[castleofargh]

  I had no idea until last year that bluetooth uses lossy compression. I was so disinterested in bluetooth I'd not read up on it at all. Then a friend complained to me that her classical recordings sounded awful when she used bluetooth from her ipod touch to her Bose something or other. I was expected to have the answer, but didn't know a thing about it, so I started reading.
 
Turns out bluetooth audio is like a quite low bitrate mp3 stream, no matter how good quality the source is. I assume BT was invented by nerds for control signals. Well, that's about all it's good for anyway.
 
No wonder the quality DAP makers are dragging their feet over bluetooth. They need to get their heads together and come up with something fit for purpose.

the latest/next BT standard talks about doubling the speed, so this should allow for pretty good stuff. now as always, for a standard or specific streaming method to work, you need both the source and the receiver to be compatible with it. otherwise the signal reverts back to basic BT stuff. 

 

[Happytalk]

I think we are getting off track, but one comment. I would trade some buffering time for higher fidelity with bluetooth. I know there are devices that do this, but they seem to be mostly for home use and over wi fi. Logitech squeeze box etc.

 

[ClieOS]

   
 
I had no idea until last year that bluetooth uses lossy compression. I was so disinterested in bluetooth I'd not read up on it at all. Then a friend complained to me that her classical recordings sounded awful when she used bluetooth from her ipod touch to her Bose something or other. I was expected to have the answer, but didn't know a thing about it, so I started reading.
 
Turns out bluetooth audio is like a quite low bitrate mp3 stream, no matter how good quality the source is. I assume BT was invented by nerds for control signals. Well, that's about all it's good for anyway.
 
No wonder the quality DAP makers are dragging their feet over bluetooth. They need to get their heads together and come up with something fit for purpose.

 
What you have read and experienced represents the 'old' BT tech. A good quality BT setup (both transmitter and receiver) can stream music equals to that of 320kbps mp3, even better with the support of aptX codec. The next gen. aptX HD, which already slowly begin to be adopted by manufacturer, will even stream HiRes music and we will see more of it in a year or so. While it isn't perfect yet, we are slowly getting to the point that BT is almost as good as wire - assuming you have the right setup.

 

[luisdent]

 


I had no idea until last year that bluetooth uses lossy compression. I was so disinterested in bluetooth I'd not read up on it at all. Then a friend complained to me that her classical recordings sounded awful when she used bluetooth from her ipod touch to her Bose something or other. I was expected to have the answer, but didn't know a thing about it, so I started reading.

Turns out bluetooth audio is like a quite low bitrate mp3 stream, no matter how good quality the source is. I assume BT was invented by nerds for control signals. Well, that's about all it's good for anyway.

No wonder the quality DAP makers are dragging their feet over bluetooth. They need to get their heads together and come up with something fit for purpose.

What you have read and experienced represents the 'old' BT tech. A good quality BT setup (both transmitter and receiver) can stream music equals to that of 320kbps mp3, even better with the support of aptX codec. The next gen. aptX HD, which already slowly begin to be adopted by manufacturer, will even stream HiRes music and we will see more of it in a year or so. While it isn't perfect yet, we are slowly getting to the point that BT is almost as good as wire - assuming you have the right setup.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to know what devices employ high wuality bluetooth. I have a jbl speaker and the bluetooth audio has random volume fluctuations, our toyota has audible digital distortion with a lot of high frequency audio information. My sony a17 has a "quality" priority setting that seemed to work well. Ironically, my sony car deck in my other car has no audible issues so far that i can tell easily. But generally, most devices i have heard are either definitely lossy sounding or have random connectivity, glitches, or anomalies that sinply make it unusable for me...

Give me at least apple lossless over bluetooth with no glitches and i don't mind a bit of buffering either...

 

[ClieOS]

Unfortunately, it is very hard to know what devices employ high wuality bluetooth. I have a jbl speaker and the bluetooth audio has random volume fluctuations, our toyota has audible digital distortion with a lot of high frequency audio information. My sony a17 has a "quality" priority setting that seemed to work well. Ironically, my sony car deck in my other car has no audible issues so far that i can tell easily. But generally, most devices i have heard are either definitely lossy sounding or have random connectivity, glitches, or anomalies that sinply make it unusable for me...

Give me at least apple lossless over bluetooth with no glitches and i don't mind a bit of buffering either...

 
Consumer BT portable speaker and car audio system are generally not audiophiles oriented, unfortunately, much like most audio products you can find in Best Buy.

 

[qsk78]

In general today bluetooth has nothing to do with terms like "quality" or "audiophile”.
I use it in my car from time to time just for the background. 

 

[ClieOS]

  In general today bluetooth has nothing to do with terms like "quality" or "audiophile”.
I use it in my car from time to time just for the background. 

 
 In general, yes. But it isn't to say all of them are such a case.

 

[HiFiChris]

  In general today bluetooth has nothing to do with terms like "quality" or "audiophile”.
I use it in my car from time to time just for the background. 

 
Welp, there are exceptions - the Mass Fidelity Relay BT DAC for example. It was the first BT device where I couldn't make out the difference between a wired and BT signal conversion.

 

[luisdent]

Definitely agree. Most product are made with just as much effort as needed unfortunately.

 

[ElMarcado]

I have a question for Etymotic connoisuers:
Is the ER-4S EXACTLY THE SAME TECHNICALLY as the ER-4P with ER-4S adapter?
 
I'm not talking about 'sonic differences', but electrically. I've seen a guy saying that the differences between the two are more than just a resistor/adapter. I don't believe him. Etymotic must be right when they say that the adapter actually converts the ER-4P to the ER-4S with the use of the adapter. How can they be wrong? Can someone elaborate on this?
 
The 100 Ohm ER-4S is my favorite headphone ever. I love how they present music. Such clarity, extension and dynamics, all while being very smooth and devoid of any graininess and veil. To my ears, the ER-4S is as neutral as it gets. Sometimes they can sound warm, others painstakingly bright, it all depends on the recording. But the headphones doesn't seem to have a 'sound' per se. Cymbals sounds as tonally accurate as it could get. With the right recording, you are there. I don't know how they achieved this good of a treble. Wow.
 
Also, if someone who thought that the ER-4S can't do bass is reading this, listen to 'Funky Monks' by Red Hot Chili Peppers on a well-amped ER-4S and report again. Its almost like a subwoofer, but its just a tiny balanced armature driver... What? HOW?
 
I don't know. All I know is that the ER-4S is awesome.
 
Thanks for helping me, by the way. Looking forward to your replies.

 

[ClieOS]

  I have a question for Etymotic connoisuers:
Is the ER-4S EXACTLY THE SAME TECHNICALLY as the ER-4P with ER-4S adapter?
 
I'm not talking about 'sonic differences', but electrically. I've seen a guy saying that the differences between the two are more than just a resistor/adapter. I don't believe him. Etymotic must be right when they say that the adapter actually converts the ER-4P to the ER-4S with the use of the adapter. How can they be wrong? Can someone elaborate on this?
 
...

 
Electrically a ER4S and ER4P+ S adapter will be near identical. You are basically asking whether a 100ohm resistor is electrically the same as a 75ohm resistor in serial with a 25ohm resistor. I say 'near' identical' because there should actually be a slight difference (of a few ohm) on overall impedance between a ER4S and a ER4P + S adapter - but the resulting frequency response between them are pretty much close to identical. You could have measured different pair of ER4S and get as much difference.
 
...then again, some people have argued that even resistor and cable has their own sound, so I'll guess we will always have those who say otherwise.

 

[luisdent]

 
I have a question for Etymotic connoisuers:
Is the ER-4S EXACTLY THE SAME TECHNICALLY as the ER-4P with ER-4S adapter?

I'm not talking about 'sonic differences', but electrically. I've seen a guy saying that the differences between the two are more than just a resistor/adapter. I don't believe him. Etymotic must be right when they say that the adapter actually converts the ER-4P to the ER-4S with the use of the adapter. How can they be wrong? Can someone elaborate on this?

...

Electrically a ER4S and ER4P+ S adapter will be near identical. You are basically asking whether a 100ohm resistor is electrically the same as a 75ohm resistor in serial with a 25ohm resistor. I say 'near' identical' because there should actually be a slight difference (of a few ohm) on overall impedance between a ER4S and a ER4P + S adapter - but the resulting frequency response between them are pretty much close to identical. You could have measured different pair of ER4S and get as much difference.

...then again, some people have argued that even resistor and cable has their own sound, so I'll guess we will always have those who say otherwise.

I'm with you on this one. Electronic facts known by electrical engineers the world over state that they are identical assuming the tolerances are reasonable. Like clieos said, they may be within a few ohms, but even adding 16 ohms to an er4s doesn't change the sound very audibly. You could get a different pair of er4s and hear the same level of change.

 

[Frederick Wang]

Ah... I think my ears are spoiled by ER4S, I just bought a HE400i, while the sound is more full-bodied (the advantage of over-ear I guess), it is nowhere near ER4s clarity. 
 
Fellow ER4 owners, do you have over-ear recommendations, that don't make you wanna throw them away after 10 minutes... 

 

[uzi2]

  Ah... I think my ears are spoiled by ER4S, I just bought a HE400i, while the sound is more full-bodied (the advantage of over-ear I guess), it is nowhere near ER4s clarity. 
 
Fellow ER4 owners, do you have over-ear recommendations, that don't make you wanna throw them away after 10 minutes... 

HE-560

 

[Voyageur]

I think it would be about time to add the ER4SR and XR to the head-fi products category, so that people can start reviewing and rating the new Etys in an 'official' and centralized way?