Bluetooth tempo and pitch issues?

M_snow: "There isn't a 'very slight loss in quality', there's a HUGE loss in quality."

While it would be foolish to deny your experience, I would be very interested to learn what equipment you are using that allows you to come to such a dramatic conclusion. I'm going to guess it is NOT, for example, the $10,000 Chord CPM 2800 digital integrated amplifier (with Bluetooth capability).

And yes, I realize that this is essentially an "argument from authority" (I've never heard this unit), but I find it very difficult to believe that a highly respected manufacturer of high end equipment would be foolish enough to offer a $10,000 amp that includes a feature that represents a "HUGE loss in quality."

What I CAN say (with complete conviction) is that my far more modest Chordette Gem (at less than one-tenth the price) offers a quite satisfactory musical experience--though one not quite as good as my twice as expensive Wavelength Brick. And I'm pretty sure that if you stopped by for a listen you would be unable to honestly maintain your rather extreme position.
-

Jmacinnis: It would be interesting to know what equipment you are using in your Bluetooth setup. Maybe these are the source of your problem.

While hardly an expert on this issue, I do know that Bluetooth comes in a bewildering array of "flavors," some of which are completely inimical to high-quality audio transmission. The A2DP profile that my Chordette Gem and various iDevices use seems to work quite nicely. Current iDevices are, in addition, Bluetooth 4.0 compliant--which means they use less power, and pair almost instantly with their receivers.

If you've got a couple of days to waste, you can read all about the various Bluetooth specifications here. I suggest taking a couple of aspirins before you start in order to ward off the blinding headache you're almost guaranteed to end up with after the first few paragraphs.
-

Jmacinnis?

M_snow??

Buehler???

Anyone????

Anyone????
-

Rel - I didn't even know such an item existed, so I certainly haven't heard it.

Think about this: any codec used by Bluetooth has to be lossy in order to fit within the available bandwidth. Additionally, a CD player needs a bit-rate of at least 1.4 megabit-per-second for stereo, and A2DP allows for a maximum of 512 kilobits-per-second for stereo.

I'm not saying Bluetooth can't offer a 'quite satisfactory musical experience', but even you admit it's not as good as your Wavelength. I LOVE the convenience of Bluetooth music, but not for serious listening -- in MY opinion, & from MY experience.

M_snow: You seem to be throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall in the hope that something will stick.

You admit (now) that Bluetooth can offer a "satisfactory musical experience," but initially stated that it involved a "HUGE loss in quality." When asked why a company like Chord would sell a $10,000 Bluetooth-enabled amp if the use of Bluetooth entailed such a HUGE loss in quality, you replied that you have neither heard--nor heard of--the unit, and declined to comment.

OK, fair enough; but then you say, essentially, that Bluetooth couldn't possibly sound any good, as its 0.5 megabit per second data rate is less than half that of the CD standard (1.4 megabits per second). This spec may have applied to the very first Bluetooth devices, but current (3.0 and above) devices have data rates of 3 to 24 megabits per second--more than adequate for CD.

The data rate, however, in and of itself, is not a very reliable indicator of overall audio quality. The CD standard was not, after all, carved on stone tablets and handed down from on high. It was merely the best that the Sony & Philips engineers had to offer at the time that CD was introduced.

I could just as easily say that CDs represent a HUGE loss in quality when compared to SACDs (which offer a bandwidth 5 times greater than CD) and that CDs are, therefore, unsuitable for serious listening. The fact is that while SACDs are theoretically capable of better sound than CDs, there are many well-recorded CDs that SOUND a whole lot better than many poorly recorded SACDs.

Bottom line, bandwidth is only one of many factors that affect the quality of a recording. How it actually SOUNDS is what really counts. And when I asked what kind of set-up you were using that allowed you to conclude that Bluetooth SOUNDS really bad, I received no reply.

Then you attempt to use my own testimony against me by saying "even you admit it's not as good as your Wavelength," which is true, BUT when I offered that observation it was to illustrate that the twice-as-expensive Wavelength DAC sounds better AS A DAC then the more modest Chordette Gem does AS A DAC. How each DAC receives its input (whether via USB or Bluetooth) probably contributes a relatively small amount to how each unit sounds.

As audiophiles, we are all, no doubt, in search of the best possible sound, but there are many times when something just a notch down will do just fine. So if you are willing (at times) to listen to vinyl rather than master tapes; to digital rather than analog; to CDs rather than SACDs; to AIFF rather than WAV; to ALAC rather than AIFF, then you might just possibly want to consider Bluetooth!
-