[nabuhodonozor]

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that W3 is in the process of upgrading to W3S (apparently 'S' stands for Sabre). No in the sense that the major difference between W3 and W3S is that the W3S will be using a new SoC (QCC5121) instead of the older CSR8675 found in W3 - however, we will still see the same DAC/amp chip (AKM4377) on W3S so it is unlikely we will see any major difference in SQ. QCC5121 is a more powerful SoC so we might see improvement in BT connection stability, or even new features like ANC and EQ (though it is worth knowing that Hiby didn't dedicate much effort to its BT adapters / app in the past so they might not bother bring new features at all, even though the new SoC might be capable of them). At this point the safer assumption is that this upgrade might be more of a response to Qualcomm phasing out CSR8675 as we also see FiiO has suddenly retired CSR8675 from its Q5s and replacing it with QCC5124 in its Q5s Type-C

Will it be released this year ? Wonder if price stays the same. Still buying BTR3K after your recommendation

 

[ClieOS]

Will it be released this year ? Wonder if price stays the same. Still buying BTR3K after your recommendation

I didn't see any actual marketing on the new W3S anywhere, but it can be bought from Hiby's Taobao site already (*I have confirmed it is indeed the W3S with its Taobao customer service). It is only priced a few dollar higher than the old W3 price tag. Don't really know why they didn't bother to announce it, though maybe they are waiting for other resellers to clear out their old W3 stock before making a buzz.

 

[Lohb]

Balanced out to a portable balanced tube amp should not fry BTR5 or the tube amp right... ? I know it's technically double-amping...just curious of what a tube veneer sounds like on top of BTR5...

 

[ClieOS]

Balanced out to a portable balanced tube amp should not fry BTR5 or the tube amp right... ? I know it's technically double-amping...just curious of what a tube veneer sounds like on top of BTR5...

You are right - it is double amping and shouldn't harm the BTR5, as long as you use the correct inter-connecting cable.

 

[mrnikt]

Finally I decided to BTR3K. Thanks all of you for sharing opinions.

 

[Lurk650]

I jumped on a cyber monday deal for the Q5K last week, noticeable improvement over the ES100 for sure

 

[nabuhodonozor]

Any devices on the horizon with LC3 codec support?

 

[povidlo]

Any devices on the horizon with LC3 codec support?

 

[nabuhodonozor]

Robby will support LC3 ? Cool!

 

[ClieOS]

Any devices on the horizon with LC3 codec support?

LC3 will be introduced alongside BT5.2. So far we are still in BT5.0 and in the slow process of migrating to BT5.1. While there are already a handful of BT5.2 devices around, I think we are still a year or two before major adoption (*remember, you need both the source and the receiver to support it). In any case, LC3, while claimed to be better than SBC, is unlikely going to be better than hi-res codec such as aptx HD or LDAC.

 

[nabuhodonozor]

LC3 will be introduced alongside BT5.2. So far we are still in BT5.0 and in the slow process of migrating to BT5.1. While there are already a handful of BT5.2 devices around, I think we are still a year or two before major adoption (*remember, you need both the source and the receiver to support it). In any case, LC3, while claimed to be better than SBC, is unlikely going to be better than hi-res codec such as aptx HD or LDAC.

I've read that they promise LDAC type quality ,but maybe it's just marketing blabing

 

[ClieOS]

I've read that they promise LDAC type quality ,but maybe it's just marketing blabing

The situation is a bit more complicated.

LC3 codec is supposed to be just as good as SBC but only using half the data, meaning you can get a more stable connection (less data needed) with the same quality as SBC or you can get better sound quality if you are using the same amount of data. However, SBC is not inherently a bad sounding codec - it has its limit because often the manufacturer limits how much data / compression rate SBC can use (for example, many phone manufacturer internally limit SBC to 128kbps while SBC, at least on theory, can go to 320kbps and sound as good as aptX). What LC3 does is really more on the side of being a more efficient codec with proper scaling, something SBC doesn't have (*SBC doesn't scale at all). So as far as what we can tell on early LC3 spec, it seems LC3 will be a major competitor to aptX and AAC, but it doesn't have the technicality of Hi-res codec.

However, there is a special LC3 sub-codec called LC3plus - this is actually the LC3 equivalent of aptX HD / LDAC / LHDC. Unlike LC3, which is more of a red book 16/44.1 codec, LC3plus is 24/96. But there is a catch - unlike LC3, which is going to be a mandatory implementation on BT5.2 onward and likely going to replace SBC in the long term, LC3plus is an optional implementation just like aptX HD / LDAC / LHDC. Also, whether it actually offers any better quality to the existing Hi-res codec is still no clear.

 

[nabuhodonozor]

The situation is a bit more complicated.

LC3 codec is supposed to be just as good as SBC but only using half the data, meaning you can get a more stable connection (less data needed) with the same quality as SBC or you can get better sound quality if you are using the same amount of data. However, SBC is not inherently a bad sounding codec - it has its limit because often the manufacturer limits how much data / compression rate SBC can use (for example, many phone manufacturer internally limit SBC to 128kbps while SBC, at least on theory, can go to 320kbps and sound as good as aptX). What LC3 does is really more on the side of being a more efficient codec with proper scaling, something SBC doesn't have (*SBC doesn't scale at all). So as far as what we can tell on early LC3 spec, it seems LC3 will be a major competitor to aptX and AAC, but it doesn't have the technicality of Hi-res codec.

However, there is a special LC3 sub-codec called LC3plus - this is actually the LC3 equivalent of aptX HD / LDAC / LHDC. Unlike LC3, which is more of a red book 16/44.1 codec, LC3plus is 24/96. But there is a catch - unlike LC3, which is going to be a mandatory implementation on BT5.2 onward and likely going to replace SBC in the long term, LC3plus is an optional implementation just like aptX HD / LDAC / LHDC. Also, whether it actually offers any better quality to the existing Hi-res codec is still no clear.

Interesting. Wonder if with release of LC3 we will see new aptx/LDAC codecs. Guess it all depends on how good tha LC3plus will be

 

[monsieurfromag3]

The situation is a bit more complicated.

LC3 codec is supposed to be just as good as SBC but only using half the data, meaning you can get a more stable connection (less data needed) with the same quality as SBC or you can get better sound quality if you are using the same amount of data. However, SBC is not inherently a bad sounding codec - it has its limit because often the manufacturer limits how much data / compression rate SBC can use (for example, many phone manufacturer internally limit SBC to 128kbps while SBC, at least on theory, can go to 320kbps and sound as good as aptX). What LC3 does is really more on the side of being a more efficient codec with proper scaling, something SBC doesn't have (*SBC doesn't scale at all). So as far as what we can tell on early LC3 spec, it seems LC3 will be a major competitor to aptX and AAC, but it doesn't have the technicality of Hi-res codec.

However, there is a special LC3 sub-codec called LC3plus - this is actually the LC3 equivalent of aptX HD / LDAC / LHDC. Unlike LC3, which is more of a red book 16/44.1 codec, LC3plus is 24/96. But there is a catch - unlike LC3, which is going to be a mandatory implementation on BT5.2 onward and likely going to replace SBC in the long term, LC3plus is an optional implementation just like aptX HD / LDAC / LHDC. Also, whether it actually offers any better quality to the existing Hi-res codec is still no clear.

I can always tell when connection has reverted to SBC though, it’s the only codec I find to sound properly bad, even in good transmission conditions, it’s like it wasn’t optimized for audio. aptX just seem to sound better at equivalent rate.

 

[Lohb]

I can always tell when connection has reverted to SBC though, it’s the only codec I find to sound properly bad, even in good transmission conditions, it’s like it wasn’t optimized for audio. aptX just seem to sound better at equivalent rate.

Yip, Amazon FireTV unfortunately uses it...SBC it's bad...I can also hear apt-X/LDAC difference....LDAC rocks !