[hakunamakaka]

Under the BT naming, they now use something that's pretty much wifi. At least it's way closer to wifi than it is to the original rubbish that was BT back in the days.
My own experience is that I am now more often annoyed by the hissing amp in some portable headphones, than by any form of audible or practical restriction from BT.

That's true it's simply hidden wifi and has nothing to do with BT connection that we use for music listening. BT technology stays the same it uses shortwaves to connect to devices, only software layer has improved a lot, but it's limited. I can confirm that apple managed to push very good AAC quality through BT, curious to see how android is working using LDAC or APTx over BT

 

[hakunamakaka]

Since you have been editing your posts and backpedaling about forms of transmission over bluetooth....bluetooth still has VIDEO protocols (not just audio). Bluetooth's own site lists numbers for A/V distribution for assigning streams. And as Stack Overflow indicates: bluetooth RFCOMM channels are most used for transmission video.

There is no working, officially released protocol that can carry video streaming data on BT.. Yes it is "doable" with RFCOMM and good coding skills, lots of effort and very bad results at the end. Maybe there is something on stackoverflow I don't know, but I really want to see working BT video stream which in perfect conditions/without any distance to travel for signal and newest BT firmware could push only up to 2Mbit/s. These max 2Mbit/s would start quickly fade a away as soon as you would move devices further from each other. For the sake of argument and if you try really hard, you can even make the bicycle fly, but it doesn't mean that's right approach.

 

[PhonoPhi]

After all the last comments, it is time to unsubscribe...

 

[Davesrose]

All one has to do is look up RFCOMM to find implementation with several software languages. And with bluetooth 3.0 +HS or 4.0, 25Mbps is possible. The premise was current BT implementations are more than enough bandwidth for transparent audio. I'm not going to continue an endless loop of refusal of ignoring BT protocols or obfuscation of transmission standards in the bluetooth protocols.

 

[dazzerfong]

I’m skeptical on such tests. How do they decide through which bitrate music is being transmitted ? Software layer is VERY important here and how it deals in unstable connection, lot's of calculation needs to be done on both ends. Data needs to be compressed to some degree when loss happens and specs listed in bluetooth codecs can mean very little in real-life scenario. Android companies still can't crack AAC codec which is licensed by apple and has no good throughput, but apple folks somehow figured out how to compress data efficiently. Even if you listen loossless/flac format over BT AAC at the end you will receive compressed AAC file.

Then adjust the quality for SBC. It's a dynamic profile.

AptX is a take-it-or-leave it. You either get the full quality of AptX, or you get glitches. You being skeptical doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.

AAC is a problem with Android because it can't be decoded/encoded efficiently through hardware. Thus, degrade the quality to improve efficiency. Read this:

https://www.soundguys.com/understanding-bluetooth-codecs-15352/

Funny thing is that SBC actually stomps AAC in terms of frequency response, even on iOS. That being said, testing AAC is the hardest codec due to the high amounts of variability.

AptX though? Easier - every device that supports AptX performs pretty much the same except for dropouts.

 

[hakunamakaka]

All one has to do is look up RFCOMM to find implementation with several software languages. And with bluetooth 3.0 +HS or 4.0, 25Mbps is possible. The premise was current BT implementations are more than enough bandwidth for transparent audio. I'm not going to continue an endless loop of refusal of ignoring BT protocols or obfuscation of transmission standards in the bluetooth protocols.

I agree let's not go off-topic, but BT itself is slow, this +HS is basically Wifi hidden under BT and uses IEEE 802.11.

Then adjust the quality for SBC. It's a dynamic profile.

AptX is a take-it-or-leave it. You either get the full quality of AptX, or you get glitches. You being skeptical doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.

AAC is a problem with Android because it can't be decoded/encoded efficiently through hardware. Thus, degrade the quality to improve efficiency. Read this:

https://www.soundguys.com/understanding-bluetooth-codecs-15352/

Funny thing is that SBC actually stomps AAC in terms of frequency response, even on iOS. That being said, testing AAC is the hardest codec due to the high amounts of variability.

AptX though? Easier - every device that supports AptX performs pretty much the same except for dropouts.

AAC is very well done on iOS and I can't sense any difference with wired dac/amp. Only disadvantage is that my iphone starts lagging when I use IEMs over BT dac/amp and weirdly enough connection dropouts occur when I keep things in different pockets

 

[Blackwoof]

Not really drama worthy, But it really irk's me how quick hydrogenaudio's TOS#8 kills any discussion. I'm not doing a 8/8 trial test to have my lossy opinions deem vaild on a 15sec to 1.5 min sample, Showing artifacts the site knows full well can happen. Even more nightmarish if turns out it encoder bug that wen't ignored like VBR making files be at 96kbps when it needs 192k average or higher, which is a issue on some AAC and mp3 encoders.

 

[pinnahertz]

Not really drama worthy, But it really irk's me how quick hydrogenaudio's TOS#8 kills any discussion. I'm not doing a 8/8 trial test to have my lossy opinions deem vaild on a 15sec to 1.5 min sample, Showing artifacts the site knows full well can happen. Even more nightmarish if turns out it encoder bug that wen't ignored like VBR making files be at 96kbps when it needs 192k average or higher, which is a issue on some AAC and mp3 encoders.

So you object to their requirement that users making statements about sound quality provide objective support of the claim? It's a Science-based forum, like this one. Subjective opinion will always be challenged, because it's so unreliable, even being influenced by input from other sense besides hearing and psychological factors like expectation. I don't know why anyone, in a Sound Science forum, would have a problem with that. It takes the "I know what I hear" discussion off the table. Good riddance.

 

[Blackwoof]

So you object to their requirement that users making statements about sound quality provide objective support of the claim? It's a Science-based forum, like this one. Subjective opinion will always be challenged, because it's so unreliable, even being influenced by input from other sense besides hearing and psychological factors like expectation. I don't know why anyone, in a Sound Science forum, would have a problem with that. It takes the "I know what I hear" discussion off the table. Good riddance.

Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I forgot this forum get's offended when Subjective testing is needed to do some tests & tune headphones, Senn & beyer still did by ear tuning like grado despit 95% of is by objective data. I've posted 12 samples there over 3 years so just carry on flaming without reading posts, Which I'm noticing every i say anything here.

 

[pinnahertz]

Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I forgot this forum get's offended when Subjective testing is needed to do some tests & tune headphones, Senn & beyer still did by ear tuning like grado despit 95% of is by objective data. I've posted 12 samples there over 3 years so just carry on flaming without reading posts, Which I'm noticing every i say anything here.

Nobody said anything about you lying, or anybody lying. There is high value in subjective testing, in fact, it's the only way to ascertain the net audible impact. The problem is when subjective testing is uncontrolled, and bias is uncontrolled. It just results in data with a lot of errors in it. Errors are bad. Everybody deserves good data. To do that, and use subjective listening, dictates a certain protocol that is more intensive than casual. It's objective analysis of subjective test data.

Tuning by ear is valid, but there are right ways and wrong ways to do it. The headphone curves we're seeing today are the result of scientifically controlled subjective listening tests, but they sure don't come from a guy making a choice without any means of bias control. They are not simply opinion, they are repeatable across a large group of listeners of various ages and backgrounds, and collected without introducing biases.

 

[castleofargh]

Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I forgot this forum get's offended when Subjective testing is needed to do some tests & tune headphones, Senn & beyer still did by ear tuning like grado despit 95% of is by objective data. I've posted 12 samples there over 3 years so just carry on flaming without reading posts, Which I'm noticing every i say anything here.

This type of response just demonstrates how your subjective impression of something does not always correlate with the facts. Thus making a case to support their rule. Read his post again.

Here we let opinions and really even empty claims fuel the audiophile drama. And while it's a more inclusive approach, I do not know if it's a better one. Most people get mad, like right now.
In any case, to post about not wanting to have to provide a test in the testing thread is an interesting choice.

 

[danadam]

Here we let opinions and really even empty claims fuel the audiophile drama. And while it's a more inclusive approach, I do not know if it's a better one.

It certainly helps creating 15'000 message long threads

 

[pinnahertz]

It certainly helps creating 15'000 message long threads

Those threads, and the incessantly repeating arguments are why I don't hang around here much anymore. Too many dead horses being beating.

 

[Blackwoof]

This type of response just demonstrates how your subjective impression of something does not always correlate with the facts. Thus making a case to support their rule. Read his post again.

Here we let opinions and really even empty claims fuel the audiophile drama. And while it's a more inclusive approach, I do not know if it's a better one. Most people get mad, like right now.
In any case, to post about not wanting to have to provide a test in the testing thread is an interesting choice.

I really don't why i bother posting here, I'm done peace out.

 

[bigshot]

Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I really don't why i bother posting here, I'm done peace out.

The standards for veracity on internet forums and on social media are very, very low. I thought everyone knew that. It shouldn't be surprising that lot of people are deliberately lying online. The internet is a place for subjective self-validation, not objective facts. I think assuming people are lying is a pretty practical place to start from under the circumstances. Lord knows, we've had enough evidence of deliberate obfuscating in this forum to last a lifetime. It's kind of ironic that you would choose this particular thread to express an opinion like that. Have you read the first post? The whole point of this thread is proof through controlled testing.

The other thing that seems to happen over and over is people getting in a huff and announcing that they are leaving. They usually come back and make the same mistakes again... and go through the cycle of revolving doors over and over.

One point that doesn't get made often is that subjective bias is a fine way for you to conduct yourself. Only you know how to please you. The problem comes when you start recommending your subjective biases to other people as facts. You are distinctly unqualified to offer advice based on bias to anyone else, because your biases are almost certainly different than theirs. Around here, we make an effort to back up what we say. If you don't want to bother, that's fine. Just keep your subjectivity to yourself where it belongs.