[SparkOnShore]

I have no way of dissociating source and receiver, but so far nope. So far all BT headphones I've tried in AAC other than the APPs fail my little test and produce spurious tones above a certain frequency. But this wasn't really related to AAC as they did so with various codecs anyway (and three difference sources BTW), it's just that the overall BT implementation isn't that good. I've just recently re-confirmed that with a pair of Sennheiser M3 and Bose 700, but I've never bothered to do that little test with the Sony.
Coincidentally most BT headphones today use one of Qualcomm's chips in regards to BT implementation as most headphones manufacturers don't have Apple's resources to design their electronics so perhaps that's where the weak point is.
I have no idea how the Sony XM3/4 are designed, perhaps their BT implementation is great, or not, or varies significantly with codec, or not, IDK. I only listened to music with the XM3 (didn't listen to the XM4) and didn't go further.

I don't know (and really care for that matter) how Rtings comes up with their scores but I believe that most measurement rigs are unreliable above 10 000hz anyway and Rtings only bolds the FR curve up to 9000hz : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#1626/4046
So I hope that they don't take care of data above that frequency to come up with their evaluations.
Any which way most BT ANC headphones on the market today measure poorly in the trebles region anyway even below 9000. Scratch that, I should probably say most headphones, wired or not (this has nothing to do with bluetooth), so poor scores are deserved.
We won't see a significant leap forward with HPs' trebles reproduction as long as they're passive and can't take into account individualised HRTFs anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Please let me know, did you test the sennheiser m3 and Bose 700 with an iPhone in AAC and they failed your tones test? If so it is a very important observation, meaning that AAC on receiver’s part (headphone) is not implemented as well as on emitter’s part (idevice). But if you tested on Android that’s a different scenario since it’s well known that AAC there is quite badly implemented. Also I don’t think that they use Qualcomm chips for AAC since I think Qualcomm is producing mainly for their own AptX. I am not sure though.

 

[MayaTlab]

Please let me know, did you test the sennheiser m3 and Bose 700 with an iPhone in AAC and they failed your tones test? Also I don’t think that they use Qualcomm chips for AAC since I think Qualcomm is producing mainly for their own AptX. I am not sure though.

iPhone, two different MacBooks.
Qualcomm designs complete SoCs for wireless HPs / earbuds, they're the ones doing most of the grunt work including Bluetooth implementation, but they can also perform ANC, DSP, etc. : https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qcc5100-series
These chips aren't limited to a single codec as they're forced by BT standards to decode SBC for example.
I'm not sure but I believe that you can run AAC decoding on these chips (I don't see how TW earbuds would be able to power several Socs anyway and a lot of these decode AAC - and curiously very few bother with APTX), but AAC or codecs in general aren't the problem anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn though that on larger, over-ear headphones with larger battery resources manufacturers add their own intellectual property to supplement the main Soc. Sony reportedly uses their own chip for ANC with the XM3/4 series. You can have a combination of Qualcomm (or other) SoC + proprietary IP, as this article suggests is the case in regards to the XM3 : https://thewalkmanblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/sony-wh-1000xm3s-qn1-real-or-marketing.html

That being said, maybe there's nothing wrong with Qualcomm's BT implementation per se and either I'm making a mistake or it just happened that the manufacturers of the BT headphones I tried didn't implement their chips optimally, who knows ? But well, I'm starting to need more than twice a pair of hands to count the BT headphones I've tried so far and I've multiplied the sources I've used these tests from for the last couple of years, so... ?

EDIT : just note that these spurious tones happening regardless of codec when playing single tones above 10 000hz only occur at a very low level and don't change with playback volume, it seems very much a sort of electronics problem per se. They're nowhere near as much a problem as failures to provide better FR curves when it comes to enjoying your music. I just use this test as a very quick way to determine aspects of the BT implementation quality and as a way to illustrate that there is more to bluetooth sound quality than just codecs, it's not comprehensive at all and I've spent four years pretty much enjoying listening to my pair of P7W despite these issues . But I've been very impressed at how rock solid the AirPods Pro's BT implementation is in terms of audio, I just haven't found a way to make it fail yet.

 

[SparkOnShore]

iPhone, two different MacBooks.
Qualcomm designs complete SoCs for wireless HPs / earbuds, they're the ones doing most of the grunt work including Bluetooth implementation, but they can also perform ANC, DSP, etc. : https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qcc5100-series
These chips aren't limited to a single codec as they're forced by BT standards to decode SBC for example.
I'm not sure but I believe that you can run AAC decoding on these chips (I don't see how TW earbuds would be able to power several Socs anyway and a lot of these decode AAC - and curiously very few bother with APTX), but AAC or codecs in general aren't the problem anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn though that on larger, over-ear headphones with larger battery resources manufacturers add their own intellectual property to supplement the main Soc. Sony reportedly uses their own chip for ANC with the XM3/4 series. You can have a combination of Qualcomm (or other) SoC + proprietary IP, as this article suggests is the case in regards to the XM3 : https://thewalkmanblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/sony-wh-1000xm3s-qn1-real-or-marketing.html

That being said, maybe there's nothing wrong with Qualcomm's BT implementation per se and either I'm making a mistake or it just happened that the manufacturers of the BT headphones I tried didn't implement their chips optimally, who knows ? But well, I'm starting to need more than twice a pair of hands to count the BT headphones I've tried so far and I've multiplied the sources I've used these tests from for the last couple of years, so... ?

EDIT : just note that these spurious tones happening regardless of codec when playing single tones above 10 000hz only occur at a very low level and don't change with playback volume, it seems very much a sort of electronics problem per se. They're nowhere near as much a problem as failures to provide better FR curves when it comes to enjoying your music. I just use this test as a very quick way to determine aspects of the BT implementation quality and as a way to illustrate that there is more to bluetooth sound quality than just codecs, it's not comprehensive at all and I've spent four years pretty much enjoying listening to my pair of P7W despite these issues . But I've been very impressed at how rock solid the AirPods Pro's BT implementation is in terms of audio, I just haven't found a way to make it fail yet.

Thanks for the thorough info. I understand it’s just tones and have no big influence in music’s presentation, but I can’t help thinking, should it lead us Apple only devices’ users, to just use Apple built headphones? I had thought a lot about it in the past as well but I always had the impression that I needed more audio variety and better results than the ones of the limited Apple collection. I love my AirPods Pro, but the new QC earbuds by Bose just play in another, much higher, level via AAC. There is this rich big sound I never got from AirPods Pro with their many quality control problems as well as their seal inconsistency. All Apple’s headphones, even though they have an almost perfect and balanced audio presentation, they are mostly problematic in other areas. Solo pro also have a very balanced sound but they are the most uncomfortable headphones of all time I think, pressuring your head like a vice. I guess nothing is perfect in BT audio at around 300 eur price tag!

 

[MayaTlab]

I can’t help thinking, should it lead us Apple only devices’ users, to just use Apple built headphones?

I certainly hope it won't come to this . We deserve competition and some degree of variety.

I guess nothing is perfect in BT audio at around 300 eur price tag!

I actually think we're moving backwards in terms of SQ. I prefer my ex-B&W P7 Wireless from 2016 to most of the ANC BT over-ears I've tried so far.

 

[noobandroid]

just tested the xm4 connected by cable to the atom and boy it sounds good, powered on of course

 

[SparkOnShore]

just tested the xm4 connected by cable to the atom and boy it sounds good, powered on of course

That’s another question I’d like to ask; when you use it with cable, should it be powered on? Is it because you need the ANC feature and if so can you just turn on the ANC?

 

[SilverEars]

That’s another question I’d like to ask; when you use it with cable, should it be powered on? Is it because you need the ANC feature and if so can you just turn on the ANC?

Yes, since when powered on, headphone's EQ is active that corrects sound weirdness with no EQ, when without power. Turning off ANC if not required is better as well.

 

[SparkOnShore]

Yes, since when powered on, headphone's EQ is active that corrects sound weirdness with no EQ, when without power. Turning off ANC if not required is better as well.

I got it, thanks.

 

[TooFrank]

just tested the xm4 connected by cable to the atom and boy it sounds good, powered on of course

Good to know. Only have the XM3, but same experience when cabled......

 

[GrussGott]

I actually think we're moving backwards in terms of SQ. I prefer my ex-B&W P7 Wireless from 2016 to most of the ANC BT over-ears I've tried so far.

The P7W has been my go-to since 2016 as well, mostly due to their good passive NC and "fun" tuning. I used to travel all the time and for years always opted for sound quality over noise cancellation. I started with the PSB M4U2s back in ... maybe 2009? They sounded great, and had ANC (minimal) but very little passive NC so I mostly just used them with the amp on, but no ANC, great sounding set of HPs to this day (relative to price range). Then in 2016 switched ot P7Ws - I audition new wireless cans every year but nothing's beat the P7Ws for me until now with the M4s.

For the M4s, I can't say they sound better than P7Ws, but their noise cancelling is finally to a level that works for me, esp with higher frequencies were I really want the ANC to work (I care less about airplane hum). I'm constantly surprised taking off the M4s in noisy environments - and I've been able to tweak the sound to be pretty nice so it's barely a tradeoff there. And maybe the biggest feature for me is the talk-to-deactivate, that's GREAT! It auto-pauses, cuts the ANC, and turns on external mics when I talk to someone and then auto restarts when I'm done. So nice. I also like the auto-pause and auto-shutoff when you take the headphones off.

So basically the M4s are pretty dang good soundwise, have very usable ANC, and some great features that make them real winners for me - after a decade+ of trying everything, these finally do the trick!

 

[noobandroid]

The P7W has been my go-to since 2016 as well, mostly due to their good passive NC and "fun" tuning. I used to travel all the time and for years always opted for sound quality over noise cancellation. I started with the PSB M4U2s back in ... maybe 2009? They sounded great, and had ANC (minimal) but very little passive NC so I mostly just used them with the amp on, but no ANC, great sounding set of HPs to this day (relative to price range). Then in 2016 switched ot P7Ws - I audition new wireless cans every year but nothing's beat the P7Ws for me until now with the M4s.

For the M4s, I can't say they sound better than P7Ws, but their noise cancelling is finally to a level that works for me, esp with higher frequencies were I really want the ANC to work (I care less about airplane hum). I'm constantly surprised taking off the M4s in noisy environments - and I've been able to tweak the sound to be pretty nice so it's barely a tradeoff there. And maybe the biggest feature for me is the talk-to-deactivate, that's GREAT! It auto-pauses, cuts the ANC, and turns on external mics when I talk to someone and then auto restarts when I'm done. So nice. I also like the auto-pause and auto-shutoff when you take the headphones off.

So basically the M4s are pretty dang good soundwise, have very usable ANC, and some great features that make them real winners for me - after a decade+ of trying everything, these finally do the trick!

just remember not to sing along when you have chat pause on

 

[GrussGott]

just remember not to sing along when you have chat pause on

LOL, never thought of that! it is nice though because I activated it clearing my throat once and then just a double-tap and it returns to normal

 

[AnotherLevel]

Hi guys, I'm not fully understanding the difference in quality between codecs.
I mainly use my headphones in a home environment, through my old MacBook and the Creative BT-W2 adaptor (aptX and SBC) through my PS4/Switch consoles.
Having said that wireless is a big convenience for me.

Would it still be worth it getting the XM4's if these are my main uses for it? I'm also worried about latency if the XM4's don't have aptX, then I assume it will connect through the inferior SBC.

Otherwise what would be a good alternative? Preferably wireless. I trust you guys opinions the most since a lot of these headphones lists have the exact same rankings.

 

[MayaTlab]

aptX alone doesn't have lower latency than other codecs, it's only aptX LL that does on a consistent basis. With other codecs it's 100% dependent on the actual implementation between source and output.

SBC isn't necessarily inferior to aptX, it again depends on implementation. At the codec level aptX is actually inferior in some areas (noise floor at higher frequencies for example), but codecs aren't as important as exactly how audio over bluetooth is implemented both on the emitting device and on the receiving one. I've made some headphones fail some routine tests that I usually perform regardless of the codec the employed or the source used.

You can have an illustration here on how the same codec (AAC) implementation can vary, at least as far as the source is concerned, from total rubbish to possibly what currently is overall the best audio over bluetooth implementation we have at the moment : https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/

With your Mac, even though it might be deprecated soon, you can still use the Bluetooth Explorer app (you can get it via a free Apple's developer registration by downloading Xcode tools) to set SBC up so that only its higher quality settings are used.

 

[SilverEars]

I got a new LG V50 phone just to use with my XM3 due to much better stable LDAC connection at high bandwidth of 990kbps and what I notice is BT volume is greater.