[bigshot]

It doesn't matter and it isn't worth worrying about. For the purposes bluetooth is used, it serves the purpose as well as it possibly could. Early on, I could hear a slight difference with bluetooth codecs, but recent implementations seem to be completely transparent in normal use. Once you hit that line, good enough is all you need. If someone is having audible problems with bluetooth, I'd suggest looking into a player with better bluetooth integration, like something by Apple. It should be transparent for normal use.

 

[bfreedma]

It doesn't matter and it isn't worth worrying about. For the purposes bluetooth is used, it serves the purpose as well as it possibly could. Early on, I could hear a slight difference with bluetooth codecs, but recent implementations seem to be completely transparent in normal use. Once you hit that line, good enough is all you need. If someone is having audible problems with bluetooth, I'd suggest looking into a player with better bluetooth integration, like something by Apple. It should be transparent for normal use.

It clearly doesn't matter to you, but others may be interested in discussing the actual technical abilities and limitations of BT.

Since BT is also environmentally sensitive, both to signal strength and interference from other devices, simply saying that in one scenario, you didn't have issues doesn't bring the discussion to resolution.

 

[gregorio]

It doesn't matter and it isn't worth worrying about.

So I state "Just repeating the same mantra/assertion without reliable evidence is exactly what many audiophiles do when they visit this subforum and exactly what you criticise them for, yet here you are doing exactly the same. How does that make you anything other than a hypocrite?" - And how do you respond? You just repeat exactly the same mantra without reliable evidence YET AGAIN!!

G

 

[bigshot]

I stream bluetooth from my iPhone to my receiver and I don't hear a difference between that and the file playing wired through my media server. Should I be concerned that there might be some sort of "night and day" difference using bluetooth that I'm not noticing?

If the difference is significant, then maybe it does matter and people should be worrying about it.

I've never experienced any interference with bluetooth either. In fact, the range on my new speakers is 100 feet unobstructed and 50 feet within a house. It played rock solid from my living room to my back yard where I was BBQing the other day.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I don't hear a difference ... Should I be concerned ... I've never experienced ....
[2] If the difference is significant, then maybe it does matter and people should be worrying about it.

1. This is the sound Science forum, not the "What bigshot hears, experiences or is concerned about" forum. If it were that forum, how would it be any different to any of the other forums here?

2. Define "significant" and of course, don't just define it for yourself!

For example, DAC "A" has a noise floor of -100dB and DAC "B" has a noise floor of -120dB. DAC "B" has a significantly lower noise floor, in fact an order of magnitude lower but under any reasonable listening conditions even DAC A's noise floor is inaudible and therefore the difference isn't significant in practical use, it's irrelevant. But what if the noise floor were say -60dB and were audible under some reasonable listening conditions, would it be significant then? In other words, would it be "insignificant" if you personally can't hear it with your reasonable listening conditions but others could with theirs? Unless you've got some reliable evidence that it's always inaudible under reasonable listening conditions, you don't get to define what's "significant" for everyone else, this isn't the "bigshot" forum!

Again, you're doing exactly what so many audiophiles do here and that you criticise them for! IE. Not just making assertions of fact which are actually just personal opinions/impressions/experiences but then endlessly defending and repeating those personal experiences/opinions using different wording but still NO reliable supporting evidence. And, also exactly like the audiophiles you criticise, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that each new reworded repetition does NOT defend your assertion, it does the exact opposite and just makes the hole you've dug for yourself even deeper! How do you not see this?

G

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

1. This is the sound Science forum, not the "What bigshot hears, experiences or is concerned about" forum. If it were that forum, how would it be any different to any of the other forums here?

2. Define "significant" and of course, don't just define it for yourself!

For example, DAC "A" has a noise floor of -100dB and DAC "B" has a noise floor of -120dB. DAC "B" has a significantly lower noise floor, in fact an order of magnitude lower but under any reasonable listening conditions even DAC A's noise floor is inaudible and therefore the difference isn't significant in practical use, it's irrelevant. But what if the noise floor were say -60dB and were audible under some reasonable listening conditions, would it be significant then? In other words, would it be "insignificant" if you personally can't hear it with your reasonable listening conditions but others could with theirs? Unless you've got some reliable evidence that it's always inaudible under reasonable listening conditions, you don't get to define what's "significant" for everyone else, this isn't the "bigshot" forum!

Again, you're doing exactly what so many audiophiles do here and that you criticise them for! IE. Not just making assertions of fact which are actually just personal opinions/impressions/experiences but then endlessly defending and repeating those personal experiences/opinions using different wording but still NO reliable supporting evidence. And, also exactly like the audiophiles you criticise, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that each new reworded repetition does NOT defend your assertion, it does the exact opposite and just makes the hole you've dug for yourself even deeper! How do you not see this?

G

Is anyone arguing the science at this point? I don't know what the issue is here. It's been established already that there are imperfections around Bluetooth. Whether one can live with those or not is up to individuals to determine. Obviously, any wireless technology is going to be subject to occasional connection issues. With Bluetooth, I don't really ever have more than momentary blips on a very rare occasion. Are those blips enough to offset the extreme convenience of Bluetooth? For me, not even close. Same goes for sound quality. The science tells me that almost nobody is going to be able to tell the difference under normal conditions between even SBC and 320kb mp3. Is that good enough for everybody? I don't know. But just like with comparisons between high br lossy and lossless, if someone tells me they can definitely always hear a difference I pretty much roll my eyes and think "yeah, sure you can."

 

[gregorio]

The science tells me that almost nobody is going to be able to tell the difference under normal conditions between even SBC and 320kb mp3. Is that good enough for everybody?

I can't speak for everybody but for me it would be good enough if you could provide/link to the science which has told you that almost nobody is going to hear an SBC encoding/decoding of an 320 MP3.

G

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I can't speak for everybody but for me it would be good enough if you could provide/link to the science which has told you that almost nobody is going to hear an SBC encoding/decoding of an 320 MP3.

G

sorry, the science I'm referring to is simply that it's apparent to me based on the tests I've taken myself and the results of tests I've seen online that it's almost impossible to tell the difference between high br lossy and lossless. I'm extrapolating from that and making a bit of an assumption that the transmission through Bluetooth isn't costing so much that it's turning a 320kbmp3 into a 192kb mp3...I mean I guess we could ask the alternative question too - is there any science showing that the difference is audible under reasonable listening conditions?

Just for reference, this was an article I read a few months back which sort of convinced me I didn't really need to worry a whole lot about the matter...even SBC is good enough ftmp.

https://habr.com/en/post/456182/

 

[bigshot]

I can't speak for everybody but for me it would be good enough if you could provide/link to the science which has told you that almost nobody is going to hear an SBC encoding/decoding of an 320 MP3.

You want me to prove a negative? Wouldn't it be easier for you to do a test and see if you could hear it?

Like I said, when bluetooth was first introduced, I wasn't impressed. But the current implementation is transparent for my purposes, and I'd bet the way I listen to music is more critical than most people. All I can tell you is that I use bluetooth all the time on my phone using AAC 256 VBR files and I can't hear any difference between that and wired. And considering that bluetooth is usually used in more casual listening conditions (i.e.: portable use) I don't see how it matters at all, even if a difference that you had to strain to hear did exist. Just use a transparent lossy file and don't worry about it.

I'm not the one trying to be dominant here. I'm just saying what my experience with bluetooth is. I use bluetooth all the time and it works fine. I also use lossy files and CD quality sound and they work fine too. Some things just aren't worth worrying about.

 

[bfreedma]

You want me to prove a negative? Wouldn't it be easier for you to do a test and see if you could hear it?

Like I said, when bluetooth was first introduced, I wasn't impressed. But the current implementation is transparent for my purposes, and I'd bet the way I listen to music is more critical than most people. All I can tell you is that I use bluetooth all the time on my phone using AAC 256 VBR files and I can't hear any difference between that and wired. And considering that bluetooth is usually used in more casual listening conditions (i.e.: portable use) I don't see how it matters at all, even if a difference that you had to strain to hear did exist. Just use a transparent lossy file and don't worry about it.

I'm not the one trying to be dominant here. I'm just saying what my experience with bluetooth is. I use bluetooth all the time and it works fine. I also use lossy files and CD quality sound and they work fine too. Some things just aren't worth worrying about.

The issue is your utilization of only one use case (yours) to make a blanket statement. Try running your BT device in an area where 40-50 other people are also using BT and 2.4Ghz - results may be different.

It significant enough that Apple has a support KB article on how to address it https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201542. I'm sure there are other references to channel utilization conflict - this was the first link that showed in a quick search.

 

[bigshot]

Well, I guess if you're in an airport or train station, you might want to carry around some small inexpensive wired headphones. I have a pair of Sennheiser PX-200s that I used to use that would probably work. It's not like you are going to be listening that carefully in a big crowd like that. I've run into situations at the San Diego Comic-Con where I couldn't even use my phone because of traffic. I don't worry about that though... It's rare enough that I just deal with it.

If the wifi band is an issue, I don't know why that hasn't been an issue for me. My whole house is smart lights and I have a lot of computers streaming and gadgets operating on wifi. Maybe I haven't achieved critical mass yet. Gotta buy more wifi enabled toasters!

 

[bfreedma]

Well, I guess if you're in an airport or train station, you might want to carry around some small inexpensive wired headphones. I have a pair of Sennheiser PX-200s that I used to use that would probably work. It's not like you are going to be listening that carefully in a big crowd like that. I've run into situations at the San Diego Comic-Con where I couldn't even use my phone because of traffic. I don't worry about that though... It's rare enough that I just deal with it.

If the wifi band is an issue, I don't know why that hasn't been an issue for me. My whole house is smart lights and I have a lot of computers streaming and gadgets operating on wifi. Maybe I haven't achieved critical mass yet. Gotta buy more wifi enabled toasters!

There are scenarios that aren't as noisy as a airport or train station where BT utilization rates are high. Many people listen to BT headphones at work - start adding up all the BT connected mice, keyboards, phone headsets in your typical office and you can see where channel bandwidth and interference could become problematic

 

[bigshot]

It's odd that I haven't run into it at the studio then. I get download slowdowns with big files, but I've never had problems with bluetooth. I guess if you work in a situation like that, you'd need to plug in. My wireless cans come with an optional cable.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

There are scenarios that aren't as noisy as a airport or train station where BT utilization rates are high. Many people listen to BT headphones at work - start adding up all the BT connected mice, keyboards, phone headsets in your typical office and you can see where channel bandwidth and interference could become problematic

is this an issue you've actually had to deal with? I use Bluetooth all the time at home, and my place is crawling with wireless devices. I've never had a connection issue of any sort really...

 

[bfreedma]

is this an issue you've actually had to deal with? I use Bluetooth all the time at home, and my place is crawling with wireless devices. I've never had a connection issue of any sort really...

I've dealt with this a number of times - it usually happens in businesses that have outgrown their startup small biz network infrastructure.

It's not likely to occur in a home - just not enough devices to saturate either the infrastructure or channels. Most home networks will also automatically channel hunt for both 2.5/5Ghz if the signal is sub-optimal - could happen if BT conflicts with the channel, or if your neighbors happen to use the same channel for wifi. In a business office, generally, self healing of that type isn't enabled as the WiFi network layout needs to be more controlled.

I'll experiment a bit this weekend to see if I can create a scenario where BT starts to be impacted by WiFi. Will set 8-10 Wi-Fi SSIDs to use the same channel and will try to saturate the network with 2.5/5Ghz and BT traffic to see what shows up in network monitoring and also subjectively on a BT headphone.