[AnakChan]

Depends on how you connect them. See below in order of increasing SQ:
4 - Via Bluetooth: there currently are almost no PCs that support Bluetooth codecs better than SBC. Macbooks do support APTX, but one has do do some tweaking to have that codec enabled. There are however USB Bluetooth dongles available that support APTX(-HD). So generally speaking, making the most out of the DALI when connecting via Bluetooth requires additional technology

I'm not sure this is still true. Supposedly windows 10 have support for APTX from some update, but the problem is they don't give you option to check which codec (SBC or APTX) is currently in use, at least yet.

I also have a Mac and yes it supports AptX & AAC (as to be expected). If you have a Mac, try searching and installing Bluetooth Explorer. It'll let you configure a few other little details :-

Well I'd want to use it mainly in discord or facebook calls. The thing is, like I said, even in system's recording devices list they are visible, but no sound is detected from them. Dali's mic is of course marked as default to use. I'm not sure what can I do to make it work, but at least now I know it's possible.

Edit: Damn, quoting is so problematic when editing my post... I totally destroyed it for one moment...

One more thing, as I forgot about it - when i first tried my new pair of IO-6, there was some very noticeable white static noise, even when ANC was turned off. I was afraid I might have to return them for another pair. Then, In the next few hours of use it started to disappear from time to time and in the end of the day, I didn't hear it anymore. Is this normal?

Yep you'll have to troubleshoot why your iO-6 mic is visible but not functioning. I'm sure it's just a setting somewhere on Windows settings.

I've not heard of any static noise on my iO-6 when I first had it.

 

[WDitters]

I'm not sure this is still true. Supposedly windows 10 have support for APTX from some update, but the problem is they don't give you option to check which codec (SBC or APTX) is currently in use, at least yet.

I might be wrong, but as far as my (outdated) knowledge goes, APTX and above require a dedicated chipset from Qualcomm (formerly CSR). Macbooks have these built-in while (most) PCs settle for an Intel combo of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. And Bluetooth 5.0 to my knowledge does not offer the APTX codec (yet)

 

[MrYaldi]

I might be wrong, but as far as my (outdated) knowledge goes, APTX and above require a dedicated chipset from Qualcomm (formerly CSR). Macbooks have these built-in while (most) PCs settle for an Intel combo of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. And Bluetooth 5.0 to my knowledge does not offer the APTX codec (yet)

Just a note, Bluetooth 5.0 and aptx are completely unrelated. The Dali's have both while the rha true connects are 5.0 and SBC. 5.0 is about range and number of simultaneous connected devices (and boy is it good being able to finally walk around a thick walled flat and not get cut outs) and aptx/hd is about data bandwidth.

Further to your point earlier about pcs being lacklustre for music in terms of onboard audio. I'm afraid most mid-high range motherboards have better DACs than mobile phones (excluding the LG quad DAC I suspect) and are capable of usually 24/192 at minimum.

That is not to say that the difference in a dedicated usb DAC and amp is not noticeable. I have grado sr325e on my desktop and when I married it with a Cambridge audio desktop amp and vacuum tube amp I was blown away by the soundstage and detail. Would I recommend investing in upwards of £250 of extra equipment over onboard audio for the average consumer however? Probably not. It's just about passion and hobbyism at that point.

 

[StrangeStranger]

I might be wrong, but as far as my (outdated) knowledge goes, APTX and above require a dedicated chipset from Qualcomm (formerly CSR). Macbooks have these built-in while (most) PCs settle for an Intel combo of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. And Bluetooth 5.0 to my knowledge does not offer the APTX codec (yet)

I thought so too. But if you check it here https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/component-guidelines/bluetooth and scroll down to "Bluetooth features list by edition", then you'll see it's supported by both windows 10 desktop and mobile edition. Also I just found that it works for example with Intel: 8260/7265/3165/7260/3160.

 

[subtec]

5.0 is about range and number of simultaneous connected devices (and boy is it good being able to finally walk around a thick walled flat and not get cut outs)

This is only true for devices that use Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). These headphones do not. In fact, it's not currently possible to stream audio using BLE (there's no profile for it). All Bluetooth audio streaming devices still use Bluetooth EDR (Enhanced Data Rate, AKA "Bluetooth Classic"), which hasn't changed since Bluetooth 4.2. Bluetooth 5 is nothing more than a marketing bullet point for devices like this.

If you are getting better connectivity from your headphones, it's probably because of differences in the chip, antenna, and chassis design, and nothing to do with it being BT5.

 

[MrYaldi]

I strongly suggest that you research Bluetooth 5.0 before commenting on the subject as misinformation is rife online enough as it is.

I can provide dozens of sources that all explain Bluetooth 5.0 as increasing range, bandwidth and number of simultaneously connected devices. Further, my anecdotal evidence of using a Bluetooth 4 phone with Bluetooth 5 headphones being far inferior to my Bluetooth 5 phone and Bluetooth 5 headphones is testament to these website claims. We're talking clear signal through 4 old brick walls compared to one or two (if lucky) previously

 

[MrYaldi]

Copied from Google :

With Bluetooth 5.0, all audio devices communicate over Bluetooth Low Energy, which means reduced power usage and longer battery life.

How did you think 60 hours was possible if not for BLE (a component of 5.0) not a separate feature.

 

[subtec]

I strongly suggest that you research Bluetooth 5.0 before commenting on the subject as misinformation is rife online enough as it is.

I can provide dozens of sources that all explain Bluetooth 5.0 as increasing range, bandwidth and number of simultaneously connected devices. Further, my anecdotal evidence of using a Bluetooth 4 phone with Bluetooth 5 headphones being far inferior to my Bluetooth 5 phone and Bluetooth 5 headphones is testament to these website claims. We're talking clear signal through 4 old brick walls compared to one or two (if lucky) previously

I have researched it. I wouldn't have posted that otherwise. Tech journalism is rampant with misinformation about BT5 - you need to dig deeper into the technical specifications to understand what it is and is not.

 

[MrYaldi]

Please provide links then instead of conspiratorial comments that have no place in this thread.

 

[AnakChan]

All these statements are drifting to be too generic. Let's get back to specifics.

@StrangeStranger can you please state the specs of your PC? Maker/Motherboard model, etc. Windows version (presumably 10 since you've already alluded towards that), then we can carry on with conversations more specifically about your setup.

Further more generic conversations about protocols and support, please discuss offline.

 

[subtec]

Please provide links then instead of conspiratorial comments that have no place in this thread.

I've commented on this on the past with sources, here and here for example. Also corroborated by wslee the (former? I believe he's working at Qudelix now) technical director of Radsone.

 

[StrangeStranger]

@StrangeStranger can you please state the specs of your PC? Maker/Motherboard model, etc. Windows version (presumably 10 since you've already alluded towards that), then we can carry on with conversations more specifically about your setup.

Windows 10 Pro (build 1909), MSI B450 Tomahawk, AMD Ryzen 3700x. Just updated every driver I could found on motherboard's site. Also, I found a post somewhere that Realtek HD Audio Manager might make problems with any USB headphone so I've installed classic realtek audio driver in its place (also from motherboard's site). Mic still not working.
I just had a chance to test it with 2 laptops (windows 7 & windows 10) with same results - recording devices list shows dali's mic but no sound from it is detected. Is here anyone that got it to work on Windows based machine?

 

[ms1988355]

Hi,

The microphone only works via Bluetooth. Dali only uses USB as an output device for playing audio. If you want to use the headphones with Skype, Teams, Zoom, etc. then pair them via Bluetooth to your device.

This is no different than the NAD VISO HP70 which has the same connectivity options.

To summarize: The microphone is not exposed via the USB interface.

 

[StrangeStranger]

Hi,

The microphone only works via Bluetooth. Dali only uses USB as an output device for playing audio. If you want to use the headphones with Skype, Teams, Zoom, etc. then pair them via Bluetooth to your device.

This is no different than the NAD VISO HP70 which has the same connectivity options.

To summarize: The microphone is not exposed via the USB interface.

Oh, didn't know, that's a shame. It's strange then that it's detected by system and set as default mic every time I connect these headphones through USB... I would use that mic for gaming purposes, so bluetooth is out of the question.

 

[ms1988355]

Oh, didn't know, that's a shame. It's strange then that it's detected by system and set as default mic every time I connect these headphones through USB... I would use that mic for gaming purposes, so bluetooth is out of the question.

You can connect to USB and Bluetooth at the same time and configure output to go over USB and have the microphone input via Bluetooth, but obviously if latency on input is important that could be an issue depending on the use case.

I'm often mixing and matching input and output devices on a MacBook. You can adjust these settings in the OS preferences, but it's a pain. I purchased Rogue Amoeba's SoundSource because it is purposely designed to make this easy.