[KG12]

So you think M11 offers pretty much the same that Q5s does, right? I’m not an expert at all but I see that M11 is a Q5s plus 32gb bult-in storage and bi-directional bluetooth (which in my opinion is quite useful since in my case I do not have any device able to transmite AptX HD or LDAC signal...)

Hi very much a newbie to this so pls excuse ... trying to decide between the new M11 or Q5S ... most content [for the moment] will be delivered by Bluetooth to either device .... appears from my very limited knowledge that the Q5S has the better B'tooth receiver capability but struggling to confirm. so the question is .... buy the Q5S and always utilise material from other source via B'tooth or go for the more expensive M11 and [compromise?] on B'tooth delivered performance in the interim with a view to transferring all source material to it in time .... using FA7's so assume balanced O/P from either best and comparable. Thoughts anyone?

 

[K1030]

I can hear a difference between aptx hd ldac on my es 100

I wish I couldn't. But LDAC is big improvement over apt-x hence my interest in the Q5s

 

[K1030]

Hi very much a newbie to this so pls excuse ... trying to decide between the new M11 or Q5S ... most content [for the moment] will be delivered by Bluetooth to either device .... appears from my very limited knowledge that the Q5S has the better B'tooth receiver capability but struggling to confirm. so the question is .... buy the Q5S and always utilise material from other source via B'tooth or go for the more expensive M11 and [compromise?] on B'tooth delivered performance in the interim with a view to transferring all source material to it in time .... using FA7's so assume balanced O/P from either best and comparable. Thoughts anyone?

I use my Q5 because I source from my phone. I had enough problems with DAPs and firmwares but my phone never fails. I just got a big ol SD card and called it a day. Also apps like Spotify and Tidal work much better.

 

[warriorpoet]

Hi very much a newbie to this so pls excuse ... trying to decide between the new M11 or Q5S ... most content [for the moment] will be delivered by Bluetooth to either device .... appears from my very limited knowledge that the Q5S has the better B'tooth receiver capability but struggling to confirm. so the question is .... buy the Q5S and always utilise material from other source via B'tooth or go for the more expensive M11 and [compromise?] on B'tooth delivered performance in the interim with a view to transferring all source material to it in time .... using FA7's so assume balanced O/P from either best and comparable. Thoughts anyone?

In that use-case an M11 seems like utter overkill. If you have an M11, it makes far more sense to simply use the M11 as the source, rather than sending to it via Bluetooth.

 

[Raketen]

nvm misunderstanding

 

[pstickne]

I wish I couldn't. But LDAC is big improvement over apt-x hence my interest in the Q5s

Have a comparison with AAC from an iPhone? (AAC implementation in non-iPhone's is known to have lower audio quality .. then again iPhone's don't even have aptX, so.. :|)

 

[Sonic Defender]

... (AAC implementation in non-iPhone's is known to have lower audio quality ..

I doubt that has any real evidence behind it besides some Apple fans quickly comparing and preferring the Apple, and using sighted rather than blind comparison. Sighted listening tests are always invalid, always. I say this as I have used AAC with Android for years and it sounds very, very good so much so that I can't imagine how it can sound better. Of course I haven't personally done blind listening comparisons so I could be wrong.

Additionally, sometimes people look at specifications and see measurements that are in no way audible to human beings and simply assume that means it sounds better. For instance a THD rating of .01% versus .0001%. Do you think there is a living creature that could possible hear that difference? Even the worse rating means that more than 99% of the signal is not distortion so how on earth people think they can hear a less than a miniscule difference is beyond me.

 

[Marlowe]

I say this as I have used AAC with Android for years and it sounds very, very good so much so that I can't imagine how it can sound better.

I don't use BT for audio (I'm a wired snob), so I can't and won't comment on the substance of this statement. However it did tickle me since it tracks what I have been saying about video for roughly thirty years. "Boy, how can this movie look any better?" I've said this while watching laserdiscs, then DVDs (these two on standard definition CRTs), then Blu-ray on 1080p LCDs, then UHD 4K streaming on a 4K LCD, and now, for the last month, UHD 4K with HDR (both 4K Blu-rays and 4K HDR streaming on Netflix and Amazon Prime). I'm 65, so this may be my last "can this get any better?" for video. (Especially since I have neither the funds nor the space in my studio apartment for an OLED or top of the line Samsung QLED, which tend to be at least 65 inches. My new HDR is a 49-inch upper mid-range Sony, probably the best TV available smaller than 55 inches.)

 

[Sonic Defender]

I don't use BT for audio (I'm a wired snob), so I can't and won't comment on the substance of this statement. However it did tickle me since it tracks what I have been saying about video for roughly thirty years. "Boy, how can this movie look any better?" I've said this while watching laserdiscs, then DVDs (these two on standard definition CRTs), then Blu-ray on 1080p LCDs, then UHD 4K streaming on a 4K LCD, and now, for the last month, UHD 4K with HDR (both 4K Blu-rays and 4K HDR streaming on Netflix and Amazon Prime). I'm 65, so this may be my last "can this get any better?" for video. But maybe not.

I hear you, pun sort of intended. My comment was referring to AAC as it is, not a hypothetical future possibility. Not to mention, again I'll get off this sound science forum stuff I promise, I would suggest that in well done, multiple trial, blind listening tests, people couldn't tell AAC from lossless anyway as is. People seem to forget the real bottleneck is the microphones used to capture the original sounds, everything else that follows is limited by the starting point.

 

[pstickne]

I doubt that has any real evidence behind it besides some Apple fans quickly comparing and preferring the Apple
and using sighted rather than blind comparison..
..Additionally, sometimes people look at specifications and see measurements that are in no way audible to human beings and simply assume that means it sounds better. For instance a THD rating of .01% versus .0001%.

The information is based on real tests - and not ones that deal with insignificant figures. Some Bluetooth AAC stacks are sub-par (varying by device), and not even close to some ".0001%" realm. While my treble hearing is fading,

See https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/

As there are hardware and software implementation differences of Bluetooth AAC encoding (sorry-not-sorry if some Android toes are bruised),
I'm specifically interested in the feedback on iPhone AAC compared to non-iPhone aptX (HD): the only thing in the audio stack which should change the is the device and codec.

(And yes, feedback means real human-reported feedback, as best as one can "measure" with real ears. I don't currently have a device capable of aptX / aptX HD and cannot run tests myself. Even though my ears are 'fading' I can notice the difference between SBC and AAC.)

P.S.
1) I am not a "fan boy" of any company. It is specific product implementations, not names, that are important - thanks for credit though!
2) I suspect that much of the drive to move to aptX/etc. on Android is marketing/licensing and lack-of-love given to AAC resulting in some very sub-par Android AAC implementations. (And if people can tell the difference between aptX and aptX HD, then yay - that's a different question, however.) A notable 'downside' of AAC is the increased power consumption when encoding due to the more complex method used; ref. hardware and software implementation differences. The "higher is better" maximum bit-rate figures make me chuckle because AAC actually runs with a lower maximum Bluetooth bit-rate than SBC and transmits human-audio much much better - at least when generated via the modern iPhone "Apple" hardware stack. As such, raw Bluetooth bit-rate numbers can only truly be compared within the same encoding / encoding family.
3) Personally, 'CD quality' when correctly dithered/mastered is my audio target. I don't author or edit music and I'm quite sure I don't have the equipment (biological and electronic) to benefit from higher total bandwidth - especially as a good production down to 'CD quality' is generally designed to "sound good" instead of being a true reference. Happy listening!

 

[pstickne]

I say this as I have used AAC with Android for years and it sounds very, very good so much so that I can't imagine how it can sound better.

Does your (current) Android device support AAC and aptX?
Can you tell a difference between AAC and aptX on that Android device?
If so, based on nothing other than how music sounds, do you choose AAC or aptX (or just let 'use the default')?

 

[Sonic Defender]

Does your (current) Android device support AAC and aptX?
Can you tell a difference between AAC and aptX on that Android device?
If so, based on nothing other than how music sounds, do you choose AAC or aptX (or just let 'use the default')?

Yes, my last two phones supported AAC and Apt X. I had used developer options to tell my phone to always use Apt X, so I assumed that my Q5 was connecting via Apt X. I listened to it for quite some time only to realize that no matter what the Q5 would only connect by default as AAC with both my LG G6 and G7. Other devices seemed to be able to connect by default with my phones as Apt X, but not the Q5. I suspect there was just something amiss between the chipsets, but no matter, AAC sounds fantastic and I have read arguments from people who suggest that AAC is actually technically superior to AptX anyway. I couldn't hear any difference anyway.

I found that I could after the connection was made with the Q5 go back into developer options and set the connection as AptX and it appeared to save the connection until disconnected. Really as I said there was no way that I heard a difference.

 

[Jean-Pierre Degrange]

Hi,
I would suspect (by experience) that any change in the choice of active Bluetooth codec would take place only after reconnection of the Bluetooth device. That could possibly explain the absence of hearable difference when se'ecting Aptx... (?).

 

[Sonic Defender]

Hi,
I would suspect (by experience) that any change in the choice of active Bluetooth codec would take place only after reconnection of the Bluetooth device. That could possibly explain the absence of hearable difference when se'ecting Aptx... (?).

I did wonder about that, and tried to figure out how to inspect the log files that the OS produces (apparently this can be done) but I have no idea how to do it and any information that I found wasn't clear enough for me so I have never been able to check. I have been able to connect other devices and could not hear the difference anyway, hence my lack of motivation to really see what is up. If anybody knows how I can actually inspect the Android logs that reveal the wireless connection type I would be grateful.

 

[sinquito]

Will the Q5s finally launch in August? Or we will get a "... Fiio Q5s will be available on September" by then?