[FiiO]

@FiiO what's the output power the btr3 and btr5 will be having?

Dear friend,

We don't have this information currently. Stay tuned!

Best regards

 

[egg1111115]

Dear friend,

We don't have this information currently. Stay tuned!

Best regards

Hello,
Do you know what will different/new in the BTR3? I'm trying to decide if I should get the BTR1 (V2) now or wait until June.

 

[Marco Angel]

I'm also interested in the differences and pricing

 

[FiiO]

Hello,
Do you know what will different/new in the BTR3? I'm trying to decide if I should get the BTR1 (V2) now or wait until June.

By the way, the situation of two new products.


μBTR，price about 15USD, CSR8645, aptX. (June)

----



BTR3，size like BTR1, price about 69USD, CSR8675, aptXHD, LDAC.
(June)

Dear friend,

This is some information mentioned by our engineer before.

Best regards

 

[CeroAbsoluto]

Hello,

I have a doubt. At every moment it is mentioned that the next BTR5 the chip CSR8645. From what I understand this chip is responsible for the reception and conversion to analog. This means that the BTR5 is no longer going to use an AKM DAC? At no time is the AKM mentioned.

In these moments I enjoy many hours of classical music with a Final Audio E2000 connected to the BTR1. These two complement each other perfectly. The sound, from my points of view, far exceeds some sets that triple their price. I feel sensations that anothers more expensive equipment does not transmit to me, and I'm not talking about portability, I'm talking about a in the exquisite sound, with an incredible delicacy.

Waiting for the BTR5 and the new Final Audio E4000.

Sorry for my English level.

Thank you.

 

[Amber Rain]

Dear friend,

This is some information mentioned by our engineer before.

Best regards

@FiiO

Can you confirm that the BTR3 will have AAC codec for iPhones from the first day of release (as I have just sold my btr1 ad it only had SBC).

Thanks

 

[Koolpep]

@FiiO

Can you confirm that the BTR3 will have AAC codec for iPhones from the first day of release (as I have just sold my btr1 ad it only had SBC).

Thanks

Yes indeed. I was one of the unlucky ones too who got a btr1 v1 old stock without aac support and not the v2 with aac. But I doubt they will mess this up again.

Cheers.

 

[Brooko]

Just curious - did either of you actually test the SBC volume matched against aptX, or against true aac (ie straight from your device)? When the discussion regarding missing Bluetooth transmission of aac with the BTR1 was going on, I decided to perform a little test. I volume matched and compared side-by-side with alternatives. I couldn't tell a difference in normal listening. I then looked up what the bit-rate for modern SBC standard was, and to my surprise its actually the equivalent of MP3 320!. Its no wonder I couldn't discern a difference.

And here's the point - if I can't tell in a quiet room at normal listening levels, how will I tell in a mobile environment?

Its just food for thought. Your own listening acuity may be far better than mine - and maybe you can tell a difference. But in my experience we often get caught up in the numbers without listening to what they actually represent. I'd still (like you) prefer aac be present for peace of mind. But I was genuinely surprised by the performance of SBC.

 

[waynes world]

Just curious - did either of you actually test the SBC volume matched against aptX, or against true aac (ie straight from your device)? When the discussion regarding missing Bluetooth transmission of aac with the BTR1 was going on, I decided to perform a little test. I volume matched and compared side-by-side with alternatives. I couldn't tell a difference in normal listening. I then looked up what the bit-rate for modern SBC standard was, and to my surprise its actually the equivalent of MP3 320!. Its no wonder I couldn't discern a difference.

And here's the point - if I can't tell in a quiet room at normal listening levels, how will I tell in a mobile environment?

Its just food for thought. Your own listening acuity may be far better than mine - and maybe you can tell a difference. But in my experience we often get caught up in the numbers without listening to what they actually represent. I'd still (like you) prefer aac be present for peace of mind. But I was genuinely surprised by the performance of SBC.

SBC is the equivalent of 320kbps? I was going to call BS on your Brooko, but since you're smarter than me, I thought I'd bettter double check. If the below source can be trusted, you are absolutely correct!:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/learn/sbc-aptx-which-bluetooth-codec-is-the-best

Surprising but true!

 

[Brooko]

SBC is the equivalent of 320kbps? I was going to call BS on your Brooko, but since you're smarter than me, I thought I'd bettter double check. If the below source can be trusted, you are absolutely correct!:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/learn/sbc-aptx-which-bluetooth-codec-is-the-best

Surprising but true!

I had to look it up too - surprised the heck out of me. But I could not tell the Bluetooth connection from wired with other DAPs in the past - so makes more sense now

Or I just have cloth ears (which could be entirely plausible)

 

[Koolpep]

Just curious - did either of you actually test the SBC volume matched against aptX, or against true aac (ie straight from your device)? When the discussion regarding missing Bluetooth transmission of aac with the BTR1 was going on, I decided to perform a little test. I volume matched and compared side-by-side with alternatives. I couldn't tell a difference in normal listening. I then looked up what the bit-rate for modern SBC standard was, and to my surprise its actually the equivalent of MP3 320!. Its no wonder I couldn't discern a difference.

And here's the point - if I can't tell in a quiet room at normal listening levels, how will I tell in a mobile environment?

Its just food for thought. Your own listening acuity may be far better than mine - and maybe you can tell a difference. But in my experience we often get caught up in the numbers without listening to what they actually represent. I'd still (like you) prefer aac be present for peace of mind. But I was genuinely surprised by the performance of SBC.

Hi Brooke,

It does do 328kbs and 44.1khz but it is not equivalent to an mp3 at that Bitrate as it uses the sbc codec which was designed to create reasonable audio quality with lower compression requirements from low powered Bluetooth devices. It is based on MPEG 1 layer II (mp2) so while certainly good enough to walk around, it is not the best you can get. AAC with 256kbps is superior in every way. And the biggest annoyance is that it was just not activated in the firmware for the reasons stated by fiio.

If you can discern the two? Up to the individual ears.

 

[Brooko]

MP3 is just a container/codec. What is important is that SBC can handle up to 328 kbps. The difference between an MP2 and MP3 is mainly compression. I also asked if you did a volume matched side-by-side test. I did. You didn't answer that - just gave the usual regarding individual discernment. I notice this a lot, and I'm not pointing any fingers. Everyone says they can tell the difference. No-one honestly tests themselves. Its not hard. Apparently almost everyone here has golden ears - I am one of the few exceptions. I'd love to see how many golden ears can really tell the difference when listening to normal music at normal sound levels, and aren't told which codec is which

Anyway, where SBC falls down is latency - not sound quality. AAC is supposed to be superior, and definitely is as far as latency goes - but sound wise ...... I'm not sure. Both, on my music, with portable use, at normal listening levels => sound pretty darn good.

 

[Koolpep]

MP3 is just a container/codec. What is important is that SBC can handle up to 328 kbps. The difference between an MP2 and MP3 is mainly compression. I also asked if you did a volume matched side-by-side test. I did. You didn't answer that - just gave the usual regarding individual discernment. I notice this a lot, and I'm not pointing any fingers. Everyone says they can tell the difference. No-one honestly tests themselves. Its not hard. Apparently almost everyone here has golden ears - I am one of the few exceptions. I'd love to see how many golden ears can really tell the difference when listening to normal music at normal sound levels, and aren't told which codec is which

Anyway, where SBC falls down is latency - not sound quality. AAC is supposed to be superior, and definitely is as far as latency goes - but sound wise ...... I'm not sure. Both, on my music, with portable use, at normal listening levels => sound pretty darn good.

I agree. I don’t know if I can identify the difference. SBC sounds great to me too at least with good reception and if it uses the full range available. My point was just that one is technically better than the other. And I thought I paid for aac and then didn’t get it. So a bit of Butt hurt in it haha.

When I am out and about I can be 100% sure that I won’t hear a difference like you said. And even with critical listening I probably couldn’t.

 

[FiiO]

@FiiO

Can you confirm that the BTR3 will have AAC codec for iPhones from the first day of release (as I have just sold my btr1 ad it only had SBC).

Thanks

Dear friend,

Yes, AAC would be supported by the BTR3.

Best regards

 

[Amber Rain]

@FiiO

Thanks for confirming.

Do you have any idea for a UK release date yet?

Thanks