[KPzypher]

I am still not sure why anyone with audiophile tendencies would still pursue standard offerings of wireless IEMs when with as little as 160 euros you can do the FiiO UTWS3 adapters and a hybrid 10 driver IEM like the KZ ZAX...with many other options even cheaper [or more expensive]

The combo is on a completely different level to the Sony WF1000-XM3 or MTW...for less money....

Because they look hideous.

Why would anyone with "audiophile tendencies" (your words) look at wireless to begin with? It's all about convenience and form factor, at least for me. And those look absolutely horrible. If I'm so concerned about squeezing out every last ounce of performance from wireless, best to just remain wired.

 

[guido]

because I am an audiophile that likes to walk around while I listen to audiophile quality music...and look hideous at the same time..

 

[tinyman392]

Because they look hideous.

Why would anyone with "audiophile tendencies" (your words) look at wireless to begin with? It's all about convenience and form factor, at least for me. And those look absolutely horrible. If I'm so concerned about squeezing out every last ounce of performance from wireless, best to just remain wired.

Wireless codecs are more or less transparent to lossless nowadays with 256 AAC and APT-X. No, they are not truly lossless, but you'd be hard-pressed to hear the differences, especially with the use case for such systems (on the go/casual listening). To be honest, I could name a few headphones that are 5-6 years old that have adequate BT quality. At the end of the day, the DAC and amp is actually what's going to make the bigger difference when it comes to audio quality if you're talking source device vs BT, and even then the driver and headphone itself will make an even bigger difference. The bottleneck of wireless/wired is a lot smaller than a lot of people seem to think, especially when it comes to IEMs which are relatively easy to drive generally (there are exceptions, but they're far and few between).

 

[Tommy C]

because I am an audiophile that likes to walk around while I listen to audiophile quality music...and look hideous at the same time..

When I’m out and about walking downtown or exercising or at home doing dishes, cleaning up or doing some yard work, I don’t care about the best sound I can possibly squeeze. My main priority is convenience which you get with a good set of TWS. Of course sound quality is very important to most people here but it may not be a priority based on their use case.

 

[tinyman392]

Another note regarding water resistance, I know someone mentioned that although the adapter is protected when it shouldn't need it as much, the IEM itself is not.

• The adapter is the part with more electronics, more processors, and a battery. It needs more protection than the IEM itself; despite it being cheaper.
• In my days at Head-Fi I don't think I can remember one instance where an IEM's housing (IE with a removable cable) died due to water or sweat. I'd be very hard pressed to find one, and even if you do, I'd also argue that your chances of having that happen is about the same as the chances of having an IPX rated device fail due to water or sweat in the environment it is rated for. That said, if anyone has a story of their IEM (IEM not the cable) due to sweat/splash I would love to hear it. I was very active (headphone reviewer) about a decade ago on here for a good 5-ish years before taking a hiatus from headphones and can't remember any stories of this happening. IPX ratings weren't huge in the headphone market at the time as they only just started to take off in fitness focused headphones towards the end of that stint.

Keep in mind that just because something isn't IPX4 rated doesn't mean a splash of water will instantly kill it. It just means that it hasn't been tested in the IPX4 environment or the company didn't want to go through the licensing costs to do so. The year or two before Apple started IPX rating their iPhones, iFixit could easily see the gaskets and other water resistance measures Apple was putting into their devices. Even without the IPX rating, there was something in place.

If I'm not mistaken, the only AirPod right now that is IPX rated is the AirPods Pro (water damage is still not covered under warranty); the AirPods Max, AirPods, and AirPods 2 don't seem to hold any rating. The Max has some measures to deal with water resistance (gaskets here and there to keep water out, but I probably wouldn't trust them in water but would trust them in workouts and stuff. The AirPods and AirPods 2 have more than enough glue in them to keep them protected from the elements.

 

[KPzypher]

Wireless codecs are more or less transparent to lossless nowadays with 256 AAC and APT-X. No, they are not truly lossless, but you'd be hard-pressed to hear the differences, especially with the use case for such systems (on the go/casual listening). To be honest, I could name a few headphones that are 5-6 years old that have adequate BT quality. At the end of the day, the DAC and amp is actually what's going to make the bigger difference when it comes to audio quality if you're talking source device vs BT, and even then the driver and headphone itself will make an even bigger difference. The bottleneck of wireless/wired is a lot smaller than a lot of people seem to think, especially when it comes to IEMs which are relatively easy to drive generally (there are exceptions, but they're far and few between).

I'm not too picky with codecs in terms of maximum supported bitrate.
Other aspects and Implementation on either end of the devices matter more. AAC on IOS sounds better than AptX on Android and that's fairly well documented. The bigger issues with TWS in general IMO are things like inherent noise, resonance, terrible DSP, tonal balance, timbre, and etc. And looking from that angle, there still exist pretty significant gap between wired and wireles IMO.

With that being said, they sound 'good enough' (considering the convenience factor) for me to make the transition to wireless for most occasions. Nowadays, I'm less concerned for technicality (imaging, resolution, soundstage, etc.), as long as they are tonally balanced with good timbre, and near 'my definition' of 'reference.' But that's just me and to each his/her own.

 

[clerkpalmer]

Wireless codecs are more or less transparent to lossless nowadays with 256 AAC and APT-X. No, they are not truly lossless, but you'd be hard-pressed to hear the differences, especially with the use case for such systems (on the go/casual listening). To be honest, I could name a few headphones that are 5-6 years old that have adequate BT quality. At the end of the day, the DAC and amp is actually what's going to make the bigger difference when it comes to audio quality if you're talking source device vs BT, and even then the driver and headphone itself will make an even bigger difference. The bottleneck of wireless/wired is a lot smaller than a lot of people seem to think, especially when it comes to IEMs which are relatively easy to drive generally (there are exceptions, but they're far and few between).

I’m not there yet. I’ve heard this argument but I still think there is a decent gap between wired and BT. To give an example, my Ananda BT sounds MUCH better wired into an iPhone than wireless. The DAC and the AMP are exactly the same. It is more dynamic and less compressed whether I’m using AAC or LDAC. I still pick wired every time if the use case permits. I realize you are discussing iems so maybe there the gap is smaller.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

I’m not there yet. I’ve heard this argument but I still think there is a decent gap between wired and BT. To give an example, my Ananda BT sounds MUCH better wired into an iPhone than wireless. The DAC and the AMP are exactly the same. It is more dynamic and less compressed whether I’m using AAC or LDAC. I still pick wired every time if the use case permits. I realize you are discussing iems so maybe there the gap is smaller.

I agree with you. There is a clear sound quality gap between BT and wired. I know because I test it every single day on a 2 hour walk. I want to keep the weight down, so I alternate between using the Fiio UTWS3 with my Blessing 2 Dusk IEMs and using a Lotoo Paw S1 with a cable. I have been choosing the Lotoo 80% or more of the time. Perhaps the Lotoo is just a lot better than the Fiio and that accounts for more of the difference in quality. But, I still tend to listen wired when I get back home.

 

[tinyman392]

I’m not there yet. I’ve heard this argument but I still think there is a decent gap between wired and BT. To give an example, my Ananda BT sounds MUCH better wired into an iPhone than wireless. The DAC and the AMP are exactly the same. It is more dynamic and less compressed whether I’m using AAC or LDAC. I still pick wired every time if the use case permits. I realize you are discussing iems so maybe there the gap is smaller.

The differences are there and clear, they're small though and not super huge IMO; it's a tradeoff of bass thickness and better volume control. I'd argue that the differences you're hearing is actually the differences in DAC DSP. I explained this a bit in the Ananda BT thread, but where the processing actually happens is important as well. Wired you end up with the following sound in -> decoding -> mixing (system sounds, etc.) -> USB out -> USB in -> DAC (passive) -> amp. In a wireless setup you end up with the following sound in -> decoding -> mixing (system sounds ,etc.) -> encoding -> BT out -> BT in -> DAC -> decoding -> amp. I still have a pressing feeling that the differences you have here are a difference in DAC DSP still as the digital audio is actually being processed at a different area.

I'll admit that I'm running off of an iPhone right now which tends to produce a brighter sound in general (most of the DACs and amps Apple employ do this) while most 3rd party DACs and amps tend to have a warmer tilt to them.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I'm not driving any of these things off of a dedicated DAC/amp, rather the simple lightning based/packaged ones. I could plug into my HA-2 SE (which gives my headphones a warm tilt in comparison to the iPhone adapter), but at that point it's not really a fair comparison as that's not really what it's aiming to replace. Especially if we're talking IEMs.

Edit:the difference is in where the DSP is done rather than the DAC.

 

[clerkpalmer]

The differences are there and clear, they're small though and not super huge IMO; it's a tradeoff of bass thickness and better volume control. I'd argue that the differences you're hearing is actually the differences in DAC. I explained this a bit in the Ananda BT thread, but where the processing actually happens is important as well. Wired you end up with the following sound in -> decoding -> mixing (system sounds, etc.) -> USB out -> USB in -> DAC (passive) -> amp. In a wireless setup you end up with the following sound in -> decoding -> mixing (system sounds ,etc.) -> encoding -> BT out -> BT in -> DAC -> decoding -> amp. I still have a pressing feeling that the differences you have here are a difference in DAC still as the digital audio is actually being processed at a different area.

I'll admit that I'm running off of an iPhone right now which tends to produce a brighter sound in general (most of the DACs and amps Apple employ do this) while most 3rd party DACs and amps tend to have a warmer tilt to them.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I'm not driving any of these things off of a dedicated DAC/amp, rather the simple lightning based/packaged ones. I could plug into my HA-2 SE (which gives my headphones a warm tilt in comparison to the iPhone adapter), but at that point it's not really a fair comparison as that's not really what it's aiming to replace. Especially if we're talking IEMs.

I’m not sure why the DAC is different in my setup between wired and wireless but maybe I’m just not understanding. In any event I am hearing dynamics and less compression. Not sure that’s DAC thing. I still think the gap is big enough that I’m not going to give up wired. But certainly others may find wireless good enough.

 

[tinyman392]

I’m not sure why the DAC is different in my setup between wired and wireless but maybe I’m just not understanding. In any event I am hearing dynamics and less compression. Not sure that’s DAC thing. I still think the gap is big enough that I’m not going to give up wired. But certainly others may find wireless good enough.

The DAC itself on the headphone doesn't change. But where the digital audio processing does. When in wired mode, the source does the majority (all) of the digital processing and the DAC on the headphone runs more or less passive and acts like a pipe. In wireless, the source does the packaging but the DAC then needs to unpackaged and process it in which case you're actually hearing the DAC doing its thing.

Edit: crap, DAC was the wrong term to use, DSP is the proper term. Where the DSP is being done changes and that's likely what you're hearing.

 

[clerkpalmer]

The DAC itself on the headphone doesn't change. But where the digital audio processing does. When in wired mode, the source does the majority (all) of the digital processing and the DAC on the headphone runs more or less passive and acts like a pipe. In wireless, the source does the packaging but the DAC then needs to unpackaged and process it in which case you're actually hearing the DAC doing its thing.

Edit: crap, DAC was the wrong term to use, DSP is the proper term. Where the DSP is being done changes and that's likely what you're hearing.

I don’t think this is right. There should be no dsp in the iPhone output. That would be a major no no. So I don’t think dsp is the reason the wired sounds better. I just think the wired signal is cleaner and obviously no compression using hi res files.

 

[dj24]

I totally agree. last year i got both the 85 T and Evolve 2 85 sent to me for review, and they both do so many things well out of the box. I gifted the 85T to my Mom but thinking of picking a pair up. as is, i use the evolve 2 85 for work. i can have music playing at a nice volume from a Google home about 6 feet from my desk, have sideTone set to 100% and hear my co workers and the music perfectly, and no one on the other end hears the music playing at all. makes me wonder how effective the 85T might be. I tested it for call quality in a number of scenarios, but when i first tried this with the Evolve 2 85 it worked much better than i thought it would. This is another scenario i'll add going forward for all my reviews.

Do you use the jabra link with with your Evolve 2? The one thing I'm not sure of while using the Jabra Link (since it acts as a soundcard) is if the noise cancellation works for the other party during calls just as you described it with your music scenario. Hopefully you can test this with the 85t as well if you do end up getting it.

 

[tinyman392]

I don’t think this is right. There should be no dsp in the iPhone output. That would be a major no no. So I don’t think dsp is the reason the wired sounds better. I just think the wired signal is cleaner and obviously no compression using hi res files.

To get the iPhone output, DSP must be done. The sound must be mixed at some point. If I'm listening to music on my iPhone and an email comes in while I'm typing away I'll hear the email notification sound, clicking, and music all at the same time. This can only happen if the 3 signals have been mixed somehow. I'd also argue that the encoding and decoding of different file formats would also be considered DSP. For lossy formats this is likely a much bigger deal as for lossless formats it should create identical digital output (but this also depends on how good it is). But both require processing of a compressed audio format (whether lossy or lossless) to the waveform (this I do categorize as DSP since you're digitally processing to create a signal).

I'm using lossy files (AAC 256) for input wired and wireless on my Ananda BT and hear similar differences that you pick up on, so it definitely has less to do with how hi-resolution the files are since I'm limited to 256 AAC. The only major differences I could be hearing is the additional encoding by the source and the decoding on the headphones. Somewhere in that chain, the input sound for the DAC is changing with a warmer tilt. The differences you hear are likely not the hardware; it's likely the software.

 

[clerkpalmer]

To get the iPhone output, DSP must be done. The sound must be mixed at some point. If I'm listening to music on my iPhone and an email comes in while I'm typing away I'll hear the email notification sound, clicking, and music all at the same time. This can only happen if the 3 signals have been mixed somehow. I'd also argue that the encoding and decoding of different file formats would also be considered DSP. For lossy formats this is likely a much bigger deal as for lossless formats it should create identical digital output (but this also depends on how good it is).

I'm using lossy files (AAC 256) for input wired and wireless on my Ananda BT and hear similar differences that you pick up on, so it definitely has less to do with how hi-resolution the files are since I'm limited to 256 AAC. The only major differences I could be hearing is the additional encoding by the source and the decoding on the headphones. Somewhere in that chain, the input sound for the DAC is changing. The differences you hear are likely not the hardware; it's likely the software.

I don’t agree here. Even if you are using lossy files wired, the signal path is still cleaner wired. I am chalking this up to wired sounding better than wireless. Obviously you can disagree with me. There’s no reason why the iPhone would be be using dsp to alter the sound unless we disagree on what dsp is. To me dsp is used to change the sound. For instance, Audeze uses dsp in the cipher cable to alter the sound of the isine versus passive wired.