[Currawong]

AAC bandwidth is enough. People don't pass blind tests with higher bitrate. AAC is lightyears ahead of sbc/aptx/ldac codecs in terms of compression efficiency.

Different device (though same kind of product) but I compared AAC from my iPhone and APTxHD from an AK380 using a well-recorded track with cymbals and they were clearly more distorted from the iPhone. For most music though it would be indiscernible I reckon.

 

[Koolpep]

Yup, they don’t waste time on things that don’t really matter. AAC is transparent, sound quality box ticked. No chance they are going through the enormous engineering effort it would take to switch itunes over to supporting lossless files and deal with all the side issues that come up as a result just to pander to a small number of audiophiles who think they can hear a difference that most people can’t hear. It’s just not how they roll, they are smarter than that.

Just as a side note:
iTunes does support ALAC (Apple lossless). They even open sourced in 2011 and made it royalty free as well.

 

[m4rkw]

Just as a side note:
iTunes does support ALAC (Apple lossless). They even open sourced in 2011 and made it royalty free as well.

Yeah but it's only there for audiophiles who wanted to rip CDs through iTunes. They don't sell music in that format and there's no bluetooth codec for it, and imo not likely to be one anytime soon.

 

[SubMash]

Different device (though same kind of product) but I compared AAC from my iPhone and APTxHD from an AK380 using a well-recorded track with cymbals and they were clearly more distorted from the iPhone. For most music though it would be indiscernible I reckon.

That's not a test that you can refer to. But I can promise that APTXHD has more distortion up top while AAC cuts top beyond 17.5kHz

 

[waynes world]

I'm using both AAC and AptX. AAC on my iPhone X and AptX on my MacBook Pro 2017. But most of the time I use AAC even on my MacBook Pro.

Here are my first impressions.

The sound quality from iPhone is great. Fiddling with the settings in the app, locked the 2.5mm output to normal mode, DCT settings set to 5 (I will try 10 if that has an effect later) and DAC digital filter settings set to short delay sharp roll-off. Source volume set to 0db while I only change the volume in the ES100 analog volume control. IEM plugged is the Westone UMPro50 v2, sound is much clearer than AK XB10, and the bass region is much more linear. Sub bass is also a lot louder than that of the AK XB10. Good for electronic music which I listen most of the time. Midrange is lush and smooth. Treble is slightly more pronounced than wired in my iPhone, and much clearer but not in the levels of fatiguing. Listening to some classical music, the soundstage is much wider, almost as good as my FiiO X5 3rd gen. Compared to my Cozoy TAKT which is the only DAC I use on my iPhone, the ES100 is miles better.

Now connected on the MacBook Pro using Aptx, the sound signature is a bit more V-shaped, sub bass remains the same, mid bass slightly elevated and treble too is slightly elevated. Cymbals has more shine, and drums have more kick and body. But in some songs, it may sound unnatural. Switching to AAC codec gives the same impressions as my iPhone. Also, the Aptx has some weird faint aliasing in the 17.4khz region when I tried playing a WAV format test tone in both iTunes and VLC. Turning off JItter Cleaner and DCT to 0 the aliasing noise is much louder so I turned DCT and Jitter Cleaner back on. When I switched to AAC, the aliasing noise is gone. It could be a problem of AptX codec or my MacBook Pro as it happens on my AK XB10 as well. I don't have any android devices and never will be so I can't test AptX HD.

UPDATE: I tried AptX on my FiiO X5 3rd gen and it also has that weird aliasing noise, however it is very faint and almost silent. Not as bad as the AptX on my MacBook pro.

Considering the sound quality of the ES100, I might rarely use my X5.

I might stick to AAC as it sounds great to my ears.

I was only kidding, but I'm glad I asked now because that was interesting!

I'm using APTX at the moment and honestly it sounds great to me. Still, I'm looking forward to Oreo making it's way to my Samsung S7 so that I can use AAC as well.

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

That's not a test that you can refer to. But I can promise that APTXHD has more distortion up top while AAC cuts top beyond 17.5kHz

None of this is tests we can refer to. Why not provide some evidence, considering the math doesn't stack up. You talked a lot about AptX being a pile of garbage, now AptX HD. Show me the details.

I'm just glad it was Currawong that said what he said, because at the moment, I find it very hard to believe that AptX HD is bad enough to compare with the Bluetooth limited AAC badly

Trust your ears for analog, but digital signal can be compared objectively to digital signal, regardless of what one believes. Tricky to set up, but not impossible.

Check out Currawong. He is very experienced at listening tests and his experience matches the math as far as I can tell. I'm losing faith in your previous analysis of Apt X now, which I had faith in because it is a low complexity codec and your experience didn't surprise me.

It's possible that AptX HD rarely spends time at it's maximum bit rate, being a transmission protocol.
It's something we should find out objectively.

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

I've never doubted that AAC is the best codec for the same the same data rate, which is why I have argued so strongly in the past to use it instead of MP3 and why it's pretty much the standard now, as I said, I used to create m4a files for my DAPs of the past, the Xduoo X3 with Rockbox, phones with USB DACs attached.

Then FLAC.... now I can store my collection on a phone, I don't compare AAC encoders any more.

Now though, people are casting doubt about the usefulness of a codec (AptX HD) that in theory at least, should be superior because of the data rate alone, despite being a low complexity codec (if it's based on Apt X, which being low-latency, is most likely less efficient - I avoided Apt X entirely)

I seriously can't wait for the final hurdle to be done with, Bluetooth that supports lossless compression. Maybe Apple are thinking the same, is it true that Airpods aren't even Bluetooth ? That would explain why they don't seem to be interested in audio transmission protocols beyond AAC.

No wait, Airpods are Bluetooth.

I am gradually replacing my MP3's with FLACs, so yes, the fact that an MP3 is re-encoded over Bluetooth does make me cringe, if not for me, for my kids that have better ears.

 

[SubMash]

I provided measurements before for aptx/aac. And I gave links describing algorithm of hd. It's same as non HD or SBC or LDAC. Just more bits for same fixed frequency bands. I don't know why I should waste a time googling for you. You have same internet - use it to read stuff. AAC is more complex and has higher transparency. Comparing just bitrates is useless. It's very probable that high rate LDAC is same indistinguishable from lossless as aac.

None of this is tests we can refer to. Why not provide some evidence, considering the math doesn't stack up. You talked a lot about AptX being a pile of garbage, now AptX HD. Show me the details.

I'm just glad it was Currawong that said what he said, because at the moment, I find it very hard to believe that AptX HD is bad enough to compare with the Bluetooth limited AAC badly

Trust your ears for analog, but digital signal can be compared objectively to digital signal, regardless of what one believes. Tricky to set up, but not impossible.

Check out Currawong. He is very experienced at listening tests and his experience matches the math as far as I can tell. I'm losing faith in your previous analysis of Apt X now, which I had faith in because it is a low complexity codec and your experience didn't surprise me.

It's possible that AptX HD rarely spends time at it's maximum bit rate, being a transmission protocol.
It's something we should find out objectively.

 

[Coconut Wireles]

So that ES100.....

Great little device...

That ES100...

Yeah...

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

I provided measurements before for aptx/aac. And I gave links describing algorithm of hd. It's same as non HD or SBC or LDAC. Just more bits for same fixed frequency bands. I don't know why I should waste a time googling for you. You have same internet - use it to read stuff. AAC is more complex and has higher transparency. Comparing just bitrates is useless. It's very probable that high rate LDAC is same indistinguishable from lossless as aac.

With all due respect, I recall when you started posting, you're no stranger to controversy. I didn't catch the link to AptX HD's algorithm, but your brief description matches what I said. Don't waste time googling for me then. I read stuff.

You trashed AptX, which I had no issue with, I recall you said something about the high frequencies having some weird distortion, didn't surprise.

Comparing bitrates is useless ? Now this is where we differ to a large degree. Do you find the same aliasing issues at 17KHz band with AptX HD what you do with Apt X ? I very much doubt it, I still doubt that you had eliminated systematic error in your analysis too. So in your first line you lump AptX's algorithm in with SBC and LDAC and then say high rate LDAC is probably indistinguishable from AAC. AAC is still lossy as great as it is, why, if AptX HD is a high bitrate version, would it not be indistinguishable too ? and what about headroom for re-encoding, is that not a factor ? All mastering to 16 bit red book must be done with higher order math for a good reason, re-encoding is in theory, even worse than mixing at 16 bit.

I am completely unconvinced that AptX HD isn't a reasonable choice over AAC for Bluetooth, given it's base data rate and bit format specs.

You seem to have it that somewhere between 576 Kbps and 990 there is a leap of quality, regardless of codec, however the issue of bit depth seems to be ignored in terms of accurate representation of frequencies.

I suspect the aliasing has been eliminated and you're getting better than red book quality with AptX HD, but because it's lossy, you're not quite getting 48KHz 24 bit, which is already too much information really for a sink to require.

I believe AptX HD and LDAC would have superior accuracy at those bitrates than AAC at 320Kbps 16 bit.

I remain unconvinced of anything else.

I'm done with this AAC vs AptX HD, I suspect it maybe brand loyalty rather than actual specs and implementation for many, although I wouldn't put you in that category.

 

[Mindspin311]

Hello, I am currently living in Shanghai. What are my options to purchase locally or somewhere online in this region?

 

[mxroadie]

@wslee is there a possibility for the microusb to output data into another dac/amp?

 

[HD800NL]

Well it seems Radsone don't want to sell to a lot of European customers. So I give up...

 

[VintageFlanker]

Well it seems Radsone don't want to sell to a lot of European customers. So I give up...

Available on Amazon FR, DE, UK... Received mine last week.

 

[capnjack]

Available on Amazon FR, DE, UK... Received mine last week.

So did I, but I’m waiting for a replacement as mine was faulty.