Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Logitech UE 9000 vs AKG K845BT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Logitech UE 9000 vs AKG K845BT - Page 4

post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by apertotes View Post

Damn, I am really sorry, but I am a total noob. I did not understand your answer. Videos use their own audio codecs, like mp3, mp3, aac, etc. Does that list also incluso lossless codecs like ogg or FLAC that would supposedly benefit from aptx profile?

Videos use their own codecs (like you said). Then normally do not use lossless audio though.

I do want to clarify one other thing though. If the headphones don't support something like AAC, APTX will, and can, step in and be used as a codec (the AAC would be converted to work in real time). You won't get a loss in quality, but if AAC is supported, that codec will be used instead (you won't get a loss in quality, but no conversion will be required).
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

Videos use their own codecs (like you said). Then normally do not use lossless audio though.

I do want to clarify one other thing though. If the headphones don't support something like AAC, APTX will, and can, step in and be used as a codec (the AAC would be converted to work in real time). You won't get a loss in quality, but if AAC is supported, that codec will be used instead (you won't get a loss in quality, but no conversion will be required).

 

I read in the aptx official page that aptx also has lower latency than regular BT. Would that also apply while watching any video regardless of the codecs? or only when the profile is being actively used?

 

I am sorry for being so full of questions. I just begun taking audio mildly seriously and i have so much information to assimilate.

post #48 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by apertotes View Post

I read in the aptx official page that aptx also has lower latency than regular BT. Would that also apply while watching any video regardless of the codecs? or only when the profile is being actively used?

I am sorry for being so full of questions. I just begun taking audio mildly seriously and i have so much information to assimilate.

What? I don't see how it can have less latency, but OK...
post #49 of 53

http://www.csr.com/products/aptx-low-latency

 

Quote:
aptX® Low Latency for Bluetooth® offers  a total end-to-end latency of just 32 milliseconds (ms) – far less than the standard Bluetooth latency of more than 150 ms (+/-50ms), and well under the 40 ms recommended latency for audio/video applications.
post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by apertotes View Post
 

http://www.csr.com/products/aptx-low-latency

 

 

The product needs to support APTX low-latency as well as the phone.  Whether or not it'll be used for movies is up to the headphone or device in question.  CSR offers 5 different software packages for APTX:

  • Low Latency
  • Lossless
  • Enhanced
  • Live
  • (regular)

 

Scroll to the bottom of this page: http://www.csr.com/products/technology/audio-processing  So in order to support this, the device would have to support that software as well as the headphones.  If one of them doesn't, you can't use that. 

post #51 of 53

Hi all.  I've just added the K845BT to my collection (which includes K550, K551, UE6000 and many others), and have a couple notes to share.

 

1.  Under all conditions its sound signature is pretty K550/K551-like and not at all like the (to my ears) bassy and rolled-off presentation of the UE6000.  (I don't have a UE9000 for comparison.)  Wired and amped I think it's great for a sealed headphone.  Wired and unamped, or unwired, I think it's very good, and I'm happy to use it on the go, but it's not up to my personal critical-listening standards.

 

2.  It weighs noticeably more than a K551, but I like it better for mobile use, even apart from the Bluetooth functionality.  On my head at least, the smaller earcups give me a better seal, as well as making for a somewhat less dorky fashion statement. 

 

3.  Potentially useful fact: the UE4000/6000 cable, with on-cord volume and play/pause controls and mic, fits perfectly into the K845BT's socket.  So for the price of a UE4000 (currently very cheap, especially if you're not picky about color) you can swap out the K845BT's cable for one with on-cable controls and a right-angle connection at the far end.

post #52 of 53

I've done some side-by-side listening and decided my post above is a little bit wrong.

 

When I listen to it in isolation, yes, the K845BT is indeed very reminiscent of the K550/K551.  But side by side it becomes clear how different they are.  Compared to the K551, and with both headphones amped (HeadAmp Pico DAC/amp in this case), the K845BT is substantially bassier / fun-sounding, and also substantially less clear in the top end, making female vocals less clearly enunciated and robbing the sonic image of some of the air and sense of the acoustic space that I like to hear.

 

It's still nowhere near as bassy/rolled-off as the UE 6000; it just leans a little bit in that direction, compared to the K550/K551.

 

It also (for what it's worth) is less efficient than the K550/1, needing a higher volume setting to generate equivalent perceived volume.

 

Though personally I like the cleanness and clarity of the K550/K551, the K845BT's sound signature is probably more of a popular winner commercially.

post #53 of 53
Thread Starter 

Oops, almost forgot about this thread. Great reads though! Thanks!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Logitech UE 9000 vs AKG K845BT