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

What are head-fi members views on apt-x lossless codec (over bluetooth)?

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by anakchan, Mar 19, 2012.
Tags:
First
 
Back
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Next
 
Last
  1. davidmthekidd

    Perfect analogy.
     
  2. watchnerd
    aptX just doesn't fit my use case (so far).
     
    I don't walk around my house and play stuff from my phone.  And I already have lossless streaming set up over AirPlay.
     
    aptX for my car might be cool, though.
     
  3. Giogio

    But wrong. AAC is not only a compression format but also a BT audio Codec, the only alternative to SBC in iOS devices till now.
     
  4. Giogio

    Well, you can still walk around your house and play stuff from your Mac, and use a BT headphone, and APTX, for that.
    OSX supports Aptx natively.
    I only use headphones lately, no speakers. Because I moved a lot in the last years.
    And the freedom of BT headphones is a bliss. Never EVER again wires for me.
     
    Now, if there were AirPlay headphones, this would be nice.
    I suppose it is not possible or people would have done this already, at least, wifi headphones...
     
  5. watchnerd
     
    When I have speakers in 3 different rooms, I don't really have a reason to do that.
     
  6. Giogio
    Then you either have very nice and permissive neighbours, or no neighbours at all, and nobody else living with you, or you do not like to listen to music at loud volume late at night.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. watchnerd
     
    I own my own house, neighbors are far enough away, and I do have a wife who indulges my listening habits.
     
  8. Giogio
    The day I find the right woman I wish she will indulge my listening to Dubstep or Techno at max vol at 3 in the night.
    That would be my twin soul.
    Happy that you found one :)
     
  9. watchnerd
     
    Oh, 3 am? No...I've got a job.
     
    Listening usually ends around midnight.
     
  10. Giogio
    Oh, yeah, me too, but I do not work on weekends, and have long forced pauses from time to time when weather is not good, so I find myself enjoying night often, which I like, as my natural rhythm is being awake at night.
    And even when I have to work I do not start too early in the morning, I must leave home at 7:45, so I can even wakeup 7:30 if I was too late the night before. Which is usually not 3, but can be after midnight. As said, I like night.
     
    Anyway, we are going off topic.
    Enjoy your speakers :wink:
     
  11. james444 Contributor
     
    • Don't think I've been wrong when I posted that in 2013. Afaik there weren't any BT chips available that supported AAC back then.
    • Read this post. A2DP is a packet oriented protocol. I'm pretty sure that even AAC to BT-AAC involves re-encoding.
     
  12. Giogio
    Oh, did not see it was an old post. The quoter did a lot of reading apparently.
    I did not say anything about not re-encoding. I was involved in that conversation as you see. So I remember that. But I still wish to have other opinions about it. I can't believe it is like that.
    It is just a useless extra passage, it adds latency, it may degrade the sound, it is pointless.
     
  13. james444 Contributor
     
    Bluetooth uses adaptive frequency hopping to avoid device interference and ensure that transmission works well, even in crowded environments. BT-audio transmission is a continuous stream of small packets being concurrently sent over multiple frequencies. The chopping of audio at the source and reassembling at the sink is anything but pointless, it's in fact absolutely essential to ensure a robust transmission. If there existed a fast and efficient method to chop audio (particularly vbr) into packets without re-encoding, now that would be great, but afaik there is none.
     
  14. Giogio

    Well, Aptx does re-encoding anyway. And AAC too, when not playing an AAC file. So what I do not understand is why should all files be converted to pcm before being converted to aptx or aac. Specially when playing AAC files in AAC codec, which would give the possibility to transmit directly to AAC (given that it is the codec used, so it should not be needed any other "conversion". Otherwise what are codecs for?).
     
  15. james444 Contributor
     
    @ClieOS already posted a perfect explanation. Really not much to add, except that you need constant bitrate to efficiently chop audio into packets, which is another reason for PCM as an intermediate format.
     
     
First
 
Back
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Next
 
Last

Share This Page