Huge Comparison of [almost] all the Best Bluetooth Headphones - post your own comparisons here
Apr 19, 2015 at 3:42 AM Post #691 of 3,643
  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.


Aren't you overlooking the fact that everything gets decoded to WAV/PCM before reencoding? The WAV/PCM file for SBC/aptX encoding will be the same size, regardless of whether the original file has been FLAC or mp3.
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 6:12 AM Post #692 of 3,643
   
 That is why I say that the difference is much more important for FLAC files than mp3. 

 
I hope you don't mind me just highlighting that line about the affect of aptx. With that said, that is basically the same thing I said, and I got JUMPED ON..
biggrin.gif

 
I was asked my sources?
 
My sources are not just one particular item/comment/review , but it was consensus of a lot of readings and reviews..I based my comment on the what the majority were stating..
 
Shucks, I might go back to stating that "I am a newbie", in front of my comments, then maybe I won't get banged as much ...
wink.gif
 
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 8:18 AM Post #695 of 3,643
   
Do you ever sleep??
wink.gif

Why should I?
Anyway I live in EU, so I generally sleep wake up when you go to bed, probably.
Apart for the weekends where I have the tendency to procrastinate sleep a lot.
 
Guys, James, n00b, grandpa, you know what this conversation about mp3, aptx and sbc remembers me?
The old times of cassette players. I do not even remember well how the thing was, but I remember that there were good cassettes from TDK (TDK!!! Incredible, forgotten name), very high grade, and cheap ones. I always wanted to buy the expensive ones for everything but my father was saying that it was not worth when the source was not good enough or something like that.
Which is like what n00b and grandpa say.
But I was saying that exactly because the source was not so good, I needed a good cassette, or the result would have been the sum of two ****ty things. 1 **** + 1 **** is not 1 **** but 2 ****s.
Which is what I keep saying in this case too, and James too.
 
Apparently some things never change. And I think there is not reachable agreement on such a thing. It is a matter of points of view.
n00b puts the accent on the dimension/quantity thing, saying that as the flac is bigger than the mp3, it needs a bigger door, and if you have to cut a flac to make it pass through a little door, you will lose more (in proportion) than what you will lose by cutting the mp3, so that the aptx is more needed for a flac (or in other words, it is a bigger pity to cut something big than something small).
James puts the accent on the encoding/quality thing, saying that being the flac much better than a mp3, the final result after all decode and recode processes will be better starting from a flac than from an mp3, so that the aptx is more needed for the mp3.
I think that it may be safe to say that the aptx is ALWAYS better, for mp3 and for flac, for different reasons in each case. In some case better for mp3, in other case better for flac, generally speaking better for everything.
Which is what I was saying since the beginning.
So, I win and you owe me a beer.
beerchug.gif

 
Apr 19, 2015 at 10:05 AM Post #696 of 3,643
 
Aren't you overlooking the fact that everything gets decoded to WAV/PCM before reencoding? The WAV/PCM file for SBC/aptX encoding will be the same size, regardless of whether the original file has been FLAC or mp3.


I haven't forgotten that part but again I'll say the same thing there. The WAV file will be the same size for both but it was starting with a much better quality source when it was a FLAC that is being converted. Whatever was lost in the mp3 conversion won't have returned when it was decoded to WAV and the FLAC to WAV conversion isn't supposed to lose any data. Even if the WAV file is the same size it will still be holding more information in the converted FLAC. WAV always seems to find a way to hog data it doesn't even need.
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 10:22 AM Post #697 of 3,643
   
n00b puts the accent on the dimension/quantity thing, saying that as the flac is bigger than the mp3, it needs a bigger door, and if you have to cut a flac to make it pass through a little door, you will lose more (in proportion) than what you will lose by cutting the mp3, so that the aptx is more needed for a flac (or in other words, it is a bigger pity to cut something big than something small).
James puts the accent on the encoding/quality thing, saying that being the flac much better than a mp3, the final result after all decode and recode processes will be better starting from a flac than from an mp3, so that the aptx is more needed for the mp3.

There is a lot to ponder in these two views... that flac degrades from "cutting" (I take that to mean compression? or simply truncating bits due to BT bandwidth restrictions?) more than mp3, which has in some sense though degraded from flac has been made more robust against further degradation.
 
And then, flac is more robust against transcoding (i.e., compressing and decompressing multiple times) because it starts at a higher quality.
 
I think both can be true.
 
But what I REALLY think is what I read on woot today about when high-definition audio is most needed (this was in their ad for the Beats Solo HD headphones).... "HD audio: because that cassette you taped off the radio in 1982 deserves it."
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM Post #698 of 3,643
@Giogio It seems like this argument can go on forever. I hadn't revisited it for a while until this discussion but it seems that there are many more articles about aptx out there now with everyone firmly in one of the camps: the aptx is the holy grail camp and the aptx isn't that significant camp. I didn't disagree with you that aptx is better for everything. I just said that SBC isn't inherently bad itself (good SBC > bad aptx) and that aptx doesn't make any seriously noticeable difference for mp3 files. Reading some more anecdotal evidence on forums and articles opinions seem to fall on both sides. Some people say that they didn't notice any difference or very little difference for mp3 (like me) and some say that the difference for mp3 and even youtube was huge (like you). I don't know how many of the testers were using high quality SBC (I still say that anyone noticing a gargantuan difference was not using high quality) but I guess it will really come down to each individual's circumstances (particular headphones, source, files, etc) as to how important aptx will be.
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 10:47 AM Post #699 of 3,643
I searched but I couldn't find any solid evidence that the WS99 and WS99BT (in wired mode) are the same.

I looked at the specs for both on their respective Audio technica websites and they are slightly different. I'm guessing they fine tuned the Bluetooth ones and they might sound slightly different to one another in wired ...
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 11:01 AM Post #700 of 3,643
I searched but I couldn't find any solid evidence that the WS99 and WS99BT (in wired mode) are the same.

I looked at the specs for both on their respective Audio technica websites and they are slightly different. I'm guessing they fine tuned the Bluetooth ones and they might sound slightly different to one another in wired ...

I am not sure to understand why do you even bother researching that. Is it because you have access to the wired version and would like to try it before buying the BT one?
Unfortunately I did not hear the wired.
But I could buy one to make the comparison, and then send it back. This will not happen before the first week of may anyway.
Let me know if you need that.
 
I just said that SBC isn't inherently bad itself (good SBC > bad aptx)
some say that the difference for mp3 and even youtube was huge (like you).

I do not say that. I have said that I have heard a clear difference. Not a HUGE difference.
I have also no idea how objective can be considered a test made with just the Sony.
The huge difference heard with the Azio dongle before installing the CSR software is probably due to crappy Azio stuff.
I also think that SBC is NOT bad.
He just has got a difficult character :D
Seriously, I think a very good, MAX bitrate SBC with a very good chip is ok for Mp3 for most people.
The problem is, all high end headphones now have aptx. Which means, those with SBC, apart for the AKG, Parrot, Bose and Revo, are not so trusty, and I would not bet my life that they use the best chips and the best SBC.
While I find it very unprobable that a high end headphone with aptx and aac will have a bad chip and a bad sbc codec.
So I would still buy a high end headphone with aptx even if I do not need aptx (which btw is something which could change faster than expected. People change smartphones more often than headphones.)
 
But what I REALLY think is what I read on woot today about when high-definition audio is most needed (this was in their ad for the Beats Solo HD headphones).... "HD audio: because that cassette you taped off the radio in 1982 deserves it."

Once in a while Beats does something useful.
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 11:24 AM Post #701 of 3,643
  I haven't forgotten that part but again I'll say the same thing there. The WAV file will be the same size for both but it was starting with a much better quality source when it was a FLAC that is being converted. Whatever was lost in the mp3 conversion won't have returned when it was decoded to WAV and the FLAC to WAV conversion isn't supposed to lose any data. Even if the WAV file is the same size it will still be holding more information in the converted FLAC.

 
Sure, I agree. But that has nothing to do with the part of your post I replied to:
 
  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.

 
To me, it seems you're thinking that compression and reencoding are two different steps. And your point is that mp3 has already been compressed and SBC won't have to compress it as much as FLAC.
 
That's why I asked you whether you're aware that everything gets decoded to WAV/PCM before reencoding. Because SBC doesn't know whether that WAV/PCM it's supposed to reencode has been an mp3 or FLAC in an earlier state. It simply applies the same lossy compression/encoding to the bitstream, thereby degrading both the former mp3 as well as the FLAC.
 
If we assume that the mp3 in question has been transparent (i.e. 320kbps without discernable artifacts), it will suffer at least the same degradation as the FLAC, possibly even more (due to those formerly indiscernible artifacts that might get pushed above perception threshold).
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM Post #702 of 3,643
   
So, I win and you owe me a beer.
beerchug.gif

 
I sure do!!
biggrin.gif
  
 
Like I mentioned before, I enjoy being a "bum" around "kings"..My knowledge can't go no place but up!! 
 
Seriously, I am learning a lot..
 
BTW, I have an x girlfriend in EU, If I could sneak away from the mean wiffee, I would surely love to give you that beer, no, it would be bottle of champagne!! 
beerchug.gif

 
However, that is only wishful dreaming . the wifee doesn't let grandpa out of her sight!!
frown.gif
 
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 12:04 PM Post #703 of 3,643
   
To me, it seems you're thinking that compression and reencoding are two different steps. And your point is that mp3 has already been compressed and SBC won't have to compress it as much as FLAC.
 
That's why I asked you whether you're aware that everything gets decoded to WAV/PCM before reencoding. Because SBC doesn't know whether that WAV/PCM it's supposed to reencode has been an mp3 or FLAC in an earlier state. It simply applies the same lossy compression/encoding to the bitstream, thereby degrading both the former mp3 as well as the FLAC.

 
Thats not exactly what I meant though I probably could have worded it better. I know that SBC and aptx will both apply the same respective compression algotrithm to the WAV file regardless of what file it came from. However the WAV originating from the FLAC will have much more detail and data in it. Then when SBC/aptx compresses it again there is still more detail and information to compress in the WAV that came from the FLAC. And aptx uses a far superior method to compress it retaining a lot more of the extra information that was originally in the FLAC.
 
If we assume that the mp3 in question has been transparent (i.e. 320kbps without discernable artifacts), it will suffer at least the same degradation as the FLAC, possibly even more (due to those formerly indiscernible artifacts that might get pushed above perception threshold).

 
This is where our opinions differ. You feel that the double compression caused by compressing an already compressed mp3 is going to bring artifacts out to the fore. I hadn't thought of that and I agree that there is definitely a strong possibility of that occurring. However I feel that the FLAC will be the one that suffers more as there was more information to compress/lose and aptx compresses in a way that is far less noticeable than SBC. So a lot more of the noticeable data that was in the FLAC will be lost over SBC than aptx. This data has already been lost in an mp3 so this additional information will not be seen anyway if an mp3 is being played over aptx. So in that sense both will sound closer to the original with aptx but as the FLAC had more noticable information to lose, it will suffer more as the gap between SBC and aptx will be bigger and more noticeable detail will be compressed/lost (and not just artifacts) even though the actual ratio of degradation may well be the same.
 
This is ignoring the potential of double compression artifacts coming out from further compressing an already compressed file like you mentioned. If the artifacts become very noticeable and distracting then you can definitely make a case for the mp3 suffering more with SBC than the FLAC. I am interested to see if this does occur. Compalints have come regarding bluetooth (SBC) induced artifacts for both FLAC and mp3 files. The only way to confirm I guess would be to convert a FLAC into a good quality 320kbps mp3 then stream both over SBC to see if the artifacts are more noticeable in one or the other.
 
I have tried something similar when I was testing for my own purposes (was testing the usefulness of aptx). Had a few of the same song in both FLAC and 320kpbs mp3 and to me the difference between aptx and SBC was far bigger and more noticeable in the FLAC file than the mp3. I didn't try to compare SBC flac vs SBC mp3 (never occurred to me that this could be a useful test). I didn't convert the FLACs to mp3 myself so I don't know exactly how the mp3's were made or what source it came from (I could notice a pretty big difference between them to begin with so they weren't that transparent). Someone with better technology and software could probably give a more definitive answer to this.
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM Post #704 of 3,643
I am not sure to understand why do you even bother researching that. Is it because you have access to the wired version and would like to try it before buying the BT one?

Unfortunately I did not hear the wired.

But I could buy one to make the comparison, and then send it back. This will not happen before the first week of may anyway.
Let me know if you need that.

While I find it very unprobable that a high end headphone with aptx and aac will have a bad chip and a bad sbc codec.
So I would still buy a high end headphone with aptx even if I do not need aptx (which btw is something which could change faster than expected. People change smartphones more often than headphones.)


Yes, I can actually test the WS99 (not very easily) in Australia's isolated desert. It would be appreciated though if you could test, but only if you benefit..

Very true statement about the smartphones.

BTW, if you're interested, you could test out 'Perth's flagship' Bluetooth headphones. These are the AKG: K840KL, Parrot Zik 2.0 (nothing special apparently) and the Sennheiser RS 220 (discontinued I believe??? Any idea on the successor?). These all retail for 500AUD. Then in order of expensiveness, Sennheiser MM550-X/450X and Sennheiser RS185/180. And I'll stop there before I do your head in.

Regarding the SBC/APTX 'discussion, I agree with @n00b2 with actually testing the perceivable difference. Everyone has different opinions but if the consensus is clear then that'll be what triumphs. (provided testing is controlled correctly)
 
Apr 19, 2015 at 1:03 PM Post #705 of 3,643
BTW, if you're interested, you could test out 'Perth's flagship' Bluetooth headphones. These are the AKG: K840KL, Parrot Zik 2.0 (nothing special apparently) and the Sennheiser RS 220 (discontinued I believe??? Any idea on the successor?). These all retail for 500AUD. Then in order of expensiveness, Sennheiser MM550-X/450X and Sennheiser RS185/180. And I'll stop there before I do your head in.

Regarding the SBC/APTX 'discussion, I agree with @n00b2 with actually testing the perceivable difference. Everyone has different opinions but if the consensus is clear then that'll be what triumphs. (provided testing is controlled correctly)

 
Of the ones you have listed only the Parrot Zik and Sennheiser MM-550-X are bluetooth headphones. The others are wireless but use different technologies. The AKG uses Kleer (hence the KL) as does the Sennheiser RS 180. The RS 220 uses DSS which is superior to both Kleer and Bluetooth in terms of sound quality. The RS 185 uses some new proprietry wireless technology. @Giogio has already tested the Sennheiser MM series (its's in the OP) and he is attempting to get a Zik in as well. The RS 220 was usually more then $500 AU when I bought one. Great headphones. Easily the best wireless headphones I have heard (far superior to anything bluetooth). There isn't a replacement on the horizon though. The Sennheiser AU guy himself wasn't exactly sure why but the RS 185 is supposed to sound very close to it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top