2. digital
  3. 124451-18790

"High End" Bluetooth Receivers - Snake Oil?

I've been doing some research on the net, and came across a post somewhere (wish I'd have bookmarked it, because now I can't find it again) talking about Bluetooth receivers, lossy compression, etc., that wasn't very complementary of the "high end" receivers.  Of course we have the positively reviewed Audioengine B1 with the AKM "Miracle" DAC, the Auris BluMe with the same DAC, the Arcam rBlink and miniBlink with Burr Brown DAC's, and others with the Wolfson DAC out there on the market claiming "CD quality" sound.

I'm far from technical, so this may be askew, but evidently, given the compression and decompression algorithms, lossy this and lossy that, low bit rates, and other inherent limitations (including AptX), Bluetooth audio can only be so good.  The up-sampling, high bit rates, etc. of these "high end" receivers/DAC's is not capable of restoring or elevating Bluetooth streaming to anywhere near CD quality levels.  Supposedly it has to do with the compression algorithms that simply cannot be fixed with up-sampling, etc.  I guess like a sailboat, it's speed is limited by physics, so no matter how much power you have, it'll only go so fast.

Thoughts?
seadweller
audioman2015
103 posts
 
I stay away from Bluetooth streaming because all aptX codecs are severely hindered. They don't allow for raw streaming of PCM data. I use wifi to stream PCM to a dac without any compression. Now saying that, if implemented properly, aptX doesn’t sound bad but why use it when I can just use wifi streaming?
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,173 posts
 

I have a Bluetooth speaker I use that sounds very good for what it is (Harmon Kardon Onyx Studio 2). It uses Bluetooth 3.


I also only use wifi currently to my good hifi systems but am optimistic with the latest and greatest Bluetooth technology for hifi sound from what I read and may give something like the Audio Engine a shot at some point and see what I might hear. :^)

Clearly, Bluetooth is designed to function with less power and range is more limited compared to wifi.


wtf's avatar
wtf
307 posts
 
Mapman .. various really, some friends have Android phones and others, like me, use an iPhone. Apple only does Bluetooth 4.0 and not APTX but the W4S gizmo makes quite a difference either way IMO. Very handy during a party or casual get together! I took a chance on it because their other reclockers have garnered quite a bit of praise and rightfully so.
oddiofyl's avatar
oddiofyl
3,797 posts
 
I bought the Yamaha YBA-11 Bluetooth RX and it works great.  I bought it because it had a SPDIF output.  My M51 dac does a great job, Spotify and wav. files sound great from my tablet via Blutooth. $50 well spent.
milpai's avatar
milpai
2,371 posts
 
OP,
I feel you should try the newer units from Auris, Arcam, Audioengine, etc. These are phenomenal units. I recently purchased the Auris bluMe for my system and I simply cannot stop streaming Spotify, FolkAlley, etc. I am amazed at the sound quality of the unit. I have not compared this to hi-rez stuff. But at least it comes close to standard CD and you can audition new music (new to you, but maybe been there forever) all the time. Ignore advise from the folks who have not heard the newer units. You want to enjoy your music or your resolution? You can always listen to BT music and then purchase hi-rez copy of the music knowing that you will like what you just heard.
More to discover