bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Make sure no one in your house is watching the new Dracula on Netflix while you are overloading the wifi. They'll get mad at you!
Make sure no one in your house is watching the new Dracula on Netflix while you are overloading the wifi. They'll get mad at you!
1. I have no idea but the data rate for standard bluetooth is 328kbps. However, a lot more of that data rate is taken up with error correction code and the simplistic SBC also represents a loss of equivalent bits, so in effect it could easily be turning a 320kbps MP3 into a 192kbps MP3 and I'm not convinced your assumption is valid.[1] 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...
[2] 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?
[3] 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.
[1] You want me to prove a negative?
[2] Wouldn't it be easier for you to do a test and see if you could hear it?
[3] Like I said, when bluetooth was first introduced, I wasn't impressed. But the current implementation is transparent for my purposes ...
[4] I'm not the one trying to be dominant here. I'm just saying what my experience with bluetooth is.
[1] I'm not really trying to convince anyone that my assumptions are valid. I'm looking around at the evidence I can find, knowing my use case situation, and making a decision about what I want to do.
[2] The fact that it might be possible to manufacture some edge case scenario where I might be able to possibly hear some difference doesn't worry me any more than does the fact that it might under very special conditions be possible to hear a difference between high br lossy and lossless.
[3] I am honestly not sure what you are arguing here.
[3a] Sometimes, even in the sound science forum, good enough is good enough.
[3b] If as you say the transmission through bluetooth does in fact cause notable sound degradation, you show me the evidence.
[3c] I've been using BT for a long time and can't hear it myself.
[4] It seems to me that if there was some audible loss of sound quality related to current BT implementations, there would be evidence (as in simple frequency spectrum graphs) of that all over the place. The audiophile community has such a negative view towards BT that if there was to be found a notable, repeatable SQ issue that could be easily displayed (as any notable repeatable issue should be able to be) it would be trumpeted all over the various sound sites with glee.
As far as different codec option implementations go, I'd just say anyone who plans to use BT a lot should make an effort to insure that the codec is implemented suitably on any device they are considering. That is sort of SOP for the buying of any gear really...
Do you have any components that you use bluetooth on, Gregorio?
1. Which is absolutely fine and indeed, recommended practice but again, this isn't the "What Sgt. Ear Ache wants to do" forum, it's the sound science forum.
2. According to the evidence you yourself linked to, they could NOT confirm no difference with AAC bluetooth on Android devices and recommended using a different bluetooth protocol. Android is hardly "some edge case scenario"!
3. I've tried to make it very clear, I'm arguing that we cannot make blanket assertions of fact in a science forum based ONLY on our own individual experience and a particular interpretation of the evidence which supports our personal experience. If we do, how are we any different to any other subforum here? People come here for answers based on science/the facts, NOT your's, mine or bigshots personal experiences or what we would do/want. And continuing:
3a. Not just sometimes but often! There are virtually always differences but typically they are inaudible under reasonable listening conditions, we have a body of reliable evidence to support the assertion that it "flat out doesn't matter", plus a rational explanation of why it should be inaudible. However, that is NOT the case here! The problem we have here is: A large number of variables, relatively little reliable evidence of the audibility of different combinations of those variables and the evidence I've seen is somewhat inconclusive. If we are to be HONEST here in the sound science forum, we therefore MUST at least leave the door open that under some reasonable listening conditions there could be audible differences, because the science does NOT support an ablosute assertion and we would be hypocrites and no different to any other forum if we did!!
Edit: Oh! One more thing... Bluetooth works doggone good for the purposes of informal listening to music.
[1] Do you have any current bluetooth components?
[1] Have you been able to hear a difference? I sure haven't. Let me know if you have.
[2] I think you might be operating on old info. I thought bluetooth sounded mediocre when it first came out, and I avoided it for years. I revisited it and changed my mind.
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.