Denon DN-200BR Professional Bluetooth Receiver Review

[wwenze]

The fact that it has a detachable antenna cable and even a... detachable bluetooth pair button connector... tells me this is meant to be stuffed somewhere dark while the interface and the wireless go to somewhere that can see light

A pretty specific target market.

One example, speaker test shelves? Where there are lots of buttons. Or basically anywhere that needs a button for Bluetooth... hotels and exhibition halls maybe?

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I’m pretty sure that Amirm’s test results show that LDAC, on the Topping at least, does not rob the sound of vitality or life.

LDAC is a "Lossy CODEC".
Look it up.
All lossy codecs rob something off the source, to reduce data rate.
Fully transparent , they ain't .
How detectable? that's another question.

 

[PeteL]

This comment is about LDAC and other codecs, not the devices.
In standard measurements, LDAC seems transparent, and indeed it is the best of BT codecs and Topping implementation is second to none.
But . .
LDAC is not that reliable over distances of few meters. This is as much an issue with transmitter as it is with receiver .
Also, subjectively, any lossy codec robs the sound of some life and vitality. LDAC does it the least, but does it never the less.
LDAC on my Topping DX7 pro is excellent, but it is no match for its direct inputs. So I never use it!
instead, I stream over wifi to the PC that is connected direct to it.
I suppose the only advantage of SBC BT is its low latency, and reliable connection.
What's the latency on LDAC ?

SBC has poor latency. Amir thinks SBC is better than AAC and AptX but it's misleading, It's the worst sounding CODEC but it don't show with SINAD for a 1k continuous tone. They all compress the data differently, It's about what you decide to be left out in the compression algorithm. Also AAC is made for apple device and Amir only ever measured it with Android device and it's been demonstrated that it don't perform well for these. Standard set of measurments don't tell the whole story for Bluetooth CODECS.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

SBC has poor latency. Amir thinks SBC is better than AAC and AptX but it's misleading, It's the worst sounding CODEC but it don't show with SINAD for a 1k continuous tone. They all compress the data differently, It's about what you decide to be left out in the compression algorithm. Also AAC is made for apple device and Amir only ever measured it with Android device and it's been demonstrated that it don't perform well for these. Standard set of measurments don't tell the whole story for Bluetooth CODECS.

AAC works under Android too, it is just a CODEC. it reduces data rate to something that BT could accommodate.
Frankly, your assertion for sound quality "SBC > AAC > aptX LL > aptX > aptx HD > LDAC" is correct. But sound quality depends on quality of coder and decoder too, and then Latency comes into it.
Apparently, aptX LL , naturally has the lowest latency.
The highest data rate (990 kb/s) LDAC is pushing the BT bandwidth so much, one might get dropouts. Which makes it not reliable for live performances.
I don't even see BT as a viable connection in a live multi-player performance, due to high latency.

 

[sarumbear]

…AAC is made for apple device…

Not correct. Apple first used it on iPod in 2001, four years after AAC was declared a standard.

AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies including Bell Labs, Fraunhofer IIS, Dolby Laboratories, LG Electronics, NEC, NTT Docomo, Panasonic, Sony Corporation,[1] ETRI, JVC Kenwood, Philips, Microsoft, and NTT.[15] It was officially declared an international standard by the Moving Picture Experts Group in April 1997.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

 

[PeteL]

I was disappointed that with max volume, we could not get more than 1.6 volt. This is about 6 dBu which beats the 4 dBu spec but still, for a professional product we need to get 4 volts.

4V is a consumer consideration to be able to connect a DAC directly to a power amp. +4dBU has been the standard for line level balanced audio sources for ever and still is. Any mixing bord or DSP/matrix type units are calibrates so at 4dBU you have 0VU and it's your unity gain, if you don't use gain at the preamp. You then have the benefit of the headroom of the mixer itself. Of course many device benefit for a larger headroom, mainly devices downstream and many will clip much higher and it's not a bad thing. But If you enter a 4V source in a a mixing board, You will need to use a pad, or in a case like this an attenuation knob, If not you'll clip the input.

 

[Palladium]

Besides looking more rugged, it's hopelessly outclassed in price/performance by cheap balanced out + LDAC combo DACs like SMSL D-6 / C200. The latter also aren't one trick ponies too.

 

[PeteL]

AAC works under Android too, it is just a CODEC. it reduces data rate to something that BT could accommodate.
Frankly, your assertion for sound quality "SBC > AAC > aptX LL > aptX > aptx HD > LDAC" is correct. But sound quality depends on quality of coder and decoder too, and then Latency comes into it.
Apparently, aptX LL , naturally has the lowest latency.
The highest data rate (990 kb/s) LDAC is pushing the BT bandwidth so much, one might get dropouts. Which makes it not reliable for live performances.
I don't even see BT as a viable connection in a live multi-player performance, due to high latency.

AAC is available to Android but these measurments show a difference:

The ultimate guide to Bluetooth headphones: AAC only acceptable on Apple phones

Along with default SBC and Qualcomm's aptX, AAC is a commonly supported Bluetooth codec in the wireless headphone and speaker markets.

www.soundguys.com

 

[Toku]

@amirm
Denon DB-200BR is a professional product. The reference value of the output voltage is different from that of consumer audio equipment.
Use 0.775V(600Ω 1mW) at 0dBu as a reference value.
So the Denon DB-200BR rated output is:

Balanced (XLR): +4 dBu (+1 dB)
Unbalanced (1/4” / 6.35mm): -2 dBu (+1 dB)

Therefore, it does not mean that the output voltage is insufficient.

 

[sarumbear]

4V is a consumer consideration to be able to connect a DAC directly to a power amp. +4dBU has been the standard for line level balanced audio sources for ever and still is. Any mixing bord or DSP/matrix type units are calibrates so at 4dBU you have 0VU and it's your unity gain, if you don't use gain at the preamp. You then have the benefit of the headroom of the mixer itself. Of course many device benefit for a larger headroom, mainly devices downstream and many will clip much higher and it's not a bad thing. But If you enter a 4V source in a a mixing board, You will need to use a pad, or in a case like this an attenuation knob, If not you'll clip the input.

You are obviously correct but 4V vs +4dBu issue is an @amirm idée fixe that it seems we cannot change. Whether one likes it or not, or how better devices measure with other levels, anything else are arbitrary levels. You cannot interconnect devices that work at arbitrary levels, hence standards exist. This is even true for domestic devices but for professional units it is imperative.

Maybe we should create a new unit, 0dBA that equals to 4V?

 

[sarumbear]

Besides looking more rugged, it's hopelessly outclassed in price/performance by cheap balanced out + LDAC combo DACs like SMSL D-6 / C200.

How? Have you checked the wireless receiver part of this ”wireless receiver?” How was it outclassed against those SMSL unit?

 

[PeteL]

You are obviously correct but 4V vs +4dBu issue is an @amirm idée fixe that it seems we cannot change. Whether one likes it or not, or how better devices measure with other levels, anything else are arbitrary levels. You cannot interconnect devices that work at arbitrary levels, hence standards exist. This is even true for domestic devices but for professional units it is imperative.

Maybe we should create a new unit, 0dBA that equals to 4V?

Except dBA mainly refers to A-weighted. Let's not add to the confusion.

 

[IAtaman]

I have been reading about SBC and AAC and other BT codecs for a while. I can not say I understand how all of them works yet but the more I read about them the more I start doubting whether 1Khz single tone FFT is a good way of evaluating codec performance. For SBC for example, it actively allocates data bandwith between sub bands which will not be taken into account with a single tone test. Maybe a multitone would be better? Curious to hear what others think.

 

[mdsimon2]

I’m pretty sure that Amirm’s test results show that LDAC, on the Topping at least, does not rob the sound of vitality or life.

Run a multitone and it probably won't look so good -> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...receiver-bt-codecs.23740/page-12#post-1039526.

Michael

 

[dasdoing]

In what situations do pros use a unit like this? What is the intended user case?

professional use of audio is not limited to muscial shows, right? think of a conference room, for example

 

[PeteL]

I have been reading about SBC and AAC and other BT codecs for a while. I can not say I understand how all of them works yet but the more I read about them the more I start doubting whether 1Khz single tone FFT is a good way of evaluating codec performance. For SBC for example, it actively allocates data bandwith between sub bands which will not be taken into account with a single tone test. Maybe a multitone would be better? Curious to hear what others think.

It will be difficult because what distinguish these CODECs is what they do with the low level stuff in the music content. It is the stuff you want to have less data to reproduce. Some do it more intelligently than others, some Integrate notions of psycho-acoustics, of masking, some adapt, will send less data for less complex spectrum and more when needed. Multi tones, single tones, frequency responce measurments are all made with near 0 DBFS amplitude so the simplest will not lose on those, in fact we should expect the more intelligent to lose because they make more calculations, hence more rounding errors and maybe a bit more noise. They may even compromise some higher harmonics that are in their tests less audible where a CODEC that don't discriminate will not take this in consideration.

 

[Jeromeof]

It will be difficult because what distinguish these CODECs is what they do with the low level stuff in the music content. It is the stuff you want to have less data to reproduce. Some do it more intelligently than others, some Integrate notions of psycho-acoustics, of masking, some adapt, will send less data for less complex spectrum and more when needed. Multi tones, single tones, frequency responce measurments are all made with near 0 DBFS amplitude so the simplest will not lose on those, in fact we should expect the more intelligent to lose because they make more calculations, hence more rounding errors and maybe a bit more noise. They may even compromise some higher harmonics that are in their tests less audible where a CODEC that don't discriminate will not take this in consideration.

Another thing to bear in mind as far as Bluetooth is concerned is the data rate is (or can be) highly variable - so you start a listening session say with LDAC with you phone near the receiver and you might get 990kbps which is mostly how this codec gets talked about as HI-Res / transparent, but maybe you temporarily move (maybe to get a drink or answer the door) the codec will renegiotate the bandwidth and you might goto < 200kbps or worse, even something like a microwave oven being on in the house can affect the bandwidth, causing quality of signal to be terrible. In theory it will go back to normal but in my experience this take a considerable amount of time as mostly the receiver and transmitter are happy to keep using a lower bandwidth connection until it 'breaks' - but this is very dependent on the implementation on both devices.

 

[PeteL]

Another thing to bear in mind as far as Bluetooth is concerned is the data rate is (or can be) highly variable - so you start a listening session say with LDAC with you phone near the receiver and you might get 990kbps which is mostly how this codec gets talked about as HI-Res / transparent, but maybe you temporarily move (maybe to get a drink or answer the door) the codec will renegiotate the bandwidth and you might goto < 200kbps or worse, even something like a microwave oven being on in the house can affect the bandwidth, causing quality of signal to be terrible. In theory it will go back to normal but in my experience this take a considerable amount of time as mostly the receiver and transmitter are happy to keep using a lower bandwidth connection until it 'breaks' - but this is very dependent on the implementation on both devices.

Yes that too, whether fixed or variable bit rate, there is no way around it you get less range for high bit rate, it will adapt, or if it don't it will cut out.

 

[PeteL]

How? Have you checked the wireless receiver part of this ”wireless receiver?” How was it outclassed against those SMSL unit?

If by receiver you mean the antenna, it is likely fine indeed, but fact remain that it's a BT 2.1 device. There have been improvements in BT chips over the last 10 years. Wonder how old is this product.

 

[PeteL]

Wonder why Amir says it only advertise SBC CODEC. This spec sheet clearly says SBC, MP3, AptX and AAC.

Denon Professional - DN-200BR

Denon Professional DN-200BR Stereo Bluetooth Audio Receiver

www.denonpro.com