96kHz, which turns out LDAC cannot archieve full reconstruction of 24/96 file size, thus it is lossy format for 24/96.

Third, due to the fact that LDAC is stil able transmit and reconstruct data that are close to the size of 24/96, this already proof that it has no trouble to transmit and reconstruct data size of 16/44.1 (as 24/96 is a much larger size in comparison)


Anyway, I searched aptX . c o m  and learn that

MDR-100ABN supports aptX as well
WH-H900N(the newer version of MDR-100ABN) supports both aptX and aptX HD, too.

So I am happy I get all supports (except Apple's W chip) from a SONY wireless headphone


----------



## bigshot

I just want audible transparency. I don't listen to numbers. I listen to music.


----------



## dhavill

I picked up the Bowers and Wilkins PX headphones a couple months ago and am really enjoying them.  However — I pair them with my S7 Edge which supports aptx and isn’t able to fully leverage the PX’s aptx hd capability.  Is it ludicrous for me to consider switching to the V30 or a 2018 flagship phone to take advantage of aptx hd?  Has anyone actually done a side-by-side with these two codecs to objectively say there is an audible difference?  Also hopefully this question is not akin to the age-old debate of headphone burn-in versus placebo.


----------



## esprithk

just for your information, after checking aptX . c o m

MDR-1000X -  supports aptX, LDAC
MDR-100ABN -  supports aptX, LDAC
MDR-EX750BT -  supports aptX, LDAC
MDR-XB950N1 -  supports aptX, LDAC
MDR-XB950B1 -  supports aptX, LDAC
MDR-XB950BT -  supports aptX, LDAC
MDR-10RBT -  supports aptX, LDAC
WH-1000XM2 -  supports aptX, aptX HD, LDAC
WH-H900N -  supports aptX, aptX HD, LDAC
WI-H700 -  supports aptX, aptX HD, LDAC
WH-H800 -  supports aptX, aptX HD, LDAC

NW-A40 (walkman) -  supports aptX, LDAC
NW-ZX300 (walkman) -  supports aptX, aptX HD, LDAC


----------



## esprithk

dhavill said:


> I picked up the Bowers and Wilkins PX headphones a couple months ago and am really enjoying them.  However — I pair them with my S7 Edge which supports aptx and isn’t able to fully leverage the PX’s aptx hd capability.  Is it ludicrous for me to consider switching to the V30 or a 2018 flagship phone to take advantage of aptx hd?  Has anyone actually done a side-by-side with these two codecs to objectively say there is an audible difference?  Also hopefully this question is not akin to the age-old debate of headphone burn-in versus placebo.




Hi, if you want to select which Bluetooth transmission format, you must active "Developers' Options" in the Setting menu. (go to ABOUT THIS PHONE or something with similar meaning) You just need to tap 10 times at certain place on the phone info list.
Once you can access "Developer's Options Menu", you can find an option that is about BT option (probably has aptX, aptX HD, and LDAC for you to choose).


----------



## esprithk (Jan 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I just want audible transparency. I don't listen to numbers. I listen to music.




Then, I am quite sure that you probably like the sound of LDAC.  It has more emotion than aptX and aptX HD.
*it is just like the Qualcomm Aqstic DAC vs others like ESS, AKM, Burr Brown, or even to FPGA (of Chord Mojo or Sony),  Qualcomm's DAC just feels dry.

Anyway, these are the latest smartphone model with latest Android OREO (version 8.0) that comes with LDAC supports,

HTC U11, U11+
Huawei Mate10,  Mate10 Pro
Sony Xperia series
Google Pixel 2


----------



## james444

esprithk said:


> ... LDAC transmission is more than enough to transmit 16bits/44.1kHz size  of data...
> 
> ... this already proof that it has no trouble to transmit and reconstruct data size of 16/44.1 (as 24/96 is a much larger size in comparison).



I don't doubt that LDAC has (theoretically) enough bandwidth for lossless 16/44.1 transmission. I'm able to do the math, thanks.

What I'm saying is that I found no proof (a specification or official statement by Sony) that LDAC actually does lossless encoding for 16/44.1 content.


----------



## SparkOnShore

esprithk said:


> Then, I am quite sure that you probably like the sound of LDAC.  It has more emotion than aptX and aptX HD.
> *it is just like the Qualcomm Aqstic DAC vs others like ESS, AKM, Burr Brown, or even to FPGA (of Chord Mojo or Sony),  Qualcomm's DAC just feels dry.



How funny it sounds to me that you can hear the dryness of a DAC!! LOL!! You audiophiles (golden ears!!) for sure living with many placebo inside you!!!


----------



## SparkOnShore

Forget the “dry” and “liquid” DACS and just try to enjoy music for a while!!! For God sakes!!


----------



## bigshot

I had an DAC with great emotion once. Every time I played Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony with it, it burst into tears! A dry DAC can be quenched by playing The Sons of the Pioneers singing "Cool Water" or Gene Kelly's "Singing in the Rain".


----------



## SparkOnShore

bigshot said:


> I had an DAC with great emotion once. Every time I played Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony with it, it burst into tears! A dry DAC can be quenched by playing The Sons of the Pioneers singing "Cool Water" or Gene Kelly's "Singing in the Rain".



!!! I like you even though I don’t know you bigshot!!! I am with you 100%!!!


----------



## bigshot

We’re pals now!


----------



## SparkOnShore (Jan 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> We’re pals now!



Hi pal !! Best wishes!!! And please avoid dry dacs!) For the good of Music !!


----------

