[xkoo]

i have to say i love my Fiio LC-BT2 with Fiio FH7, amazing synergy and sound.

 

[monsieurfromag3]

Very interesting TWS receivers by OE Audio have popped up: the WS-1.
A laconic presentation on OE Audio’s website.
The product page on Jaben.

I’m not sure these will be comfortable, and they still don’t support HD codecs, only AAC and aptX. But OE Audio say they’ve added an amp in the circuit, instead of relying on the BT chip.

Also the box looks nice!

 

[C_Lindbergh]

Very interesting TWS receivers by OE Audio have popped up: the WS-1.
A laconic presentation on OE Audio’s website.
The product page on Jaben.

I’m not sure these will be comfortable, and they still don’t support HD codecs, only AAC and aptX. But OE Audio say they’ve added an amp in the circuit, instead of relying on the BT chip.

Also the box looks nice!

Interesting, but not a lot of info, all I can say is that they look so much better than thr fiio/trn equivalent.

Looks like they charge wirelessly in a case like normal true wireless? That would be huge.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5zdaQnSwQkdKIXfhnKIp-ZBRtsEL7RqdyOg&usqp=CAU

 

[ClieOS]

Very interesting TWS receivers by OE Audio have popped up: the WS-1.
A laconic presentation on OE Audio’s website.
The product page on Jaben.

I’m not sure these will be comfortable, and they still don’t support HD codecs, only AAC and aptX. But OE Audio say they’ve added an amp in the circuit, instead of relying on the BT chip.

Also the box looks nice!

Yep, I was looking at the WS-1 as well. Might pick one up next month.

HD codecs (aptx-HD, LDAC, etc) in general required too much bandwidth so they can't be used on TWS implementation, at least not on current BT5.0 standard. To support TWS function, each side required at least half of the theoretical 1Mbps max bandwidth to even work, so at least 500kbps each side minimum and probably a little more if you want a stable connection. aptX-HD on single mix-stereo channel (*one channel carrying both right and left sound) already using about 570Kbps, so it definitely won't be enough to split it into two channels (TWS needs two, so one channel for left and one channel for right), which will need over the 1Mbps limit that BT1.0 allows for audio. The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point.

 

[monsieurfromag3]

Yep, I was looking at the WS-1 as well. Might pick one up next month.

HD codecs (aptx-HD, LDAC, etc) in general required too much bandwidth so they can't be used on TWS implementation, at least not on current BT5.0 standard. To support TWS function, each side required at least half of the theoretical 1Mbps max bandwidth to even work, so at least 500kbps each side minimum and probably a little more if you want a stable connection. aptX-HD on single mix-stereo channel (*one channel carrying both right and left sound) already using about 570Kbps, so it definitely won't be enough to split it into two channels (TWS needs two, so one channel for left and one channel for right), which will need over the 1Mbps limit that BT1.0 allows for audio. The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point.

Things are evolving still. This brief for the 30xx lists two chips that support aptX HD. Also Aviot are releasing a new model with the 3040 chip that supports aptX Adaptive.

 

[ClieOS]

Things are evolving still. This brief for the 30xx lists two chips that support aptX HD. Also Aviot are releasing a new model with the 3040 chip that supports aptX Adaptive.

Can't see the first link.

Whether Qualcomm will squeeze aptx HD onto QCC30xx chipset is anyone guess, whether it will be TWS+ compatible is however another matter. My bet for now is against it - at least not in the short future and (especially) any model that already on the market. Market is always evolving, just that it doesn't always go in the way we want. Could very well be something else on the table by the time Qualcomm makes it happened - won't really help us for now of course.

 

[monsieurfromag3]

Can't see the first link.

Whether Qualcomm will squeeze aptx HD onto QCC30xx chipset is anyone guess, whether it will be TWS+ compatible is however another matter. My bet for now is against it - at least not in the short future and (especially) any model that already on the market. Market is always evolving, just that it doesn't always go in the way we want. Could very well be something else on the table by the time Qualcomm makes it happened - won't really help us for now of course.

It’s the Product Brief doc here.
Edit: for me the biggest takeaway is that Aviot have $75 TWS earphones that support aptX Adaptive, which is just a more efficient aptX HD, using the 3040 chipset. Adaptive goes some way towards sovling the bandwidth issue while delivering up to HD quality.

 

[ClieOS]

It’s the Product Brief doc here.
Edit: for me the biggest takeaway is that Aviot have $75 TWS earphones that support aptX Adaptive, which is just a more efficient aptX HD, using the 3040 chipset. Adaptive goes some way towards sovling the bandwidth issue while delivering up to HD quality.

If you look at the product brief you link, there is something to take away from:

The three main sale points for aptX Adaptive are low latency, adaptive bitrate, and ability to do HD (24/48).

On the other hand, to used as TWS configuration, the chip itself needs to support TWS mode (and preferably TWS+ mode, or 'TWS Mirroring' as Qualcomm called it). QCC3040 actually doesn't even support aptX HD, which means it is it is also not going to support aptX Adaptive (as it must be able to backward compatible with apt HD on hardware level). The only chipsets on the list that can do HD and TWS at the same time is QCC3031, but it doesn't support TWS+ and doesn't even support cVc mic function at all, that means QCC3031 is designed mostly as a receiver chip and not a transmitter chip, probably intended as wireless speaker implementation (which doesn't need mic). All and all, none of the QCC30xx chips in the brief can actually do aptx Adapter in a TWS configuration.

 

[Jaysound]

I've picked up the Shure SE425 bundle with their BT-2, which supports AptX and AptX-HD. However, I'm using a Samsung S9 phone (with Tidal and Spotify at whatever their best quality offers) and the S9 supports LDAC (in Developer Options) and AptX, but not AptX-HD.

I'm therefore considering picking up the FiiO LC-BT2 to use with LDAC, but would I be wasting my time?

I just got my SE425 recently and have been using the wired connection with it, and even ordered custom sleeves from Sensaphonics (haven't arrived yet). I have used other Bluetooth with LDAC in the past that's older technology and loved the convenience when working out. I am now really appreciating the SQ of the SE425 when using them wired with the 3.5mm connection, but the cable is making it challenging to use while working out.

I do notice a decrease in SQ when I try the Shure BT-2 using AptX with the S9. I'm hoping the FiiO LC-BT2 using LDAC with the S9 will be "closer to" what I'm getting with the 3.5mm wired connection. I realize this is subjective but would appreciate opinions before I spring for it.

This is what has me having second thoughts:

>> The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point. << (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-tws-neckband-bt-cable-adapter-thread.920709/post-15707846)

and

https://www.soundguys.com/ldac-ultimate-bluetooth-guide-20026/

ALSO... I just noticed this:

>> but Shure advises against swapping cables between varying Shure earphone models, let alone cross-brand interchanging. >> (https://www.soundguys.com/shure-bt2-review-20709/ -- and by the way Shure told me the "trick" is using the fingernails of the thumb and index finger, squeezed into the joint to separate the parts; and that works fine for me)

 

[ClieOS]

>> The same reason applies to LDAC as well - while LDAC 330 can work in theory, it doesn't offer better SQ than aptX, so it is a moot point. << (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-tws-neckband-bt-cable-adapter-thread.920709/post-15707846)

The comment above was meant for TWS discussion - in any case, though LDAC 330 is about the same quality as aptx, you need to realize in normal situation, LDAC should be running at least 660 if not 990, so the theoretical quality should be at least equal to aptx-HD if not better. LDAC 330 mostly happens when your have heavy wireless interference or during the first few second of BT connection.

>> but Shure advises against swapping cables between varying Shure earphone models, let alone cross-brand interchanging. >> (https://www.soundguys.com/shure-bt2-review-20709/ -- and by the way Shure told me the "trick" is using the fingernails of the thumb and index finger, squeezed into the joint to separate the parts; and that works fine for me)

Early days when Shure switched to MMCX connector the quality control was very poor and many reported faulty connection within the first year, so Shure began to suggest people staying away from changing cable - while it is true that frequent cable swapping is not going to be good for any MMCX socket, the point is also to use better constructed, higher quality MMCX connector. The fact is, FiiO's MMCX connectors are actually better than those found on Shure's stock cable and less likely to fail in the long run. Shure making those statement is more as a way to cover their legal bases.

Last but not least - actually any BT chip that support aptx-HD should in theory be compatible with LDAC on hardware level. The only reason why you didn't get LDAC on that the Shure BT cable is probably because Shure doesn't want to pay Sony's LDAC license.

 

[Pro-Jules]

I have sent my pair of these to Snugs to get custom ear tips made for them.

https://blog.audio-technica.com/ath-dsr5bt-wireless-in-ear-headphones-with-pure-digital-drive/

(I also have the DSR9BT and love using them @96k 24 bit via the usb - Mac cable)

AptX HD + neckband + I am a big fan of the Pure Digital Drive technology.

My 2 pin CIEMs are good for long term wear - like commuting / working in a cafe on my laptop. But I am not commuting due to Covid lockdown.

The dsr5bt has a permanent connection to the ear bud this make them better for in / out everyday use and I don't have to risk wearing out the 2 pin connector on my Empire Ears iems. BTW my ears don't get along with ANY iem tips. They ALL fall out. Hence the custom route.

Also Snugs are softer silicon and less painful to swap in and out quickly than a solid ciem

I have a plussound BT LDAC cable but I went for the fabric wound poetic cable option and it tickles / annoys my ears. (Should have gone for a cheaper plastic covered cable)

Also have a Quantic 5k ordered and a custom cable from @ClieOS

 

[Jaysound]

I've received the FiiO LC-BT2 and am now trying to determine the best way to optimize their potential with my SE425. I' really like to come as close as possible to the 3.5 mm cable.

So far, I'm using the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC, and it's good but I keep thinking about the next level detail and robust depth that is just not close to what I hear with the 3.5 mm cable.

I really want to make this work for me, since I use the SE425 while doing tai chi and chi gong and the 3.5 mm cable is just so cumbersome.

I'm using Tidal HiFi on a Samsung S9, and I'm currently using Comply P-Series tips (and have custom sleeves on the way from Sensaphonics in the next week or two).

Please help me figure out how to do this the best way. I realize there's no EQ available on the FiiO LC-BT2 when using LDAC (and I've read here that the EQ with the FiiO software isn't so great anyway). I'm not trying to overly boost bass (or I wouldn't have the SE425 in the first place), but I would really like to feel I'm not missing much as compared to using the 3.5mm cable.

I suppose the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC is likely to do better than the Shure BT-2 using AptX (my Samsung S9 supports LDAC and AptX, but not AptX-HD).

I'd appreciate advice on the optimal settings with the FiiO software with the FiiO LC-BT2 when using LDAC -- assuming I even want to use the software.

Thanks so much!

 

[gorman]

I've received the FiiO LC-BT2 and am now trying to determine the best way to optimize their potential with my SE425. I' really like to come as close as possible to the 3.5 mm cable.

So far, I'm using the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC, and it's good but I keep thinking about the next level detail and robust depth that is just not close to what I hear with the 3.5 mm cable.

I really want to make this work for me, since I use the SE425 while doing tai chi and chi gong and the 3.5 mm cable is just so cumbersome.

I'm using Tidal HiFi on a Samsung S9, and I'm currently using Comply P-Series tips (and have custom sleeves on the way from Sensaphonics in the next week or two).

Please help me figure out how to do this the best way. I realize there's no EQ available on the FiiO LC-BT2 when using LDAC (and I've read here that the EQ with the FiiO software isn't so great anyway). I'm not trying to overly boost bass (or I wouldn't have the SE425 in the first place), but I would really like to feel I'm not missing much as compared to using the 3.5mm cable.

I suppose the FiiO LC-BT2 with LDAC is likely to do better than the Shure BT-2 using AptX (my Samsung S9 supports LDAC and AptX, but not AptX-HD).

I'd appreciate advice on the optimal settings with the FiiO software with the FiiO LC-BT2 when using LDAC -- assuming I even want to use the software.

Thanks so much!

I suggest you look into this app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pittvandewitt.wavelet

 

[Jaysound]

Thanks! I've been trying to keep things flat and natural -- which is partly why I went with the SE425. But I did install Wavelet just now, and the Auto-EQ sounds pretty interesting.

Would you suggest I use Wavelet "instead of" the FiiO Control software, or in conjunction with it?

And I assume in theory this should make the 3.5 mm cable sound better, too? (Though I guess I'm still unsure about the virtues of unadulterated vs EQ'ed.)

 

[ClieOS]

Would you suggest I use Wavelet "instead of" the FiiO Control software, or in conjunction with it?

There is nothing contradicting about using both apps, as long as you don't activate the EQ on FiiO app when using Wavelet (not that you can for now under LDAC).