 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.229.163.4
In Reply to: RE: Adding Bluetooth to your system posted by Dawnrazor on June 18, 2024 at 08:09:08
"Its fine for youtube vids" Exactly !!Bluetooth is fine for YouTube or a secondary setup. I use Bluetooth headphones when I travel by air.
Bluetooth will always struggle to achieve the highest audio quality because Bluetooth inherently lacks the bandwidth to pass even true lossless CD quality audio.
ALL Bluetooth CODECs are lossy. You can use SBC, aptX, aptX-HD, aptX-Adaptive, AAC, LDAC, LHDC, LC3, etc etc.
Why so many different CODECs? Because developers have been trying for decades to achieve better sound by compressing and cramming audio data through the bandwidth limited Bluetooth pipe. They do that with various forms of lossy compression in the various CODECs above. Some sound better than others but they're all lossy compression schemes.
No serious primary audio setup will use Bluetooth but for YouTube or a secondary system, why not? It's convenient.
Edits: 06/20/24Follow Ups:
when you said: "No serious primary audio setup will use Bluetooth"
Though I did test it. Put it in the main system and using the amazon music app on the phone and the PC ab/d it. Its super close and reminds me of when I compared cd to 320k mp3. You could tell a difference but it was close.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of us failed a DBT with Bluetooth vs. some other digital. In this case I was using AES from my network and optical from the blutooth unit.
Some caveats. Both digital outputs went through a reclocker. The bluetooth device seems to upsample and only output 48k though my phone says its sending 44.1. So I adjusted the computer to output 48k too. The bluetooth device also has a volume control which I maxed but I am betting it messes things up a bit anyhow. I made no attempt to feed the bluetooth device clean power and just hooked it into the "device" port on the front of my Tascam D3000.
Also it wasn't an instant A/b since my reclocker takes about 5 seconds to cycle through all the other inputs. I staggered the song so you could hear the same portion of music...so it was easy to tell what chain I was listening to and not exactly blind. Kind of scared of a blind test especially with the better built bluetooth devices out there...
So sure technically bluetooth sucks but in practice it is better than it sounds hearing about it on the internet.
Cut to razor sounding violins
Don't believe those that have not tried bluetooth using the LDAC codec.
Try a setup for yourself, get any cheap one off Amazon that supports LDAC, then beg or borrow any Android phone or tablet that has ldac settings, and compare for yourself.
I bet you wouldn't return the stuff. Everyone loves to label it as lossy, but you will not be able to tell what's lost.
I don't doubt it. I just don't have android or I would try it.
I can see using bt exclusively if the sq was good just from convenience since a phone can pretty much play everything and takes up less space and is super simple to control.
I saw a fancy Mark Levinson blutooth headphone which IMHO tells you how much highend companies are taking wireless seriously.
Cut to razor sounding violins
But why use Bluetooth/LDAC (or whatever CODEC) unless you have to? Most home setups don't need it. If you must you must but it's for convenience, not because it sounds 'better'.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
