[EdgeDC]

You're fallaciously mixing and matching.

I asserted that if the specs are accurate, then "slightly increased" is a dishonest description, which is true.

I asserted that overly permissive audiophiles enable predatory behavior. Also true. Lesson being, don't be too permissive.

I did not assert that describing the size increase dishonestly was predatory. You could make the argument, but the phrasing would be disproportionate to the possible transgression.

I felt no need to post anything after "84% is hardly slight" by the way. This is dragging on because we're responding to one another.

I begrudge dishonesty from manufacturers, as well as overly permissive audiophiles who help to enable predatory practices

OK, so no, you didn't directly call FiiO predatory, but you suggestively accused me of helping to enable predatory practices by being "overly permissive" towards a manufacturer... and we've only been discussing one manufacturer here. Your tone and language has been far more aggressive than is warranted. That is all I was trying to call into question. We went from you disagreeing with the use of the term "slightly larger" to "dishonesty" to me being "overly permissive" and "enabling predatory practices". That's a HUGE leap in a very short amount of time, and quite frankly ridiculous.

All of the actual product dimensions were published well before FiiO Wilson's comment. That makes the whole thing (over two subjective words) quite irrelevant. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill - sheesh.

 

[jmwant]

Will the BTR7 support EQ when using LDAC?

PMEQ with LDAC, combined with THX amplification. That would be awesome.

 

[jmwant]

Yes, BTR7 support EQ when using LDAC

That's nice!

 

[rarewolf]

PMEQ with LDAC, combined with THX amplification. That would be awesome.

I don’t understand. What does EQ have to do with LDAC? Isn’t the adjustment made before the handoff to Bluetooth regardless of which Bt codec?

 

[Jeff Graw]

But you suggestively accused me of helping to enable predatory practices by being "overly permissive" towards a manufacturer...

All of the actual product dimensions were published well before FiiO Wilson's comment. That makes the whole thing (over two subjective words) quite irrelevant. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill - sheesh.

You assert here that a misleading claim from a manufacturer is irrelevant if they also published correct information previously. I don't know about you, but that does sound rather over-permissive to me.

If someone came into this thread, saw the "slightly larger" comment, took it to heart and placed an order, only to find that the product was closer to twice as large which negatively affected their use case, is the consumer at fault for taking a rep at their word?

 

[ClieOS]

If someone came into this thread, saw the "slightly larger" comment, took it to heart and placed an order, only to find that the product was closer to twice as large which negatively affected their use case, is the consumer at fault for taking a rep at their word?

I think any consumer that doesn't do his / her own due diligence should bear some responsibility.

 

[Jeff Graw]

I think any consumer that doesn't do his / her own due diligence should bear some responsibility.

Sure, easy to agree that they have some responsibility, but in the case they were misled by a manufacturer the lion's share is on the later. I hope this is easy to agree with too. Correct information existing somewhere on the internet does not give manufacturers carte blanche.

 

[jsmiller58]

Sure, easy to agree that they have some responsibility, but in the case they were misled by a manufacturer most of the fault is on the later. The fact that correct information is somewhere on the internet does not give manufacturers carte blanche.

I think that ~40% larger when the baseline is a BTR5 is — to me at least — close enough to qualify as ”slightly” larger. Now, when the baseline is a typical suburban home, 40% larger would not feel ”slightly” larger.

You definitely have every right to draw your conclusions. Hopefully you won’t begrudge the conclusions drawn by others.

 

[Jeff Graw]

I think that ~40% larger when the baseline is a BTR5...

It's 84% larger.

 

[ClieOS]

Sure, easy to agree that they have some responsibility, but in the case they were misled by a manufacturer the lion's share is on the later. I hope this is easy to agree with too. Correct information existing somewhere on the internet does not give manufacturers carte blanche.

I don't fully agree, but I think you have at least in every way successfully blow up this issue to deter any reasonably intelligent human from mistakenly buying BTR7 because it is "slightly larger" than BTR5. So if you are still unhappy at this point, just don't buy it. I really don't see how this holy war be any more meaningful / meaningless going forward for both sides of the argument. Let's move on.

 

[LoryWiv]

I will ask cautiously as I DON'T want to start a conflict, but do we have any information about improved Bluetooth range and connection stability of BTR7. I love my BTR5 but it's Bluetooth performance is an Achilles heel in several of my my use cases other than line of site to source.

 

[EdgeDC]

I will ask cautiously as I DON'T want to start a conflict, but do we have any information about improved Bluetooth range and connection stability of BTR7. I love my BTR5 but it's Bluetooth performance is an Achilles heel in several of my my use cases other than line of site to source.

According to specs that have been released:

BTR5 Bluetooth chip: Qualcomm CSR8675
BTR7 Bluetooth chip: Qualcomm QCC5124

I'm not an expert on how these two chips compare, but they definitely changed the chip to a newer one, so there is hope that the BTR7 will have improved Bluetooth connectivity compared to the BTR5.

I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I did find this link that compares the two: QCC5124 vs CSR8675 - Industry News - Shenzhen Feasycom Co.,Ltd

 

[ClieOS]

BT range also has a lot to do with the actual PCB design / antenna position+power / housing material. It isn't as simple as chip-to-chip comparison.

 

[Ab10]

Hello fellow members and manufacturer

I just want to know ; Any shirt / belt mount case clip will be available / included in the box ? So far Fiio able to provide the solution with BTR 3 & 5….this time will they follow iFi ? like not providing any mounting option.

 

[EdgeDC]

BT range also has a lot to do with the actual PCB design / antenna position+power / housing material. It isn't as simple as chip-to-chip comparison.

Good point - I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether this (see attached photo) turns out to be more than marketing?