soundsgoodtome said:

Any reasons why it'd be louder and more meaty with hq?

Click to expand...

 
I'd guess... more quality without necessarily sacrificing battery life would force them to roll off the highs in order to attenuate high frequency interference coming from the bluetooth module.
 
This would essentially have an EQ effect on the rest of the frequency range -> more bass and more midrange -> louder.
 
But that's really crack-pot theory at best. Without actually seeing at least a schematic, I'm as blind as a bat. 
 

giogio said:

  Yes, I think I have a talent for screwing things up, no problem there
No seriously, I apologize, I had not read your modding post well (it should be sticked to the first post) so I thought it was more a soldering mod, and I am too lazy for those things.
 
For the materials, I meant, can you say why did you choose those? Which else did you try, and what difference did you see? I live in EU so I am not sure I want to order those things from US. More info could help me find a nice alternative.
 
About Aptx on Mac, where did you read that Mac support Aptx?
My informations are that no Apple product supports Aptx because Apple does not want to pay the license to CSR.
I think that Aptx is not just something software. I may be wrong but I think it needs also a special hardware, I am not sure if a BT chip produced by CSR or what. Maybe you know more.
But the fact is, I think that Apple wanted to support Aptx and there is this possibility, and on some OS people can even read Aptx, but there is not yet real support behing.
It is like a door with a name on it, but the room behind the door is empty.
This is what I have understood.
If you have different info I would be happy to hear them. Better would be if with some proof or link. So I can give better suggestions to owners of Macs when I suggest them BT Headphones.
 
 
About what you wrote for the negative feedback: I think I like you.
EDIT: oh, sorry, this was a positive feedback.
But I meant it so

Click to expand...

 
Oh, no problem at all.
 
Here's how to check if your Mac has APT-X codec enabled:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6483703
 
I'd guess that all Macs that come with a bluetooth transceiver built-in should have support for this since it's just a codec. It's kind of weird that my iPhone/iPod/iPad have yet to have support for this stuff, but... I honestly couldn't tell a difference with it enabled or not.

As for the materials, I chose them because they worked well with other headphones that I have modded. I did try felt and foam as well, and I didn't quite like how they sounded. Also tried... leather, paper, and pretty much anything I could stuff in there. Honestly, though, this is not the be-all end-all, and I suspect more could be done.

I went a head and made the purchase on these cans and I can say that they were 150 well spent!! I love them

bill-p said:

   
I'd guess... more quality without necessarily sacrificing battery life would force them to roll off the highs in order to attenuate high frequency interference coming from the bluetooth module.
 
This would essentially have an EQ effect on the rest of the frequency range -> more bass and more midrange -> louder.
 
But that's really crack-pot theory at best. Without actually seeing at least a schematic, I'm as blind as a bat. 

 
 
Oh, no problem at all.
 
Here's how to check if your Mac has APT-X codec enabled:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6483703
 
I'd guess that all Macs that come with a bluetooth transceiver built-in should have support for this since it's just a codec. It's kind of weird that my iPhone/iPod/iPad have yet to have support for this stuff, but... I honestly couldn't tell a difference with it enabled or not.

As for the materials, I chose them because they worked well with other headphones that I have modded. I did try felt and foam as well, and I didn't quite like how they sounded. Also tried... leather, paper, and pretty much anything I could stuff in there. Honestly, though, this is not the be-all end-all, and I suspect more could be done.

Click to expand...

Yes it is just a codec but it belongs to CSR and you must pay a license to use it, which Apple maybe did not.
Now, by reading the Bluedio R+ thread I have understood that this is not so simple.
It may even be that a special chip is needed, to support this codec. Like a special Intel CPU is needed to support Turbo Cache, although you find the Turbo Cache settings available in the OS anyway.
So my supposition is that the OS of these Macs was made with the prevision that Aptx would have been implemented, but then Apple changed idea and so there is no real chip and/or codec in the notebook, but you still find the settings.
This can be the reason why for all mac users there is no difference in sound when they activate the Aptx, while the difference is very clear to windows and android users.
my 2 suppositioncents.
 
After all, Apple is not listed in the official Aptx Website, and Apple is not exactly a name which you just forget to list. Nor a Brand which would let this oversight pass without protesting.
Also, there is no officialinfo from apple about Aptx anywhere.
Why should Apple hide this, considering that Aptx is a major selling point?
Which is my same point with the Beats Studio Wireless..
 
Thanks for the info about the materials, I will ask you something more in case I will decide to buy and keep the Xb950.

There is a way to enable APTX with apple. I believe it's through the X11 Developers kit. Sorry can't find the link right now, but I have it enabled on my Mac. Also, from my understanding the iPhone supports AAC as a Bluetooth codec.

giogio said:

 
Yes it is just a codec but it belongs to CSR and you must pay a license to use it, which Apple maybe did not.
Now, by reading the Bluedio R+ thread I have understood that this is not so simple.
It may even be that a special chip is needed, to support this codec. Like a special Intel CPU is needed to support Turbo Cache, although you find the Turbo Cache settings available in the OS anyway.
So my supposition is that the OS of these Macs was made with the prevision that Aptx would have been implemented, but then Apple changed idea and so there is no real chip and/or codec in the notebook, but you still find the settings.
This can be the reason why for all mac users there is no difference in sound when they activate the Aptx, while the difference is very clear to windows and android users.
my 2 suppositioncents.
 
After all, Apple is not listed in the official Aptx Website, and Apple is not exactly a name which you just forget to list. Nor a Brand which would let this oversight pass without protesting.
Also, there is no officialinfo from apple about Aptx anywhere.
Why should Apple hide this, considering that Aptx is a major selling point?
Which is my same point with the Beats Studio Wireless..
 
Thanks for the info about the materials, I will ask you something more in case I will decide to buy and keep the Xb950.

Click to expand...

Apple did. My guess is they don't advertise it outright for now because their mobile devices don't have it, but their Macs do support it.
 


It's kind of silly to not have support for it when Bluetooth Explorer has the options to "force AptX" for audio.
 
AptX really is just a software codec. Any Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR compliant hardware and up should be able to support it just fine. In fact, there is no hardware encoder/decoder for it, so I'd guess that in actual use, it does take some processing power, and perhaps that's why Apple hasn't implemented it in their mobile devices yet, in fear that it may drain battery life.
 
Apple's reluctance to include it in their mobile devices probably warrants not including them as a brand on the AptX website. Notice how only 1 laptop is on the list, and I'm sure almost every Windows 8/8.1 laptop/tablet should support AptX since Windows Phone 8.1 supports it. (why would Windows Phone support it but full-suite Windows doesn't?)
 
Also, the AptX website doesn't seem to list all products. For instance, the XB950BT is not even on there even though Sony does list it as having support...
 
Anyway, back to AptX. I did get to try AptX on my friend's Galaxy Note 3, and also Blackberry Q10, and it didn't necessarily sound better with it enabled or not.
 
In fact, I'm thinking it may not make a big difference for Apple devices because Apple devices support AAC, and the XB950BT supports AAC decoding, so there is no need to encode/decode anything. AAC can be sent directly to the headphone.
 
Hm... now that it's like that, I should try playing back some AAC files and see if that would improve anything. Alternatively, I think some Youtube videos may have AAC as its encoding codec.

Can you guys really tell the difference? I mean I'm using milk to stream my house music, and was playing with the neutron app with some house music flac files and yeah it sounds pretty good, but so does the milk app. I was expecting a bigger jump in sound quality. I'm Using my logitech ue 9000, maybe my cans have something in it that makes everything sound great?

I can clearly hear a difference between some DACs, differences between... USB adapters, converters, power supplies, amps, etc... even some cables.
 
But I still honestly cannot hear a difference between different formats when they are well encoded. FLAC, MP3 320kbps and AAC 256kbps all sound pretty much the same to me.
 
When I was using a bad encoder, I could hear some artifacts, but lately, I've used XLD almost exclusively, and it has been good.

bill-p said:

  1 It's kind of silly to not have support for it when Bluetooth Explorer has the options to "force AptX" for audio.
 
2 Apple hasn't implemented it in their mobile devices yet, in fear that it may drain battery life.
 
3 Apple's reluctance to include it in their mobile devices probably warrants not including them as a brand on the AptX website.
 
4 Notice how only 1 laptop is on the list, and I'm sure almost every Windows 8/8.1 laptop/tablet should support AptX since Windows Phone 8.1 supports it. (why would Windows Phone support it but full-suite Windows doesn't?)
 
5 Also, the AptX website doesn't seem to list all products. For instance, the XB950BT is not even on there even though Sony does list it as having support...
 
6 Anyway, back to AptX. I did get to try AptX on my friend's Galaxy Note 3, and also Blackberry Q10, and it didn't necessarily sound better with it enabled or not.
 
7 In fact, I'm thinking it may not make a big difference for Apple devices because Apple devices support AAC, and the XB950BT supports AAC decoding, so there is no need to encode/decode anything. AAC can be sent directly to the headphone.

Click to expand...

 
I like the way you think logically and I could and do agree with you, partially.
 
1) I do not think so. You find in WIndows many services, which you can enable or disable, even if they will have NO EFFECT, like the already mentioned Turbo Boost or whatever it is called. If you do not have the right processor, you cannot have any Turbo Boost, but the service is already preinstalled in the OS. Microsoft cannot make 10000 versions of an OS.
The same for Apple. They may have made the new OS with the Idea that they wanted to support APTX, so the relative option is there, but has no effect because they finally decided not to support Aptx.
 
2) I do not think the use of Aptx will possibly drain more battery than the use of SBC (the traditional codec used by the A2DP profile which host also the APTX Codec) or of the AAC.
After all, the Aptx codec only runs when you connect an Aptx device.
 
3) That is a sort of Mafia or Childish attitude. "ah yeah? You do not want to use Aptx on your mobile devices? Then we ******* exclude your ******* Macbook from our ******* website. ****."
No, I do not think CSR would think this way. And I do not think Apple would EVER possibly allow them to think and act this way. Not after PAYING a license to them to use Aptx on their Macbook (IF they really pay, so, IF there is really Aptx...)
 
4) No, not all Windows Phones support Aptx, like not all Android Phones support Aptx. The Aptx Support is not native in Android and I am not aware that it is native in Windows Mobile or any other Windows OS. I think it would be quite expensive for Microsoft to pay a super universal license to CSR. In this moment CSR gets money, apparently, for each device which the Producer want with Aptx. So you find that not all new smartphones of Sony or of Samsung have Aptx, but only the top of the line. This proves that the license is not universal. If Microsoft would support Aptx natively, ALL notebooks and PC in this world would support Aptx, so CSR would not get anymore money for each device. This kind of license is very expensive. I am not sure Microsoft has interest in doing so.
The same for Apple. If Apple does so, then they are paying the license very expensive and they would have to give support to Aprtx in ALL the products which uses that OS. They probably want to reserve this only for the top of the line products. And so they anyway prepared the OS, but there still is no license. The license will be there for each product they want to have Aptx.
 
5) That may just be because it is a new product. But I very much doubt that Aptx would ever possibly completely forget an entire Brand, especially when that brand is Apple! Also because it is their BIG interest to have such a big name on their list. And, once again, I do not think that Apple would just let them forget. Aptx is a major selling point. Look in google how many people ask for notebooks supporting Aptx.... Also Apple's forums are full of similar questions.
 
6) You can not enable or disable Aptx. If your Mobile Phone (or PC) supports Aptx, when you connect an Aptx Headphone it will only work in Aptx, you cannot choose it.
You only can with the Sony, with this combination of buttons at startup, to pass from High Quality mode to Standard etc.
Did you do this? Did you, with those Aptx Smartphones tried the Sony with the several modes?
i can personally tell you that with my Azio BTD V401 USB Dongle when I install the CSR Harmony Stack (which gives it Aptx) I notice a huge difference in sound with my Fidelio M2BT than when I do not install the CSR Stack.
It may depend on the Azio dongle which may be so bad that it only produces good sound when there is the CSR software, or on the Fidelio. No idea.
 
7) yes but, this is something I did not understand well and I would like to understand: to have the AAC active, you need to stream AAC files, isn't it? I mean, if you listen to MP3 files, the headphone swill not stream in AAC, right? They will use SBC or Aptx. So, people who only hace Mp3 and Flac need Aptx, not AAC.

Turbo Boost is a hardware feature, and not software, though. It interacts with ACPI, so any OS that supports ACPI will also support Turbo Boost by default.
 
Just like AptX is just a codec for bluetooth, so any bluetooth hardware that passes the specification requirements should have support for it.
 
And yes, I did try the several modes of the headphone with the phones mentioned. All 3... (low, normal, high) really did not give that big of a jump in quality, and the differences between them are still as I noted above. Normal (SBC-only, no AptX as far as I know) and High (AptX or SBC if no AptX support) actually sound about the same.
 
Also on my Mac, when the headphone is connected with AptX, it shows...
 


If normal mode is used, it'll show SBC instead:
 

 
If there really is no AptX support, I don't think they would put that there. I didn't have to do anything special (special commands, etc...) to make it work that way, either.

Yes but not all Windows OS support Turbo Boost. So what I meant is that when the new processors came out, which could support Turbo Boost, Windows started implementing this feature in its OS. But you still need to have the right Hardware or this feature is "sleeping". Same for the services for Tablets which you may have running on a PC, or the Spool service when you have no printer, or the service for Smart Cart when you have no Smart Card, etc.
I know what you mean with "this is hardware, Aptx is software". And I understand what you mean when you post these images.
But what I meant is that MAYBE (I am making suppositions) these are just general functions of the OS, like a border without picture, or an empty box, something which need an extra software (or at least a license) to really give Aptx.
 
Now, how can your notebook know that your Headphone is Aptx?. This is a good question, the only one I do not know how to answer.
I could suppose that the OS can recognize the Codec being requested by the Headphone, even without being able to support that codec.
But that is already a bit too much supposition. Let's say that to mee it is also more logical to think that in this case the Aptx is really being delivered, used...
 
But I cannot understand how is it possible that Apple do not write this anywhere, that their support do not know anything about it (I have called the German Support, talked with a SENIOR technician, so, not an anybody, but a senior technician. He had NO IDEA of what Aptx is, and has searched everywhere in their system and information, talked with colleagues, let me wait for half an hour, etc... At the end he told me that no apple product support Aptx as far as he could say. But he would escalate the case to the USA Support and let me know).
If Apple support Aptx I am happy. So I can suggest the Fidelio M2BT to more people
 
There is a last test you can do.
If you are able to find a pair of Harman Kardon BT.
They led blink 3 times if the connection is SBC, 4 times if it is Aptx.
I am not aware of any other Headphone which can give a feedback on which codec is really being used.
 
Cheers

Well, again, I think you are mistaken about Turbo Boost. If you are not, then someone at Intel is clueless:
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-029908.htm
 

What operating systems does Intel Turbo Boost Technology support?
 
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology is a processor technology, and is operating system independent.

Click to expand...

 
And yeah, I'd agree that Apple or any other company may need a license to have AptX on their computers, but having a license doesn't warrant their appearance on CSR's website.
 
Like I said, if Apple is not including support for their iPhone/iPod/iPad devices for now, I'm quite certain they would want to keep mum about it even when their computers support the software feature. Maybe they are in the process of negotiating a licensing deal with CSR, but honestly, I wouldn't know.
 
Now, here's the thing... I'm sure you know Apple owns Beats as a brand, right? And they also sell Beats headphones and speakers on their website?
 
Did you know Beats supports AptX?
http://www.aptx.com/product/beats-wireless
 
And yet Apple doesn't mention that on their website anywhere. So I think that should be an indication that they are just intentionally keeping mum.

Man, you know what I meant with the Turbo stuff. It was an example. i did other examples, spool service, smart card, I could do more.
And with the turbo stuff, if it was not a service on Windows then I remember false, but still it was something in my ex notebook, which had no processor able to support turbo boost. This is why I talk of it.
Now in this notebook I have the Intel Rapid Storage Technology software installed by default even if I have no HD in Raid. So, it was a way to let you understand what I was meaning.
Even if the example would have fit totally and Turbo Boost would have not be independent from the OS etc, it would have still been just an example and would have not proven anything about Apple.
 
I know more than well what is happening with Beats.
It is a Fraud.
The ONLY Beats which supported Aptx is the old Beats Wireless which are discontinued, so there is no reason why Apple should talk of Aptx on an old discontinued Beats product when they do not talk of it on their Macbooks.
The Studio Wireless do NOT have Aptx.
I have accused Beats of Fraud publicly in my Amazon Review because of this.
 
And as somebody told me, the process of fusion between Apple and Beats will be extremely slow. IF they will ever completely fusion.
In this moment I can just tell you that they have two completely different supports.
So, when you call Apple, they do NOT give support for Beats and have no idea about anything of Beats.
I did it. They told me to contact Beats.
It was exactly about this of the Aptx on the Studio Wireless.
 
But it was a nice try
 
Seriously, get an Harman Kardon.
I mean. Maybe you are not particularly interested in this test so to find one HK or to even buy it in Amazon where you can then just return it.
But, if you do, let me know. It is the only Headphone I know which gives a feedback about the type of connection active.
 
EDIT: a guy in another thread here told me something about Aptx which you may find interesting, something about which kind of BT chip it needs. Apparently it is not so that you can have it with any BT chip without problems.
 
EDIT 2: I think I have found something about Aptx on Apple which is pretty much a definitive answer, coming from CSR. And also found a way to get answers from CSR: twitter. At least if you are Jesse Andersen:
http://www.jessebandersen.com/2012/05/list-of-apt-x-compatible-devices.html
SO my supposition about including the support for Aptx in a OS instead  of for each device, was wrong. Apparently all macs with OS X support Aptx.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at.
 
I mean... without making it look like a battle about suppositions or anything. It's kind of a fact that AptX really is just a software codec, and Apple has at least licensed it for Mac OSX. The only reason for them to not put it on their mobile devices would most likely be due to licensing issues, and also why they haven't officially listed it on their website yet.
 
Either way, though, my impression is still that AptX doesn't make much of a difference in sound quality, at least with the XB950BT. If it does, then I think either something is up with the transceiver, or there's a problem elsewhere in software.
 
And this is most likely why Sony didn't document the different quality modes on the headphone. It already defaulted to the best compromise between compatibility, transmission stability, and quality.

Just to add a bit to this codec discussion.
 
Apple devices, such as iphones and other iOS devices default to AAC codec transmission. Yes, this is the same codec used by Apple for MPEG-4 AAC file compression.
 
I think even in Standard mode, the XB950BT would still be sent an AAC signal from an iOS device or APTX from compatible devices. That's not going to change. So this could be why it there may be no change in audio quality in 'high quality' mode. Sony even refers to it as a 'priority' mode. So High quality is more priority for high-quality sound signal.
 
http://theheadphonelist.com/wireless-fidelity-making-sense-bluetooth-headphone-technology/#codecs
http://helpguide.sony.net/mdr/xb950bt/v1/en/print.html
 
I'm sure Apple has some reason for not pushing towards APTX in its devices. In any case, AAC at 250kbps probably is very close or as good as what APTX is putting out. Perhaps they don't want to make a deal with CSR. 

Actually, it's AAC that I haven't been able to get working.
 


So don't go converting all of your MP3 to AAC yet.