1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Removal of the headphone jack : the future or a marketing scheme?

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by aertus, Oct 22, 2017.
1 2
4 5 6 7 8 9
  1. rkw
    Just to be clear, what were you comparing:
    CO < WiFi < phone
    vs CO < USB < phone ?
    RockStar2005 likes this.
  2. Strangelove424
    There's much confusion about wireless right now. I am not defending wireless, I like a wired analogue connection. However, to say that Wifi accessed files sound inferior to HDMI/USB/PCM accessed files after going through the same exact DAC makes no sense. Wifi is just a way of accessing a file, same as SATA or ethernet. It's the same exact file that would be coming in through a wired digital connection. You're talking digital vs digital into the same DAC. They couldn't possibly sound any different.
    bfreedma and ev13wt like this.
  3. RockStar2005
    Yes, that is exactly correct.
  4. RockStar2005
    It was downsampled, so really just native as I don't believe in there being a difference.
  5. RockStar2005
    Yet I still noticed LESS detail with the Wi-Fi connection. I can't explain why really Strangelove, but that IS what I heard. I repeated the comparison like SEVERAL times too just to make sure I wasn't making a mistake. But that low "rumble" was simply MIA when using the Wi-Fi connection. This is why I believe BT still has years to go until it can TRULY match a wired connection.
  6. Strangelove424
    I would argue that if it's not expectation bias or different settings/levels, it is faulty design. There is no difference between a DAC or receiver that connects to a library over WiFi, and a typical WiFi connection between a computer and NAS (network attached storage) box many people use to access their giant file libraries. It would be akin to saying SATA sounds better than ethernet. Perhaps it's faster, less latency, but after going through the same DAC will sound the same on transparent equipment.

    The reason most things sound bad on BT is not because of BT itself but the compression required to fit a file into that bandwidth. If you have the same file transferred over USB or WiFi it should not matter.
    RockStar2005 likes this.
  7. RockStar2005
    Yup. It SHOULDN'T. lol
  8. bigshot
    I can't discern any difference between playing a file locally or streaming it over wifi. I tried bluetooth a long time ago and wasn't happy with it. Haven't used it since.
  9. ev13wt
    Unless someone designed it like that. Or some funky upsampling?
  10. youngarthur
    My ears are 77years old, and I can tell the difference between plugging into iPhone 6plus, and my HA1. I won't get into differences with the HiFi M8/idsd/ etc., but then we all hear differently, so this is to be expected.
    ev13wt likes this.
  11. bigshot
    Youngarthur, did you level match and do a direct A/B switchable blind comparison? Bet not. Some of us do listening tests differently, which ends up with different results. I'm always careful to eliminate variables so I'm comparing apples to apples.

    edited to make it clear who I was asking. sorry for the confusion
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2017
  12. RockStar2005
    Well then you'd lose that bet bigshot. lol As I said, I did the comparison several times. And yes, I made sure the volume levels were the same.
  13. bigshot
    EDITED: I'm sorry. I was confused by the attributions there. I was asking Young Arthur, not you Rockstar. He owns the HA-1 and the same iPhone I own. I'm asking him if he did an ABX line level matched direct A/B switched comparison between those two. I have compared an iPhone to the HA-1 and I couldn't detect any difference between them. They sound the same as my iMac, Mac Mini, various iPods and iPhones, Oppo BDP-103, Yamaha AVR and various DVD players from dirt cheap to expensive. I don't own an external DAC to compare to. Only the HA-1.

    By the way, here is a bench test on the Apple 6 plus. It is well into the realm of overkill when it comes to sound quality. http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm

    I couldn't find a bench test on the HA-1, but here's Oppo's specs, also well into the realm of overkill. https://oppodigital.com/headphone-amplifier-ha-1/headphone-amplifier-HA-1-Features.aspx

    To human ears, and with proper impedance matching for the headphones, these should sound identical. No reason to expect they wouldn't. I'm guessing that Young Arthur used headphones that had a high impedance rating and the iPhone didn't have enough oomph to push them without an amp. My Oppo PM-1s have low impedance and sound great right out of the iPhone and they sound just as great through the amp of the HA-1.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2017
  14. RockStar2005
    Oh ok. No problem!
  15. Currawong Contributor
    I can't imagine that the tiny loss of APTx transmission would really be noticeable through the headphone jack of a phone. I've even had trouble discerning it with far more expensive gear.

    They wouldn't even pay $5 for the chip. It'd be in the order of cents at most. They want the real-estate for the battery and other features most likely. This is for regular consumers though who are switching to BT, not us.

    I don't consider Oppo gear I've experienced to really be that resolving, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
1 2
4 5 6 7 8 9

Share This Page