[Currawong]

Good to know your opinion that I respect. It is because I live in a very deep blue water that I know the value of money, I work in a different business and can only dream the charges makers apply on headphones, we spend few grand on marketing, we don't have any "forum influencers" as employee.
I'm very optimistic and at same time very shy to give my money for any product, to be precise: I'm Stingy

I don't know what the heck a "forum influencer" is, but having the actual CEO or engineer for a manufacturer answering questions gets the best results for them, including earning them the most respect here anyway.

That’s so AWESOME! Thanks for replying! So many of us here are fanatics for AAC which is often left out. Are you going to be supporting AAC?

AAC is a music storage format. It has nothing to do with Bluetooth headphones. Whatever format a music file is, it is decoded into PCM on your phone or computer during playback before anything else happens anyway.

 

[AlwaysForward]

AAC is a music storage format. It has nothing to do with Bluetooth headphones. Whatever format a music file is, it is decoded into PCM on your phone or computer during playback before anything else happens anyway.

My understanding is that AAC is a compression format. WRT BT Headphones, the on-device codec support for formats such as AAC, Apt-X etc allows phones which support of their transmission to send the signal in said codec to the headphone client where it is converted.

It’s generally accepted that different audio codecs (or video, for that matter) offers different levels of performance and optimization.

The codec used In the transmission of Bluetooth audio is managed by the Bluetooth profile, generally A2DP for Audio.

If AAC/Apt-X/LDAC are not supported by either side of the server/client chain, the A2DP management system defaults SBC because it’s built into Bluetooth.

While SBC provides a strong foundation for the Bluetooth platform, Bluetooth allows for additional & proprietary codecs to be used in the system: like LDAC & Apt-X. These formats are optimized for higher fidelity audio performance at the same bitrate as competitors like MP3 or SBC.

AAC is a measurably better compression format by performance than SBC for Audio and is the highest quality Bluetooth codec available on iOS devices.

AAC only works with Bluetooth headphoneswhen implemented on both the headphone side & device side. When headphones support it, there’s higher fidelity available in the signal chain. Just as Apt-X and LDAC can improve audio performance by being supported on both sides of the server/client system of a Bluetooth headphones. Which is why codec support is a strong selling point for high quality Audio in wireless headphones & manufacturers make the point to include said codec support in their marketing materials.

I'm open to digging into the technicals and being proven wrong but I've done quite a bit of research and feel fairly confident in my understanding of this system and it's impact.

Additional reading is available here: http://theheadphonelist.com/wireless-fidelity-making-sense-bluetooth-headphone-technology/

 

[Currawong]

AAC transmission? I wasn’t aware that it existed for Bluetooth. Thanks for the summary.

 

[Victorfabius]

My understanding is that AAC is a compression format. WRT BT Headphones, the on-device codec support for formats such as AAC, Apt-X etc allows phones which support of their transmission to send the signal in said codec to the headphone client where it is converted.

It’s generally accepted that different audio codecs (or video, for that matter) offers different levels of performance and optimization.

The codec used In the transmission of Bluetooth audio is managed by the Bluetooth profile, generally A2DP for Audio.

If AAC/Apt-X/LDAC are not supported by either side of the server/client chain, the A2DP management system defaults SBC because it’s built into Bluetooth.

While SBC provides a strong foundation for the Bluetooth platform, Bluetooth allows for additional & proprietary codecs to be used in the system: like LDAC & Apt-X. These formats are optimized for higher fidelity audio performance at the same bitrate as competitors like MP3 or SBC.

AAC is a measurably better compression format by performance than SBC for Audio and is the highest quality Bluetooth codec available on iOS devices.

AAC only works with Bluetooth headphoneswhen implemented on both the headphone side & device side. When headphones support it, there’s higher fidelity available in the signal chain. Just as Apt-X and LDAC can improve audio performance by being supported on both sides of the server/client system of a Bluetooth headphones. Which is why codec support is a strong selling point for high quality Audio in wireless headphones & manufacturers make the point to include said codec support in their marketing materials.

I'm open to digging into the technicals and being proven wrong but I've done quite a bit of research and feel fairly confident in my understanding of this system and it's impact.

Additional reading is available here: http://theheadphonelist.com/wireless-fidelity-making-sense-bluetooth-headphone-technology/

Correct, AAC is the highest quality bluetooth codec available for iOS. (Source: https://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/BluetoothDesignGuidelines.pdf) Yes, both sending and receiving unit have to have the same codec support to transmit or it's downgraded to the lowest common denominator, which is SBC for all Bluetooth devices. (Source: uhh... I read it somewhere a long time ago?) It's also a lossy format for audio compression. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding yes, wikipedia as a source, I know, I know.)

On to easing your mind, AlwaysForward:

ORA specified in their campaign updates that they are using the Qualcomm CSR8675 Bluetooth. (Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/project...orlds-first-graphene-headphones/posts/2057115) If you look up the chipset data sheet (it's a .pdf), you'll notice that there's native support for several codecs, including AAC. (Source: https://www.qualcomm.com/products/csr8675 and download the data sheet for yourself. It's there on page 2 on the left.) So yes, you will be able to stream your audio via AAC to the ORA headphones.

If you're like me, you'll likely not take advantage of the Bluetooth anyway and stick to the cable connector for a much richer audio experience, even over aptX HD. No matter how we listen, I hope we all get the chance to enjoy ORA's products for years.

 

[Currawong]

It's a pity they didn't enough support to include noise cancelling. Lately it has been possible to get relatively inexpensive BT headphones with fantastic noise cancelling ability.

 

[trellus]

AAC transmission? I wasn’t aware that it existed for Bluetooth. Thanks for the summary.

Indeed, it is the differentiator for some headphones with respect to iOS since iOS does not support AptX. Sennheiser Momentum wireless / HD1 wireless only support AptX and SBC, whereas Sony MDR-1000X do support AAC.

macOS supports both AAC and AptX, and active codec can be displayed by holding down option key while dropping down Bluetooth menu:

 

[Slater]

I don't know what the heck a "forum influencer" is...

He probably meant that if (for example) Jude came on and gave a glowing recommendation, people would be more flocking to get it.

But like you said, most of us around here are geeks and care about the engineering/science as much as the sound.

 

[Midgetguy]

But that's what I'm saying though.. these IEMs have excellent reviews for only $299.. the reviews say beats out most sub-$1000 headphones as in quality and frequency response.. 10-45khz.. I think those were the stats.. but these graphene goes below and above those..

I say to always tread carefully about those kind of reviews. I'm not saying that they aren't excellent as unfortunately, I haven't heard them. I figure they're probably quite good. But also think about things in the following way: there's a LOT of sub-$1k headphones and I'm not surprised if they're better than a lot of them. When comparing an appropriately excellent headphone at the same price, I'd likely conclude the headphone to be better. But it's honestly generally a hard comparison due to the completely different geometries: you've got sound coming from large drivers several centimeters away from the eardrum with headphones and a smaller driver generating sound waves from directly within the ear canal with IEMs.

And personally, I barely look at the quoted frequency response anymore; in terms of a real-world "why should I care?" impact, it's just a who-has-the-bigger-stick contest without any substantial meaning acoustically. An argument could be made for a lower number since physically, low-frequency bass can cause more of a "feel" rather than "hear" sensation, but anything above the the human range of hearing is a number statement that shouldn't be taken into consideration for anything other than statistical validation. For example, Ora quotes their GQ drivers to be capable of 4Hz-63kHz. That's a scientifically and statistically cool number, but I couldn't care less in the arena of sound. Youngsters with very good hearing top out at about 23kHz for audible noise. If I see a frequency response number that encapsulates 20Hz-20kHz, then that's all I need to know. Though another possible way to look at it is that the farther out you can go in either direction, the more accurately you can do all the stuff in between with little distortion. So my thoughts here being that if Driver A is quoted to do 20Hz-20kHz, it won't do as good of a job at producing the frequencies approaching either end compared to a Driver B capable of 4Hz-63kHz. The idea behind this is that 20Hz and 20kHz is near the edge of Driver A's ability while only being in the middle of Driver B's abilities and not approaching the limits of what Driver B can do.

 

[Currawong]

The irony of statements about gear being able to reproduce high frequencies above the range of hearing is that at least one manufacturer has claimed that all that's up there is distortion output by most ADCs when they digitise the sound.

 

[AlwaysForward]

The irony of statements about gear being able to reproduce high frequencies above the range of hearing is that at least one manufacturer has claimed that all that's up there is distortion output by most ADCs when they digitise the sound.

Yes, the interesting thing about ORA is that they have less distortion across a wider range of frequencies than most other competing drivers.

As Midgetguy noted, the interesting thing about the ORA range is mostly in that it suggests less distortion in the audible range. Likely leading to more linear bass and cleaner treble.

 

[DixieLandBlues]

(I've pm'd ORA with the below, just re-posting here in case anyone else can shed some light on this site/maybe warn people to be cautious)

Query/Possible Alert for ORA - I've come across a website which claims to be selling OraQ Graphene headphones for $399, complete with a review.
The site actually looks fairly legitimate at first glance, and has a range of stuff listed for sale. However:
-the domain name was registered a month ago.
-the only entry in their blog is copied wholesale from a Gizmodo review from last year
-their contact email and telephone number are for another site - thesuavegentleman.com. This domain was also registered a month ago (3 days earlier) with the same registrar.

I'd guess you can confirm pretty quickly if they are legit.

https://www.storeofthecurious.com/product/ora-gq-graphene-headphones/

 

[Roll]

(I've pm'd ORA with the below, just re-posting here in case anyone else can shed some light on this site/maybe warn people to be cautious)

Query/Possible Alert for ORA - I've come across a website which claims to be selling OraQ Graphene headphones for $399, complete with a review.
The site actually looks fairly legitimate at first glance, and has a range of stuff listed for sale. However:
-the domain name was registered a month ago.
-the only entry in their blog is copied wholesale from a Gizmodo review from last year
-their contact email and telephone number are for another site - thesuavegentleman.com. This domain was also registered a month ago (3 days earlier) with the same registrar.

I'd guess you can confirm pretty quickly if they are legit.

https://www.storeofthecurious.com/product/ora-gq-graphene-headphones/

Good that u posted

I actually posted this on Ora kickstarter under comments last month - should have wrote what - Will Chan said: to be wary

 

[robert-eric]

(I've pm'd ORA with the below, just re-posting here in case anyone else can shed some light on this site/maybe warn people to be cautious)

Query/Possible Alert for ORA - I've come across a website which claims to be selling OraQ Graphene headphones for $399, complete with a review.
The site actually looks fairly legitimate at first glance, and has a range of stuff listed for sale. However:
-the domain name was registered a month ago.
-the only entry in their blog is copied wholesale from a Gizmodo review from last year
-their contact email and telephone number are for another site - thesuavegentleman.com. This domain was also registered a month ago (3 days earlier) with the same registrar.

I'd guess you can confirm pretty quickly if they are legit.

https://www.storeofthecurious.com/product/ora-gq-graphene-headphones/

Woah. That is not us. They are definitely NOT legit. Roll, I must have missed your comment about this. We will look into it. I'm not sure if they are planning to buy our phones at a lower price and ship them out, making a small profit... OR if they are just looking to rip people off and disappear into the night. Either way, this site has NOTHING to do with us. We are already trying to contact them... I'll let y'all know what happens.

In the mean time... STAY AWAY from the store of the curious!

 

[DixieLandBlues]

I reached out to another Indiegogo headphone project that was listed on Store of the Curious (Sound Hugggle), on the basis it was unlikely to be any more genuine for them than for Ora. They've passed it on to their lawyer to deal with.

 

[Sound Eq]

any update on this