[seall]

   What is your connection/hook up with the  Saturn Pro?  Such as, in a TV, in a receiver, etc??

I have a PC, a Chromecast and a set-top box connected to a HDMI switcher. The switcher is connected to a receiver, which is connected to a TV. I plan on having a easy way of switching between the headphones and the receiver, so I got a switcher with audio output. That's where the Saturn Pro comes in. My receiver doesn't have an audio output so that's the only way I found to accomplish what I wanted.

 

[Giogio]

Originally Posted by n00b2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You will notice this if you do an A/B comparison with headphones that have good SBC or something like the AKG k845bt that doesn't have aptx (but still sounds great).

You forget that I did compare, side to side, the Bose Soundlink On Ear, Jabra Revo (both SBC) with Fidelio M2BT, Sony MDR-10RBT and Sennheiser MM400-X.
And the AKG-K845BT with the Fidelio, the Sony MDR-1RBT (also SBC), the BBP, the Level Over, and the Beats Studio Wireless (also SBC).
 
I did my tests and as said, the very best high end BT headphones with SBC could compete with the aptx ones at a point that it was not possible to know if I preferred the aptx because of the aptx or because of the rest of what makes an headphone headphone, if you know what I mean.
 
But I still disagree about the MP3 thing. With the Sony MDR-10RBT and XB950BT I could hear a clear difference between SBC and APTX mode also with my MP3 files.
I suppose that it also depend of the rate of the MP3, if 128 or 320, if Variable or Constant.
About the test with Fidelio and Azio, I tend to think that the problem is a crappy SBC in the Azio, not in the Fidelio. Although the Customer Care of Philips was able to make me unlove them, I still trust them more than this crappy company called Azio (with an even worse support, and surely not a trusty background as Philips). But it does not make much difference for our Theme.
 

Since bluetooth 2.0 or 2.1 SBC itself isn't a bad codec. The "high quality" SBC with its bitrate of 328kpbs is actually quite good and similar in quality to high bitrate mp3s. The original low quality one though was pretty rubbish and the middle quality one isn't that great either. Once high quality SBC came out what was limiting the sound quality was the bluetooth circuitry being used by the headphones and not the codec itself.
There are limitations in SBC though and you will definitely notice a difference for FLAC or higher quality files when played over aptx.
A lot of devices don't support high quality mode though which has a pretty significant impact on the sound quality of SBC

What do you mean "since bt 2"? You mean for the addition of the EDR which supposedly guarantee higher transfer rates which woul benefit the SBC too? Or you mean for the collateral situation that in the while the circuitries were better? because otherwise I do not see how the different cores would improve the sound at all.
 
I think from your text that you have read this article.
Quoting: "In “High Quality” mode (@328kbit/s) it is on a par with ATRAC SP (Type-R, @292kbit/s) compression algorithm which is used in Minidisc recorders/players. In “Middle Quality” mode (@229kbit/s) it is roughly comparable with mp3@128kbit/s or aac@96kbit/s. At max possible bitrate 372kbit/s SBC codec is comparable with aac@192kbit/s and most artifacts it produces are beyond human perception."
So, there are two things which I would like to have more clear here:
1) if the middle quality mode of SBC is 229kbit/s and corresponds to the 128kbit/s Mp3 which corresponds to the 96kbit/s AAC, then the max bitrate 372 which corresponds to 192 AAC should correspond to 256 Mp3 (128/96 * 192 = 256), IF there is a linear increment of quality and not an exponential one (just to speak complicated and discourage newbies like @cehowardNote3 from commenting simplistic things like that all what is sbc is indiscriminately good enough for mp3 no matter which kind of SBC it is and which kind of chip it is -I'm kidding you man, I do not know if you are 15 or 75 but I hope my comments reveal enough humour. I have two hard modes, one for the intelligent persons like you whom I like, intended to establish a friendly provocative dialectic which is the one I like the most but which I can only have with people who have sense of humour and are not touchy, people like you, like @kayandjohn, like @kelleytoons, and one for the arrogant brats with sharp tongue like that guy who had a brief appearance in another thread with a few almost offensive posts and pissed me off with his presumption. The difference between the two modes is, I hope, clear to you enough to feel welcome here).
If this is so, than the highest possible SBC would not be able to reach a 320kbit/s MP3. This could explain why with high bitrates Mp3 I can definitely hear a difference between SBC and Aptx.
2) are the 3 different qualities (actually, 4? or where does the 372 comes from if the high quality is 328?) all installed together in all SBC headphones since always, or are they different chronological versions of the SBC codec?
 
@Class D and @james444 are invited to the discussion

 

[cehowardNote3]

 
Did you even read what I have just posted above, even quoting you?
What you say is not correct.
Read my post above.

To be HONEST, you have LOST me..
 
I stated, that aptx really comes into play when you are transmitting flac/hi res files across bluetooth.. 
 
In all due what respect, WHAT CAN BE WRONG WITH THAT????????????????????????????????????
 
EDIT:  I went back and found out what you asked did I read.. The answer is "NO", I did not read it at that time but I am reading it now.
 
__________________
Quote your sources.
I disagree with your statement.
Here the reason:
the compression used by Bluetooth is in addition to whatever compression is in the music. So if you've got MP3s on your phone, those MP3s get decoded, then recompressed with a different lossy codec (SBC) to get sent to your wireless headphones.
(source, Cnet. The rest of the article is a bit, well, not so interesting. For example they state that the only way to test Aptx would be by using the same headphones with two different smartphones -one with aptx, one without- but this is not truw, because you could not know if the smartphone is just better than the other as a player. Also, there are different versions of the SBC codec, so, you do not know which one is being used. Same story for the Sony headphones where you can disable the Aptx. You do not know which SBC they use.
I have tested my dongle before installing the CSR Harmony software which gives them Aptx. The Fidelio M2BT sounded like ****. I do not know if it was a crappy SBC codec on the Fidelio or on the dongle. But the difference was HUGE. And I test mostly with MP3.)
------------------------
 
I find this questionable..
 
You have one group saying "Aptx is not all what is supposed to be"
 
You have another group saying "Aptx only makes a difference if you are playing hi res audio"
 
And you are saying something completely different!!
 
So, in all fairness, I can say all THREE OPINIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE..
 
Just because YOU HEARD A DIFFERENCE, doesn't mean others hear a difference or that your opinion is written in stone...

 

[n00b2]

Originally Posted by Giogio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
What do you mean "since bt 2"? You mean for the addition of the EDR which supposedly guarantee higher transfer rates which woul benefit the SBC too? Or you mean for the collateral situation that in the while the circuitries were better? because otherwise I do not see how the different cores would improve the sound at all.
 
I think from your text that you have read this article.
Quoting: "In “High Quality” mode (@328kbit/s) it is on a par with ATRAC SP (Type-R, @292kbit/s) compression algorithm which is used in Minidisc recorders/players. In “Middle Quality” mode (@229kbit/s) it is roughly comparable with mp3@128kbit/s or aac@96kbit/s. At max possible bitrate 372kbit/s SBC codec is comparable with aac@192kbit/s and most artifacts it produces are beyond human perception."
  If this is so, than the highest possible SBC would not be able to reach a 320kbit/s MP3. This could explain why with high bitrates Mp3 I can definitely hear a difference between SBC and Aptx.
2) are the 3 different qualities (actually, 4? or where does the 372 comes from if the high quality is 328?) all installed together in all SBC headphones since always, or are they different chronological versions of the SBC codec?
 
@Class D and @james444 are invited to the discussion

 
EDR doesn't have any effect. I was going off memory when I read something ages ago (like 5 years ago) when I first started looking at bluetooth headphones about how version 2 fixed up audio a fair bit. This sort of explains things a bit and it was 2.1 that really fixed things not 2.0.
 
I looked at that article quickly when I was trying to find a source for the actual bitrates and names of the three modes though I read a lot more info on it before. I remember reading as well before that high quality SBC is around the same quality as 256kbps mp3 though can't find the source now. So yes you probably will notice a difference for 320kbps mp3 and maybe 256kbps mp3 though I would suspect that it shouldn't be significant. The difference at 320kbps was marginal in my testings though that could be related to the quality of the overall original mp3's (not just bitrate). 372kbps is the theoretical limit of SBC I think but it is not used for the codec. Reading that article you linked deeper it seems that the Bluetooth group themselves wanted 328kbps to be used though the guy did try 372kbps for testing and thought it sounded good. It also mentioned Bluesoleil uses the same codecs and it was night and day difference when I first installed it many years ago after getting frustrated with the sound quality out of Windows 7 bluetooth.
 
I think high quality came along later once bluetooth technology improved, or maybe the codec bit was always there just wasn't implemented til other technology caught up sort of like how it is with aptx lossless now. Can't remember now exactly. But definitely high quality mode wasn't supported in most headphones and sources (phones, laptops, etc) til very recently. The original bluetooth headsets designed for hands free calling had no need for them and the cheap bluetooth headphones that first came into the market wouldn't have supported it. And really there was no real point for mid to high end headphones to support it either until sources caught up.
 
All good with the comments. A little bit of fire and humour keeps things interesting.

 

 

[Giogio]

  I find this questionable..
 
You have one group saying "Aptx is not all what is supposed to be"
 
You have another group saying "Aptx only makes a difference if you are playing hi res audio"
 
And you are saying something completely different!!
 
So, in all fairness, I can say all THREE OPINIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE..
 
Just because YOU HEARD A DIFFERENCE, doesn't mean others hear a difference or that your opinion is written in stone...

First of all, I have a very long beard and I can count only till 10 and you shall have no other OP before me.
That said, I have no idea what kind of liquors you took, but I did not understand anything.
Which groups and how would my saying be different?
 
From my perspective, things are like this:
- things which affect the sound: chip, codec, headphone itself (and this it's not something I say, it is like that, out of ten stones).
- this means, you could have a better codec on a terrible headphone with a bad chip and the final sound would be worse than that of a wonderful headphone with wonderful chip using the less good codec, EVEN when streaming FLAC. And this is also quite an obvious thing.
- supposing you have the same headphone and you just switch between two codecs, THEN you would finally hear the difference.
I did this with the two above mentioned Sony. As you can see HERE, there are three modes, normal SBC, high quality SBC, and APTX.
It was clear to me the difference between Aptx and SBC high quality with MP3 files. Before saying that other people did not hear a difference it would be needed to see HOW these people did their tests, with which equipment, which music, which training, etc.
You will not hear all what an orchestra director could hear if you listen to a concert. But that does not mean that the instruments are well tuned just because you cannot perceive how **** they sound.
So, yes, all is subjective, but with some training people tend to have similar subjectivities.
 
Codecs are not only different in the bitrate. As you can see, at same bitrate the SBC is inferior to the MP3 which is inferior to AAC. So, the highest possible quality of SBC is not at the same level of the highest possible quality of MP3, therefore if you listen to that mp3 with that sbc you will have a lost of quality.
If you can perceive it or not, it is a matter of ears and training.
I am spending hours in these days configuring my new discover, foobar, with all possible DSP, and experimenting with the difference of dynamics compression or advanced limiter and different settings of the bass exciter etc., and I promise you, training DOES improve your abilities to hear things...
And then, I can hear for example till 15hz and a bit lower. Most people cannot. So. Who cares
 
@n00b2
As you can read, "aptX is designed to encode a CD-quality (16-bit / 44.1kHz) audio stream without loss of sound quality through a combination of slightly higher data transfer rate compared to SBC as well as more efficient audio encoding."
Which would also confirm my suspect that actually the EDR of the BT Cores 2 and above can have an effect on the sound by allowing higher data transfers, but well. We need @Class D and james444 for this.
Btw, in that text, n00b2, the guy does not explain why the 2.1 would improve the sound. It says only that it improves the pairing, which is confirmed HERE.
 
What I want to reach? That it should not be said so easily "hey guys, do not worry, buy a good SBC headphone, you will never possibly hear any difference with a good aptx headphone if you only listen to MP3", because this is not necessarily true.
With a good mp3, and/or good ears, you would notice the difference.
As said, it is not only a matter of bitrate. Codecs can also alter the sound somehow.
Here the guy says that the aptx codecs (which are actually quite old) are distinguished by "absence of psychoacoustic masking".
And this guy (on of the few reviewers testing headphones instrumentally), who was actually a bit skeptical about Aptx, found out that there is an objective difference between SBC and APTX in the way they manage certain frequencies and where they have peaks and in their noisefloor.
To my ears, very simple, Aptx sounds more dynamic than SBC, and more lively. Also with Mp3.
I think it would be more safe to say to people "you may not notice a difference if you listen to mp3 and use a very good headphone with a very good SBC codec" than "you will definitely never ear any difference".
 
HIGH QUALITY OBJECTIVE INFORMATION.
This is what I want to reach.
It's along way and there will be lot of ******** in the while, but, the attitude is important.
 
I have to wash the dishes of two months now.

 

[WirelessQuest]

No, there aren't any.
The only way would be to connect an Avantree Saturn Pro 3.5 adapter to the audio aux of the smartphone. The Saturn Pro would transmitt the audio in LL Aptx to the headphones.
It is not a big adapter but it is something else to carry, and to charge.

Anyway in your case you do not have even the normal Aptx on your phone, and, yes, you WILL have delay with the SBC codec (the one used by the non Aptx bluetooth Headphones).
So, you have two options:
1) you try a couple of nice SBC headphones and you see how much you can improve the delay with the synch function of the mxplayer (check if you have it!). My suggestions for movies and for the music you listen to (which btw has nothing to do with audiophile, because audiophile may like dubstep too. I do, for example, although I am not a 100% fanatic audiophile, and although I find Armin van Buuren at best "laughable" as Dj) are the Bose Soundlink On Ear and the Jabra Revo Wireless.
Now, why am I suggesting you to buy a non Aptx headphone? Cannot you use an Aptx headphone with a non aptx phone? Yes you can, and the SBC codec will be used. So, actually if you find an Aptx headphone which you like more than the Revo and the Bose, you can go for it. I don't suggest it just to be honest with my tests, because I had no way to test those headphones with a non aptx source, and I cannot take for granted that they sound at least decent in SBC mode. But they could. It's up to you to try.
It is not clear to me if you have tried any other BT headphone before.
I also would like you to describe the sound signature of the Audio Technica you own.
Use your words. Try to describe if the sound is intimate or spacious, if the bass is tight or boomy, punchy or more rumbling, dominant or just gently present. If the mids are soft and just there somewhere in the "soundstage" or present and forward to the ears. And all what you can tell me aabout what you like and what you do not like in their sound.

I may buy an adapter if it's worth it for myself, but will see how I go first.

About buying an aptx enabled headphones, it should be good for future proofing, if I ever use it at its peak, so I would prefer them but I don't really want them to sound worse than the two you have recommended (Bose Soundlink On Ear and the Jabra Revo Wireless)

I have not tried any BT headphones before and the phone is arriving in a few days.

So I tried to have a good listen to my A900 (with old worn pads though so higher leakage I would of thought) on my Pc with an X-Fi Xtrememusic soundcard and this is what I came up with:

Bass - Spacious, tight, punchy, just gently present

Mids - seem more present and forward to the ears than somewhere in the "soundstage"

I like that the sounds are very clear and that it appears as though nothing over powers one another and it sounds just like it should. There's nothing I don't like.

Anyways my priorities in order of importance are comfortability, reliability, durability, then sound quality (can't be **** though) and I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating myself.



EDIT:He may be a crap DJ (?) but I like a lot of the music he plays on ASOT.

 

[james444]

  As you can see, at same bitrate the SBC is inferior to the MP3 which is inferior to AAC. So, the highest possible quality of SBC is not at the same level of the highest possible quality of MP3, therefore if you listen to that mp3 with that sbc you will have a lost of quality.
If you can perceive it or not, it is a matter of ears and training.

 
Yep, that's pretty much the gist of the matter. While 328kbps (High Quality) SBC is very good at an average rating of 5.7, its minimum rating is only 4.3, which means that faint sound artifacts may be discernible (with trained ears). On the other hand, 320kbps mp3 (Lame 3.97b2) is miles better than SBC with an average of 13.4, and even its minimum rating of 6.2 stays well above 5, which means that artifacts are beyond the threshold of human perception.
 
Now add to that the fact that mp3 encoding has steadily gotten better (Lame 3.97b2 was released in 2005!), while afaik SBC has stayed the same, and it's easy to see that state-of-the-art mp3 has a substantial advantage in sound quality over SBC. So, obviously aptX over bluetooth will sound closer to the original mp3 than SBC, however that doesn't mean the difference in sound quality is going to be much of concern in a mobile environment.
 
Last not least, based on aforementioned ratings, 320kbps mp3 sounds transparent without discernible artifacts, so it doesn't matter whether you're transmitting hi-res, flac or mp3, the potential (but not necessarily worrisome) degradation of sound quality will be the same. If anything, it makes even more sense to use aptX for high quality mp3 than flac, because those indiscernible (but present) mp3 artifacts might get pushed above perception threshold by SBC reencoding.
 
Just my 2c.

 

 

[Giogio]

EDIT:He may be a crap DJ (?) but I like a lot of the music he plays on ASOT.

Sorry, it was indelicate of me to express my opinion so openly.

Tastes are tastes. He is surely not crappy. But I prefer other less mainstream an poppish electro. I like very much German Djs. They can be so cruel. WHich is what I want when I go dancing and I want to leave my soul there dancing non stop till the sun rises and my legs cannot anymore.
And then other ones are really nicely melodic, real artists.
Anyway.

I may have expressed myself badly. I did not mean that the Aptx headphones WILL sound bad with a non aptx phone. Chances are actually good that the high end headphones are using a good chip and a good SBC codec.
I just say, I cannot say the difference, I cannot say how they sound exactly.
But I cannot imagine they would sound much differently either.

Anyway, I think you may be inverting the terms on and over ear.
You wrote: "So with on-ear and over-ear... I've tried a few of both on display and the over-ear ones may leave my ears sweaty after prolonged use (does this happen to some?). If it's the on-ear type, they have to be extremely comfortable (the Sony MDR1AB I tried on were the most comfortable of the bunch, followed by the Bose Qc2"
Well, those headphones are over ear, not on ear. ANd generally are the on ear to be sweaty, not the over ear.

As for on ear which are comfortable and not particularly sweaty, I can suggest Bose Soundlink On Ear and Fidelio M2BT (these were my favourite till I have tried the Audio Technica).

For Over Ear (or Around Ear) I can suggest the Supertootth Freedom, very very comfortable, and perform nicely in all frequencies.
The Samsung Level Over are also very comfortable, a bit more recessed in the highs then the Supertooth, with a an accent more in the lower parts of the mids while the supertooth puts it on the upper mids. The level over have also a less powerful bass. But a very nice noise cancelling
The ATH-WS99BT, I think, would be perfect for your tastes, but you put comfort first, so, I can only thell you can make them very comfortable by replacing the earpads with the Brainwavz HM5, or, if you live in the US, you would have more luck than me getting the replacement pads for the Kicker Cush, which should fit perfectly (the dimensions coincide). If you do, buy two pair and send me one as a present for the good suggestion They do not want to send them to me in EU.
Anyway I find them more than enough comfortable for a few hours, 4 or 5. But as said, my ears are not big. How long are yours?

Man, it's difficult to understand how your headphones sound from just your description. Gentle bass and nothing missing... It could be also the AKG K845BT if I were n00b2. Being me, the AKG have no bass. Anyway, they could be a nice try, they are SBC, not APTX, and they are big, comfortable, and sound really excellent for an SBC headphone.
A guy coming from the UE9000 (wonderful bass) liked their bass. So, it can probably be just me. That's also why I have changed their rating to be more objective.
When I rate EQ I have to use "subtractive EQ in my head" to reduce my level of bassheadness.
Another one which you may be interested in waiting for is the coming soon Denon. Nobody can know how they will sound but the expectatives are high.
Ah, of course, how can I have forgotten them: the Pendulumic Stance S1+! They are excellent headphones. Just, not if you are a basshead. They do have a nice bass, more than enough for most music, but not for EDM, Techno and these stuff. And they do noe like to be EQed much. But otherwise, very comfortable, very nice warm sound with nothing missing.
I suspect that you could like the Plantronics Backbeat Pro, but your ears must not be longer than 5.5cm. They have a boost in the bass, but well done. And also the highs are accentuated.
The mids do not miss. They are anyway gently balanced there in the nice soundstage.
I am using them now, I have a pair courtesy of Plantronics, for comparing purposes (apparently they liked this thread).
I do not like them as much as the ATH, and when I switch between them I can notice that. But they definitely wow me too. And when I use the BBP for a while, I get so used to them that I think "do the ATH sound better than this?". But this my be because I like bass

 

[Giogio]

   
If anything, it makes even more sense to use aptX for high quality mp3 than flac, because those indiscernible (but present) mp3 artifacts might get pushed above perception threshold by SBC reencoding.  
Just my 2c.

 

That's what I also had in mind.
I think that people do not understand this, because they think at codecs as doors which do not alter the sound in any way if not by cutting it a bit if it's bigger than the door. So that they image that a small Mp3 will pass through that door untouched. A waste, given that the SBC should be enough big as a door.
Fact is, the door is not a door. It is a teleporting device which decompose and recompose the sound and it does it differently according to the codec...
Thanks for the 2 cents.

 

[WirelessQuest]

Anyway, I think you may be inverting the terms on and over ear.
You wrote: "So with on-ear and over-ear... I've tried a few of both on display and the over-ear ones may leave my ears sweaty after prolonged use (does this happen to some?). If it's the on-ear type, they have to be extremely comfortable (the Sony MDR1AB I tried on were the most comfortable of the bunch, followed by the Bose Qc2"
Well, those headphones are over ear, not on ear. ANd generally are the on ear to be sweaty, not the over ear.

The ATH-WS99BT, I think, would be perfect for your tastes, but you put comfort first, so, I can only thell you can make them very comfortable by replacing the earpads with the Brainwavz HM5, or, if you live in the US, you would have more luck than me getting the replacement pads for the Kicker Cush, which should fit perfectly (the dimensions coincide). If you do, buy two pair and send me one as a present for the good suggestion They do not want to send them to me in EU.
Anyway I find them more than enough comfortable for a few hours, 4 or 5. But as said, my ears are not big. How long are yours?

I suspect that you could like the Plantronics Backbeat Pro, but your ears must not be longer than 5.5cm.

And when I use the BBP for a while, I get so used to them that I think "do the ATH sound better than this?". But this my be because I like bass

Ah yes, sorry about the inverting of terms.

I'm in Perth, Australia unfortunately.

My ears are roughly between 6-7cm (using online ruler)

Don't get me wrong, I love bass also! If there was no bass it would be absolutely horrible.

Considering I've been happy with my Audio technicas, I'll probably end up buying the WS99BT online.

Thanks a lot for your help and I'm sorry I couldn't get your kicker cush pads.

 

[Giogio]

Ah yes, sorry about the inverting of terms.

I'm in Perth, Australia unfortunately.

My ears are roughly between 6-7cm (using online ruler)

Don't get me wrong, I love bass also! If there was no bass it would be absolutely horrible.

Considering I've been happy with my Audio technicas, I'll probably end up buying the WS99BT online.

Thanks a lot for your help and I'm sorry I couldn't get your kicker cush pads.

So, I was trying to understand if "I'm in Perth, Australia unfortunately." was referred to being used to invert terms or having usually long ears.
I had also a moment of trying to understand on which website you could use an online ruler to measure your ears.
But the important is the bass, as always, at least after pizza.
I hopw you have read well what I wrote about the ATH. They have less than 5cm of inner diameter, you will definitely need to order the Brainwavz HM5 at same time.
I may end by doing the same.
I was also thinking about buying a cheap Kicker Cush, this I can get it online. It is a big act of love, spending more than 100USD to buy some headphones only to take the earpads.
But the ATH deserve it.
Yeah, do that, buy the ATH, I am sure you will like them.
Your ears exclude the Plantronics (no earpad replacement possible), so it only remain the Supertooth (nice ones, not at the level of the ATH, but very nice), and the Momentum.
The AKG have also 5.5cm inner diameter, so, out.
Let me know how you like them, and please, try them at first with the original pads, just to see how they change sound when you change pads.
 
Cheers

 

[WirelessQuest]

Yeah, do that, buy the ATH, I am sure you will like them.

I was going to buy off ebay as I'm familiar with it but then I decided to go through Amazon as their are some iffy sellers on ebay. How did you purchase yours?

 

[n00b2]

 
@n00b2
As you can read, "aptX is designed to encode a CD-quality (16-bit / 44.1kHz) audio stream without loss of sound quality through a combination of slightly higher data transfer rate compared to SBC as well as more efficient audio encoding."
Which would also confirm my suspect that actually the EDR of the BT Cores 2 and above can have an effect on the sound by allowing higher data transfers, but well. We need @Class D and james444 for this.
Btw, in that text, n00b2, the guy does not explain why the 2.1 would improve the sound. It says only that it improves the pairing, which is confirmed HERE.
 
What I want to reach? That it should not be said so easily "hey guys, do not worry, buy a good SBC headphone, you will never possibly hear any difference with a good aptx headphone if you only listen to MP3", because this is not necessarily true.
With a good mp3, and/or good ears, you would notice the difference.
As said, it is not only a matter of bitrate. Codecs can also alter the sound somehow.
Here the guy says that the aptx codecs (which are actually quite old) are distinguished by "absence of psychoacoustic masking".
And this guy (on of the few reviewers testing headphones instrumentally), who was actually a bit skeptical about Aptx, found out that there is an objective difference between SBC and APTX in the way they manage certain frequencies and where they have peaks and in their noisefloor.
To my ears, very simple, Aptx sounds more dynamic than SBC, and more lively. Also with Mp3.
I think it would be more safe to say to people "you may not notice a difference if you listen to mp3 and use a very good headphone with a very good SBC codec" than "you will definitely never ear any difference".
 
HIGH QUALITY OBJECTIVE INFORMATION.
This is what I want to reach.
It's along way and there will be lot of ******** in the while, but, the attitude is important.
 
I have to wash the dishes of two months now.

 
I have read that article and tried the double blind test there before and I did manage to pick the difference. There is no doubt aptx make a difference. It is a much better encoding technology than both mp3 and SBC. It compresses files using a far superior technique (that has been discussed here before I think) than both mp3 and SBC. That is why I say that the difference is much more important for FLAC files than mp3. For FLAC files SBC has to seriously compress the sound as well as reencode it and that is where the real degradation issue comes in as aptx compresses things in a much better way. For 320kbps mp3 there doesn't really need to be much compression. Mainly just reencoding to SBC/aptx as the mp3 has done the compressing already. For an mp3, if the compression artifacts are already there when it was converted from CD/FLAC and they are noticeable wired then they will be also noticeable noticeable when listened wirelessly whether through SBC or aptx. If there are no artifacts like in FLAC then SBC is much more likely to introduce noticeable compression artifacts than aptx. I never actually thought about SBC bringing out previously indistinguishable mp3 artifacts when encoded into SBC as @james444 said but now that it is mentioned I agree that is probably likely in some instances. Will have to do some more tests when I get time to check for this.

 

[n00b2]

@WirelessQuest and @Giogio if the pads you are after are located in USA you could use one of the online shipping services like PriceUSA or Shipitto. I have used both before and have found them both to be quite reliable. PriseUSA is Australia based, created by someone who wanted to bring cheaper American stuff to Australia based but they do ship overseas too if requested.

 

[WirelessQuest]

The AKG have also 5.5cm inner diameter, so, out.

BTW my A900 has less than 5cm inner diameter but still the most comfy headphones I've ever used, extremely so. That's not saying a lot though as I haven't tried on very many.