But on topic of apt-X codec, since it was mentioned above, people have to realize it's just a part of the equation.
But even without aptX, the true test is how it sounds wired from HO of your sources vs wireless. That can give you a better idea of wireless mode implementation and its quality.
Yes, it is "just" a part of the equation. An important part
Yes, a very good headphones using the best version of the SBC codec would sound "better" than a low level headphone using Aptx. And? It would also sound better than a low level headphone using the best SBC. So such examples do not speak of the quality of Aptx.
But the same headphone will sound "better" with Aptx than with the best SBC, and according to some people also better than AAC. At least with some kind of music and with higher bitrate files.
Not sure about AAC+ anyway.
About wireless vs wired, it is not as simple as you think.
Somebody here humorously called me "Bluetooth Guru" of Head-Fi, as I have tested (mostly A/Bed) more than 40 of the best BT headphones on the market (the remaining ones will be tested in a big comparison in the following weeks). And Guru or not I have indeed accumulated a certain experience.
Designers must carefully tune the sound wired with the sound wireless to make them sound similar. And the fact that some headphones (generally those with ANC, but not only, see S1+) can be used in Wired Active mode, while most headphones when wired work passive, makes the tuning even more difficult.
And if ANC is in the game, it becomes all even more difficult, because ANC does affect the sound, specially the bass (and if the sealing is not good the ANC causes a bad distortion by treating the leaked bass as "noise" and trying to compensating it with an inverted waveform).
Testing BT headphones with your method of wired vs wireless is not the best way to find out how good their wireless sound is.
Some headphones sound better wireless, some wired, and with some you would hardly notice a difference if not in some frequencies. It is all very variable and depending on many factors.
Finally, wireless is wireless, comparing it with wired is pointless. And although I am not an expert in wired cans, I can tell you that there are some AMAZING Bt headphones out there, which may not sound as good as a $$$$ Wired with a $$$$ Amp, but are much more than good enough to really enjoy music with the freedom of wireless.
And the V-Moda are definitely NOT the best sounding.
Should we assume BT4.1 (standard latency, not the latest low latency) with apt-X codec support?
Will be curious to test and to compare to the latest Momentum 2 wireless, P5 Wireless, and Stance S1+
The Momentum beat the V-Moda very very very much. Specially the Over Ear version, but also the On Ear.
At least talking of overall Sound Quality.
The signature is a matter of tastes, so, there is no "better" there.
But is you want to know the difference: the M2AEBT are warmer than the OE, with somehow rolled off highs, a smooth and elegant sound, and a moderated subby bass with a slow airy slightly boomy rumble.
The M2OEBT are more bright, colder, of course with less soundstage, and their bass is dry and punchy.
Both are very detailed.
The XFW on my first impressions (got it yesterday) have a boosted subby warm bass, more aggressive than the AE (which sound more natural and balanced), with a less dry punch than the OE, not well controlled, with some distortion.
Less highs than the OE, maybe more than the AE (I should A/B, will next week), more on the warm side like the AE but with a more flat sound, poor soundstage, not very elegant, nothing really particularly special. Just ok, funny, for rock & Co. With a more controlled bass, a bit more dry, a bit less boosted, and more soundstage, could be a very good headphone. Imo now they're just ok/good.
The OE are very good. The AE are WOW.
The P5 Wireless should be sent to me soon for testing. Stay tuned in my Huge Comparison thread.
The Stance, well, I prefer them to the V-Moda. More natural, relaxed, balanced, and a bit more open sounding. Just a bit of veil/muddiness on the low mids, compensable with EQ, and which improves with Burn-in.
None of them would please a real basshead because both would distort when pushed. But the XFW can be pushed more.
I would say that the S1+ are better for lovers of a more balanced sound, and the XFW for moderated bassheads looking for a more aggressive sound.
About BT 4 vs 3 etc, that has nothing to do with Low Latency. Low Latency is related to Aptx, not to the BT version.
Maybe you meant Low Energy (aka LE), the major improvement brought by BT 4, which manages the energy usage and should supposedly help extending the battery life, and there is the suspect that it may be the cause of the connectivity problems of some BT Headphones lately (although it is only a suspect anyway).
In my experience, there are non-aptX codecs that are nearly indistinguishable from aptX (to my ears).
MDR-1ABT sounds just as good when connected to my Surface Pro 3 (which to my knowledge does not support aptX) as it does when connected to my LG G3 (which I have verified is using aptX via root access and CatLog). I think the connection with the Surface is using AAC rather than SBC. I have used other headsets such as the Pendulumic Stance S1+, which sounded significantly better when connected to my phone than to my Surface
AAC can perform similarly to Aptx, so that may be why you did not hear much difference. While as far as I know the S1+ do not support AAC, so it is normal that you found them clearly better with Aptx.
Anyway, in my experience Aptx DOES improve the sound. And although I too find that in some circumstances the best SBC version can give a very good sound, Aptx is always a step up, period.
I cannot speak of AAC anyway, to be honest, as I have no AAC source.
I know the flip side of Val's argument was that aptX wasn't as common in other devices.
Did he say that? Referring to what devices? When the Crossfade Wireless came out almost all new Android Phones had Aptx as a standard thing.
NOISE ISOLATION-CANCELLATION THEORY
we believe we can achieve sufficient noise reduction using seals
AAC Plus vs APTX
320kbps is the pipeline to fit BT sound, so it is best to not recompress if possible. AAC+ is the most widely used algorithm in streaming apps
if the source file is AAC or MP3 up to 320kbps, our headphones will not recompress the file. Headphones that dont support AAC plus will have to convert to MP3, etc...
If you happen to own the only notebook,
or computer
that supports APTX and use music that isnt MP3 AAC PLUS, etc. than you may be able to use APTX. Here is a list of the 2 APTX PCS AND NOTEBOOKS http://www.aptx.com/category/pc
Wow, what a disinformation campaign!
"I believe I can fly..."
I do not know what would change with the bigger pads (but if it is so much better why don't you give them as a free extra in the box with the XFW? With all what the XFW cost...), but with the stock pads the noise isolation is very minimal, absolutely standard, and DEFINITELY NOT superior to any ANC Headphones which I have tested, no way, ever.
I have just made some tests with the models I have in front of me right now, Audio Technica ATH-WS99BT (no ANC, semi closed, not famous for its good isolation, modded with HM5 pads), Master & Dynamic MW60 (no ANC, relatively hard pads which therefore may isolate less), XTZ Headphone Divine (On Ear, no ANC) and Definitive Technology Symphony 1 (big pads, ANC).
I have tested the isolation from outside noise, with no music playing, and the sound leakage with music playing (volumes set at same perceived loudness, headphone put around a bunch of two same sets of pillows, leakage examined from same distance).
Your Crossfade Wireless isolate more or less as "well" as any of them from incoming noises (=not much), a bit worse than the Sym1 without ANC and definitely MUCH worse than the Sym1 with ANC.
Another story, I must admit, is the sound leakage. There the XFW were a bit (but just a bit) better than the other models. Surprisingly the ATH were almost on paar with the XFW (I thought they would leak more due to the opening for the bass).
About Aptx, as said, I have no direct experience with AAC so I pass on that, I do not like to talk abstract.
But for anybody looking at some more interesting info about Aptx and AAC and decoding/encoding music to send it to the headphones,
this thread started by
@AnakChan is a must read.
For example I remember I have read there that Aptx is more than enough to transmit a 320kbps without recompressing, contrarily to what you say.
But I ignore if Aac+ may have some advantages on higher bitrates or other things.
For sure, it is very wrong to say that headphones "convert to mp3".
No headphone would ever play an Mp3 file. Mp3 is not a Bluetooth Codec. Mp3 are converted into Aptx and sent to the headphone.
Even AAC files are NOT sent to the AAC headphones without being decoded and reencoded first:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/601665/what-are-head-fi-members-views-on-apt-x-lossless-codec-over-bluetooth/165#post_11403684
Now, as you gave a link to the "only two" notebooks/PC which natively support Aptx, maybe you can give a link to which Notebooks and PCs natively support AAC or AAC+ as Bluetooth Codec?
Because I am not aware of ANY.
At least there are two with Aptx. AND OSX natively support Aptx, so all Macs from that point on would support Aptx.
But more importantly, here you have a link from the same website, with all the BT adapters which can give Aptx to any Notebook/PC:
http://www.aptx.com/category/receivers-transmitters
Maybe you can tell me how many adapters can give AAC (and more importantly AAC+) to a notebook/PC?
In the while some headphones even support Aptx Low Latency and some adapters too, and this makes the experience of wirelessly watching movies on PC or TV potentially better with Aptx than with AAC+, strictly speaking of latency and audio/video delay.
I have no iOS and no Mac.
If it was not for Aptx I would be stuck with SBC since two years.
The truth is, there is NO REASON to avoid implementing Aptx besides AAC. If not saving money which you should pay to Qualcomm.
It is wonderful that you implemented aac+, and it is true that many headphones have the normal aac, but they offer aptx too!
Now, I am not expert on AAC, so I do not know if it is needed that both devices (i.e. handy and headphones) support aac+, maybe somebody can tell me.
But if so, how many devices natively support aac+ as Bluetooth Codec and would really offer an aac+ connection with the XFW?
Do not take it as an attack. I have nothing against V-moda (although I would have appreciated at least an answer the many times I contacted "them").
But the truth is that many people have Android and need Aptx, and people with a notebook/PC can't get AAC so easily (I am only aware of the Avantree Saturn Pro which can give AAC).
So, you are restricting your market.
But to be honest, for me the major concern is the sound. It is to me like not much different than a warmer and subby version of the Beats Studio Wireless (which is not necessarily a compliment). Same attention to look, same preference for Apple, same lack of Aptx.
And the look itself, well, matter of tastes, but the materials are for sure not so premium at all. Plastic and light metal.
Are there even any consumer devices that use APT-X Live? And do those devices actually run at those <2ms latencies? I totally respect what Val is doing, don’t get me wrong. I just wanna make the correct decision as a consumer, because I’ve wasted enough money on crappy devices that claim more than they can deliver.
Why do you need this very low latency? Are you planning to make live performances with a BT headphone? Just asking.
For home use, the Aptx Low Latency will be more than enough, unless you have bionic eyes and ears and can beat the velocity of it.
Has anyone else noticed that in wireless mode, the bass tends to clip when maxing out the volume on both the XFW and your device unamped? At least this is what I am noticing for bass-heavy music (EDM, Hip-Hop, etc.). This is the case for my computer (Lenovo Y40-80), phone (LG G2), and an iPhone 6. Not a big deal, I just hope it's not just my cans.
Also, does anyone recommend a software EQ for my LG G2 (Android 4.1.2)? I've tried some of the most popular ones from the Play Store, and wasn't all that impressed. I understand that software EQs wont give me nearly the same results as hardware EQs, but I'd like to hear some of your recommendations.
Thanks.
Please define "unamped". Unamped and wireless do not go well together. Wireless IS amped.
And yes, I also definitely hear a very clear distortion and lack of definition and control on the bass, also at medium level, also on not so much bass heavy music.
Forget EQ apps. Just use Neutron or eventually (imo second choice, but other people prefer it) Poweramp. They have a good EQ (Neutron a better one, full parametric 10 bands).
Besides, since, what was, Android 4 or 5, I do not remember, Google has restricted lot of permisions and priviledges, so that now an app cannot control/modify the sound produced by another app, if not for the stock apps of the producer. For example, the Xperia have a nice EQ+ effects app, Clear audio and Clear bass and some surround stuff. It worked fine till one point, then it could only affect the sound played by the Sony Walkman app but not by Neutron Poweramp or any third party player.
And XTZ, which have made the imo best On Ear Bluetooth Headphone of the planet, even better than many Over Ear (including the V-Moda), were forced to make a Player App instead of just a DSP app, to DSP enhance the Headphone Divine. Because Android would not let a DSP app affect the sound of another player.
If not rooted, of course.
If you have rooted, you may want to try Viper4Android.
But I still suggest using Neutron as a player.
