[Giogio]

   
I have two, a Creative X-Fi3 and a Samsung Galaxy S3 (international version). This evaluation has been done with the SGS3.
 
 
You didn't bother to read my earlier posts, did you?

 
In short, aptX is great and I predicted more than two years ago that it will become a success.
However, it still depends on implementation, e.g. the aptX enabled HTC BH S600 sounds decidedly worse than the non-aptX Sony MW1.

Nope, I did't, I generally do not read whole threads because am already too much busy wasting all my free time comparing BT Headphones (mostly APTX) and writing reviews and lamenting that I procrastinate most serious things like studying and preparing for the exams
But, I still think that your comparison of these earphones is not really an opinion on the Aptx codec but rather an opinion on those Earphones.
I mean, it does not bother me that you post it here, please.
I was just observing that your comparison could reach (and help) more people if you would open a specific thread for it.
I like comparisons a lot.
And you are actually invited to post it in my Thread.
 
Btw I agree, the non APTX Bose Soundlink On Ear sound much better than many APTX Headphones I have tested.
But well. It must also be said that there are many kind of SBC.
LG

 

[james444]

  But, I still think that your comparison of these earphones is not really an opinion on the Aptx codec but rather an opinion on those Earphones.
I mean, it does not bother me that you post it here, please.
I was just observing that your comparison could reach (and help) more people if you would open a specific thread for it.
I like comparisons a lot.
And you are actually invited to post it in my Thread.

 
The aptX codec has been discussed in the first pages of this thread, more than two years ago. There's really not much to add. Subsequent posts have mainly been about aptX implementation rather than the codec itself, including your ramblings on BT issues with your notebook.
 
My posts on BT stereo headsets (yes, they're indeed called headsets) with 3.5mm HPO are also about aptX implementation. I like your thread, but this is a different subject, as I ignore the stock earphones and merely rate the receiver (sink). I use the same high-end IEMs (UERM, K3003, ...) for evaluation and simply rate them by transparency, i.e. the less degradation of sound quality vs wired, the better.
 
There aren't many aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO out there in the first place. I have two Elecom headsets incoming, but after that will probably go silent for months.

 

[lennyr]

  if you are able to try this
- http://global.rakuten.com/en/store/bellpark-ecshop/item/lbt-mppar400bk/
- http://www.amazon.com/BlueAnt-RB-BKBL-US-Bluetooth-Streamer--Headset/dp/B009F4XM48/
 
Elcom sound neutral to me but have none above to compare.

I just got the Elecom LBT-PAR500, which seems to be a replacement for the one linked above.  It sounds fantastic!  I loved my HS3000, but it broke, so I got the Elecom as a replacement.  It is a very noticeable improvement - more clear, more powerful/controlled bass. The Elecom is powerful enough even to drive Q701s well. The ergonomics are better. Battery life is better.  The only downsides are that it is huge (relatively) and the documentation is only in Japanese (but it's not hard to figure out).

 

[Giogio]

   
The aptX codec has been discussed in the first pages of this thread, more than two years ago. There's really not much to add. Subsequent posts have mainly been about aptX implementation rather than the codec itself, including your ramblings on BT issues with your notebook.
 
My posts on BT stereo headsets (yes, they're indeed called headsets) with 3.5mm HPO are also about aptX implementation. I like your thread, but this is a different subject, as I ignore the stock earphones and merely rate the receiver (sink). I use the same high-end IEMs (UERM, K3003, ...) for evaluation and simply rate them by transparency, i.e. the less degradation of sound quality vs wired, the better.
 
There aren't many aptX headsets with 3.5mm HPO out there in the first place. I have two Elecom headsets incoming, but after that will probably go silent for months.

Hmmm, good point.
Although my ramblings are strictly related with the Aptx itself, being caused by a BT stack created by CSR, the same company which created the APTX itself, and which is the ONLY way to give Aptx to a PC unless you buy an adapter which does not need any software (sennheiser or creative or avantree). In other words, I was speaking about the ways people can give Aptx to a PC. But, yes, I was not speaking of how good Aptx sounds, you are right.
 
I understand what you mean with your Headphones. Although for what I understood, they are not bluetooth headphones, but a bluetooth receiver with controls plus wired headphones. Right? Which means, you can actually use the adapter with any other wired headphones.
 
So, if I understand well, you try to see the value of Aptx by comparing the bt vs wired performances of the same headphone?
I wonder if this can really be a way to test the Aptx itself and not to test the quality of that adapter...

 

[james444]

 
But I understand what you mean with your Headphones. ALthough for what I understood, they are not bluetooth headphones, but a bluetooth receiver with controls plus wired headphones. Right? Which means, you can actually use the adapter with any other wired headphones.

 
Exactly. In fact, aptX's sound quality is much better than of the stock headphones included with most of these receivers, so it really pays to use better earphones with them.
 

 
So, if I understand well, you try to see the value of Aptx by comparing the bt vs wired performances of the same headphone?
I wonder if this can really be a way to test the Aptx itself and not to test the quality of that adapter...

 
I think there is no way to test aptX itself, we're all testing implementations of aptX. 

 

 
I just got the Elecom LBT-PAR500, which seems to be a replacement for the one linked above.  It sounds fantastic!  I loved my HS3000, but it broke, so I got the Elecom as a replacement.  It is a very noticeable improvement - more clear, more powerful/controlled bass. The Elecom is powerful enough even to drive Q701s well. The ergonomics are better. Battery life is better.  The only downsides are that it is huge (relatively) and the documentation is only in Japanese (but it's not hard to figure out).

 
I got both the Elecom LBT-PAR400 and LBT-PAR500 in. Sadly, the latter is pretty much dead though, doesn't charge or turn on. The PAR400 sounds promising, with less of a bass roll-off than the HS3000.

 

[ClieOS]

My opinion is, it is often not the limitation of aptX, but the analog (amp) stage of the BT receiver that let the SQ down (and as James pointed out, the headphone too). While admitting that aptX is not really true lossless per se, a lot of people just discouraged by aptX because they had have some bad experience with BT audio in the past, without realizing how much BT audio has advanced over the last few years. Even worst, some just read how BT's SQ sucks over the internet and started to repeat the same hearsay without themselves trying the better BT solution out there first hand. It is just as bad as giving opinion on any piece of gear without any personal experience.
 
On the other hand, I am pretty happy to see aptX Low Latency is starting to get more traction.

 

[Class D]

Quote: from ClieOS

My opinion is, it is often not the limitation of aptX, but the analog (amp) stage of the BT receiver that let the SQ down.

 
ClieOS is absolutely correct here.  There are many parameters that effect sound quality and fidelity.  BT is essentially a wireless replacement for a twisted pair of wire.  It is also digital, as opposed to analog.  This is core to BT no matter which profile is being used, i. e., HID, HFP, DUN, AVRCP, BPP, A2DP, and etc.  In this thread we are discussing the Advanced Audio Distribution Profile, A2DP.  This profile allows for a continuous set of values or continuous, analog variations in air pressure to be replaced by a discrete set of digital values.  This process in a word is quantization.  Good quantization gives you higher resolution of the underlying audio content which equates to good SQ or fullness of the sound.  The best quantization is sometimes seen as loss-less.  That means little, if any, audio content is lost in the process.  The source fidelity is preserved.  At the other end, radio receiver, BT sink, the process is reversed, and you get a continuous set of values or analog variations.  After going through an audio amplifier and tiny loudspeaker you get the variations of air pressure generated by your earphone.  Audiophiles want these variations of air pressure to match those of the original content, from a trumpet, piano, or human voice.
 
Aptx, SBC, and other codecs are used for this process.  Basically, they slice up the continuous analog values into discrete, digital values for storage or transmission.  The "bitness" of these slices is very important if you wish to preserve fidelity.  Aptx does a superior job of quantization than SBC.  I may add that MP3 does a better job than Aptx.  However, MP3 quantization is more complex, costly, and introduces latency without a fast, powerful microprocessor.  In the consumer electronics market, product complexity and cost are closely controlled.
 
Aptx is only one parameter in a wireless BT system that can influence SQ to make it sound better or fuller.  Other parameters can also improve SQ, like audio equalization, amplification, stereo separation, minimizing harmonic distortion, and etc.  Audio engineers strive to create the best audio characteristics for audiophiles.  This can be costly.  This is why a AKG K3000i reference-class in-ear headphones costs $1000 USD.  With 3 individual drivers, incredibly good frequency response of 10-30,00 Hz, sensitivity @ 125 dB, and an outrageously low impedance of 8 Ohms, you can expect the very best in distortion free audio reproduction in an earphone.  Additionally, if your BT sink device includes a tiny audio amplifier with a audio DSP, you can provide the listener with multi-band equalization to make the sound more pleasurable to individuals tastes.
 
There is a way to examine Aptx and other codecs and draw comparisons.  You would need the underlying written engineering specification of the codec.  It will list parameters like Sample Rates,  Audio Format: 16-bit, 44.1kHz (CD-Quality), Dynamic Range, THD + N, Algorithmic Delay, and etc.  Based on these things, you can do an objective analysis of each codec.  Using the codec in a practical sense in an audio lab will tell you which one looks the best on an oscilloscope and sounds the best to your ear.
 
Don't be fooled, Aptx is very a very good codec for BT.  Given its relative low cost, it fits the consumer electronics market well.  It is well accepted as a standard by many manufacturers.  In the PC electronics market it has a long way to go, unfortunately.  Except for a few Apple PC products, Aptx is non-existent among OEMs.  Sadly, we are stuck with BT dongles at the moment for our PC's. 

 

[Bjrmd]

   
Exactly. In fact, aptX's sound quality is much better than of the stock headphones included with most of these receivers, so it really pays to use better earphones with them.
 
 
I think there is no way to test aptX itself, we're all testing implementations of aptX. 

 
 
I got both the Elecom LBT-PAR400 and LBT-PAR500 in. Sadly, the latter is pretty much dead though, doesn't charge or turn on. The PAR400 sounds promising, with less of a bass roll-off than the HS3000.

A while back I did a few RMAA runs comparing the creative E3, using its usb DAC vs sbc vs aptx bluetooth.  So the source was the same--android devices using Supercurio's voodoo test program.
The apt x sounded much better and was very close to the straight usb output , just slightly more background noise in quiet tracks.  SBC was bad.  Just an fyi, and no, the tests were not done with high quality recording gear but were consistant when repeated.
 

 

[Giogio]

 
I think there is no way to test aptX itself, we're all testing implementations of aptX. 

I kind of had the idea that by testing the same Headphones with the same PC and the same Dongle, but with or without the CSR Harmony software, we could see the difference.
Because theoretically the only difference after installing CSR Harmony should be the Aptx.
But I have read that not all SBC are the same. So, once again it may be a limitation of that adapter. It may perform well as Aptx (thanks to the CSR software) but very bad as SBC because it is just crappy hardware from crappy company, like Azio.
While maybe another SBC adapter would give much better sound.
And well, at least with Azio I can confirm this. Their SBC sound sucks very very badly.
 

  On the other hand, I am pretty happy to see aptX Low Latency is starting to get more traction.

Where do you see this?
I only know of Avantree and Telme2 making LL Aptx adapters, and Plantronics making LL Aptx Headphones for music (plus other two for games and Telme2 for tv).
And Samsung as the only notebook with LL Aptx.
I mean, better than nothing, but not exactly much.
 
I also wonder when will companies finally adopt Class 1 BT.
Why bothering making a BT headphone with Class 2? DO they think that everybody use headphones just to watch tv from the sofa and need no more than 10mt?
I like to walk around the house with my BT headphones and i can not with Class 2.
Class 1 gives 100 meters, a concept which is not a surprise in wireless headphones for home, being the same given by RF Headphones.
But as far as I know, no transmitter support Class 1, and only the Plantronics Backbeat Pro do it for headphones.

 

[Class D]

Quote: from Giogio

Why bothering making a BT headphone with Class 2? 

 
The answer is power consumption.  Class 2 BT devices use less battery.  It will be a while until mobile phone manufacturer's ship phones with Class 1 BT.  Same is true for portable PC's and tablets.
 
Quote:  from GioGio

 I like to walk around the house with my BT headphones and i can not with Class 2.

 
Great, carry your mobile phone in your pocket and switch on BT to listen to your content on your phone.  Make sure that your headphones and your mobile phone use the Aptx codec.  If not, then plug your headphones into the 3.5  mm jack on your phone.
 
Class 1 BT is only 100 m in theory or free air space.  For practical purposes it is much less.  To test this, you could get the AZiO BTD-V201 USB dongle.  It's class1 and uses a nice BT stack and control panel from Toshiba.  A2DP is the standard SBC edition with no enhancements.  The audio quality is hard on your ears, but you get decent range with some cutouts now and then as you put more walls and floors between your transmitter.  Keep your receipt for the dongle so you can return it when your range and A2DP test is complete. 
 
Having class 1 BT on a sink (receiver), like the Plantronics BackBeat Pro, makes no sense with the A2DP profile.  Class 1 BT just places a larger power amplifier (transistor) on the antenna.  If you want to pause, advance, or replay tracks, then the AVRCP profile and class 1 BT could be useful.  However, class 1 BT will drain your battery faster. 

 

[ClieOS]

... Where do you see this?
I only know of Avantree and Telme2 making LL Aptx adapters, and Plantronics making LL Aptx Headphones for music (plus other two for games and Telme2 for tv).
And Samsung as the only notebook with LL Aptx.
I mean, better than nothing, but not exactly much.
...

 
Most noticeably Creative now has aptX LL in their Sound Blaster E5 and X7. I talked to the product manager awhile back and he did comment that aptX LL allows more room for R&D than aptX. Of course now we need a smartphone manufacturer to implement it as well. But given Qualcomm as the new ower, I don't think it will be that long.

 

[james444]

  A while back I did a few RMAA runs comparing the creative E3, using its usb DAC vs sbc vs aptx bluetooth.  So the source was the same--android devices using Supercurio's voodoo test program.
The apt x sounded much better and was very close to the straight usb output , just slightly more background noise in quiet tracks.  SBC was bad.  Just an fyi, and no, the tests were not done with high quality recording gear but were consistant when repeated.

 
Thanks for that, it's probably closest to a direct comparison out of what I've read so far. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt aptX's superiority at all, but one could still argue that it's just one particular implementation of aptX and SBC that you have compared. If SBC sounded downright bad, it was probably not the best one of that codec.
 
The Sony MW1, for example, has an excellent implementation of SBC and demonstrates that it can sound damn good. The HTC S600 on the other hand, is a bad implementation of aptX. Though (as ClieOS said) the limiting factor is likely the output stage in that case, not aptX itself.

 

[Giogio]

   
Most noticeably Creative now has aptX LL in their Sound Blaster E5 and X7. I talked to the product manager awhile back and he did comment that aptX LL allows more room for R&D than aptX. Of course now we need a smartphone manufacturer to implement it as well. But given Qualcomm as the new ower, I don't think it will be that long.

R&D?
Anyway, interesting product, but I wonder, how does it work for BT Headphones? In Theory they have already their own Amp. How would this DAC improve the BT performances compared to a conventional BT Adapter like the Avantree?
About Qualcomm, I must have missed some news. What do they own now?
 

   
The answer is power consumption.  Class 2 BT devices use less battery.  It will be a while until mobile phone manufacturer's ship phones with Class 1 BT.  Same is true for portable PC's and tablets.
 
 
Great, carry your mobile phone in your pocket and switch on BT to listen to your content on your phone.  Make sure that your headphones and your mobile phone use the Aptx codec.  If not, then plug your headphones into the 3.5  mm jack on your phone.
 
Class 1 BT is only 100 m in theory or free air space.  For practical purposes it is much less.  To test this, you could get the AZiO BTD-V201 USB dongle.  It's class1 and uses a nice BT stack and control panel from Toshiba.  A2DP is the standard SBC edition with no enhancements.  The audio quality is hard on your ears, but you get decent range with some cutouts now and then as you put more walls and floors between your transmitter.  Keep your receipt for the dongle so you can return it when your range and A2DP test is complete. 
 
Having class 1 BT on a sink (receiver), like the Plantronics BackBeat Pro, makes no sense with the A2DP profile.  Class 1 BT just places a larger power amplifier (transistor) on the antenna.  If you want to pause, advance, or replay tracks, then the AVRCP profile and class 1 BT could be useful.  However, class 1 BT will drain your battery faster. 

Hmmm, I did not think about battery usage, because I was mostly thinking of Home use. And, to be honest, I am not sure this would be a big problem. Take the case of the Plantronics, they have 24Hrs battery life being Class 1. Most BT headphones reach just the half of that being Class 2.
Anyway, the problem could be solved giving people the option to set the power level. You know, like for the wifi router at home. So that when they are on the go they can set a lower power and have just 10mt range which is ok when you have the smartphone in your pockets.
And at home they can set high power and move around like they want.

About your suggestion to use the smartphone, Class-D, I am not really needing that kind of suggestions
How I will workaround the limits of my hardware, it is not what I was pointing out.
And, when I am at home I use my PC a lot and I stream music from Youtube or from my big library of music in the heard disk or from CDs. Something I can NOT do with the Smartphone.
If when I go making a quick sandwitch in the Kitchen I must first switch to my smartphone, well... yes, it is a workaround, which I had already thought about, and which sucks.
 
Anyway. Got it, you do not feel this need of a Class 1.
I do
 EDIT: (after reading the answer of James and understanding better your comment about Class 1 and A2DP): do you mean that the better range of a Class 1 would only influence the AVRPC profile and not the audio? So, the audio would have a lesser range?
Are you sure of it?
I have no idea. So, I am open. Which anyway I tend to be also when I have ideas, although my way of answering sometimes gives a different impression (temperament).

 

[james444]

  Having class 1 BT on a sink (receiver), like the Plantronics BackBeat Pro, makes no sense with the A2DP profile.  Class 1 BT just places a larger power amplifier (transistor) on the antenna.  If you want to pause, advance, or replay tracks, then the AVRCP profile and class 1 BT could be useful.  However, class 1 BT will drain your battery faster. 

 
Not sure if this is correct, since A2DP contains negotiation procedures.

 

[ClieOS]

  R&D?
Anyway, interesting product, but I wonder, how does it work for BT Headphones? In Theory they have already their own Amp. How would this DAC improve the BT performances compared to a conventional BT Adapter like the Avantree?
About Qualcomm, I must have missed some news. What do they own now?

 
If you look at those Avantree transmitter, they only take analog input. That means your source (a DAP, PC, smartphone or even a TV) has to do the D-to-A conversion first, send the analog signal to Avantree, go through another A-to-D, send to the receiving end (a BT headphone or something like the Creative E5), go through another D-to-A. Now the problem is, the signal has to pass through 2 DAC and 1 ADC, so SQ will definitely be degraded for sure. Even worst is that we have no idea how good the DAC / ADC used in Avantree.
 
Anyway, if you have a BT headphone, you don't need the E5 / X7 unless the DAC and amp section inside the BT headphone is significantly less quality than E5 / X7.
 
Qualcomm bought CSR (more correctly, is "in the process of buying"). Since CSR owns aptX, Qualcomm owns aptX as well.