[rkw]

Missed opportunity in my humble opinion not to pursue bluetooth transport. There are so many dac amps in the world, it's a pity not one bluetooth receiver would transport, just saying.

I just can't imagine many people wanting a portable bluetooth receiver to carry around and plug into different DACs. No manufacturer wants to build it because there is no market demand.

 

[iFi audio]

I think you have some very odd opinion regarding BT transport

As said before, making a BT transport is almost as complex and expensive as making a DAP, sharing most of the same internal component as well as software. To ask a manufacture to make a BT transport is about the same as asking them to make a DAP without screen and internal storage. So why won't them just make a DAP with BT transport capability (and in fact that's precisely what they choose to do)? That way they can sold the same device for multi functionality instead as an one-trick pony.

As far as my opinion goes, those DAP you pointed out are exactly the kind of BT transport you are looking for if you used them that way. Removing the screen and internal storage will not have any major impact of cost (*we are talking maybe $20~30 less per unit, could be even less), since most of the cost will be on the SoC and the firmware development.

On the other hand, I think most people who ends up using BT with higher end headphone are well aware about the shortcoming of BT impact of SQ,. Those people choose BT because they want the convenient and simplicity of having a very small device that can pair of a smartphone and willing to sacrifice some level SQ and output power in the process. An BT transport connect to a a portable DAC/amp in many way just defeat the idea of convenient and simplicity in the first place. For those who are willing to carry a full sized portable DAC/amp, we already have portable DAC/amp that has BT function built-in. I will argue that adding a small DAP with BT transport functionality to a portable DAC/amp will not actually impact most of those people willingness to carry a large stack of device on-the-go. So essentially a complex-to-build, BT transport only device is just a very niche product that don't quite fit into the market. It is an easy decision for the manufacturer - for about the same price, would you want to buy a small DAP with BT transport capability or just a BT transport? What do you think will be an easier product to sell? How would a manufacturer explain to its customer that the BT transport they made has almost all the hardware and software of a DAP, but they decided not to include a screen and internal storage to make it a fully capable DAP, but instead believe it is better off as a BT only transport?

I enjoy a lot your recent comments about BT. And yes, making a BT receiver and transport is a fair bit different than separating these utilities.

Our recently released GO blu DAC/amp is a BT receiver. This product used as a transmitter for yet another device (...if it could be one in the first place) would then have its core functionalities (a DAC and amp) defeated and that's something very few people would be interested in, I think. At the end of the day, as a manufacturer we design products accordingly to their primary usage scenarios. Just my 0.02

 

[Ynot1]

I think you are missing the point. In this connected economy all you have to do is get the guy who worked on the project and hire him or her. And then make them spill the beans so that you can offset the cost of R&D. Who doesn't want to be successful when everybody is busy looking the other way for their own priorities. Ok that was me just kidding, but soc and software are not that costly once somebody has made it work. The trick is to keep the secrets from being copied and pasted into a new product. Just look at the daps that I mentioned. I think they all use the ingenx1000 platform. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ynot1]

I just can't imagine many people wanting a portable bluetooth receiver to carry around and plug into different DACs. No manufacturer wants to build it because there is no market demand.

Based on the number of post you've made you clearly were not born yesterday. But I agree to politely disagree.

I know I was suppose to combine this with my previous post, but I haven't figured that out yet.

 

[ClieOS]

If the success of the product (*BT Transport) has to rely on wishing that no one else will want to copy an easily copied design (*of which compatible functionality has already been established by other devices *DAP*) and wishing somehow its nicheness of functionality will defy the market and make it sell more than it should - then yes, you have a winner there. Now you just need to wish for one manufacturer to believe in you as well and it will be golden.

 

[Mouseman]

But...one buyer will certainly offset the R&D (copying and industrial espionage) and production costs, right?

 

[ClieOS]

Impression on iFi GO Blu added

 

[waynes world]

Impression on iFi GO Blu added

Good stuff, thanks. That lower BT range would drive me nuts. Also it's pretty expensive given the competition. I'm still happy with the ES100 and BTR3K, although the ES100 BT range is not good. Your recommendation of the BTR3K was a good one - it must still be one of the better values out there.

 

[Gee Simpson]

Now the BTR5 is back available in the UK (not sure if this is the new revised version or not), I'm choosing between two options.

Fiio BTR5 vs Qudelix 5K? I'll be using either via balanced, and I'm not bothered about EQ abilities.

Quoting myself here but I went for the Qudelix 5K in the end.

 

[monsieurfromag3]

Quoting myself here but I went for the Qudelix 5K in the end.

Good man!

 

[DeJaVu]

Quoting myself here but I went for the Qudelix 5K in the end.

Great choice. Hopefully the rest of the bunch will understand soon how important software is.

 

[ClieOS]

Great choice. Hopefully the rest of the bunch will understand soon how important software is.

Don't think they are being ignorance of how important app is, but they simply don't have the expertise to match that of Qudelix. Software engineer is one of the most demanded job in China for the last few years, and generally speaking the mobile gaming and software companies are much more willing to pay a lot more money for an experienced software engineer than an audiophiles / hardware company. I was once told by a CEO of a hardware company that head hunting companies has poached his software engineers and offered salary than was higher than the CEO himself. He was resolved to hire young and inexperienced software engineer every year and only to see most of them got poached away in a year or two.

 

[ClieOS]

Signal strength test add to 2nd post.

 

[waynes world]

Signal strength test add to 2nd post.

Interesting! And "ouch" for one of those tested (not mentioning any names).

 

[Verificateur]

Wow, what a gem of a thread. Thank you for all your efforts @ClieOS !

A quick question — I just got a Qudelix 5K but all my cables are 4.4mm balanced… could anyone suggest any quality/reliable adapters to go from 4.4 to 2.5 which wouldn’t impact SQ? Or is it a bad idea to use an adapter?