DAC performance of QCC5125 BT chipset

[bachatero]

I recently got an LDAC Bluetooth receiver from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B5X52XPZ Unfortunately, despite how popular the 1Miis are on AZ, only one model (not mine) has an ASR review.

This receiver of mine uses a QCC5125 chip for everything. Also unfortunately, you can't easily find performance data for the QCC5125's DAC. But through some magic I now know that the QCC5125 has two options: Class-D with a typ. 87dB SINAD and Class-AB with 90dB typ. SINAD. That's for a reference model with probably no losses elsewhere.

So, what I'm asking is if it's likely that this little BT receiver has worse performance than the QCC5125 advertises. If so, then that would put it firmly in the "poor" section of the Big DAC SINAD Chart.

 

[bachatero]

Are there no other engineers here? I'll posit that we can assume the implementation is very nonideal and the actual performance is a lot lower.

 

[zeropoint]

An alternative for a slightly lower price is the https://www.amazon.com/FiiO-JadeAudio-BR13-Bluetooth-Receiver/dp/B0CJFCB5H7 using the same Qualcomm QCC5125, but featuring a ES9018K2M DAC and TPA1882 op-amp. It would be interesting to see this tested.

 

[bachatero]

The Xduoo XQ50 Pro 2 has a very similar setup to the Fiio:

XDUOO XQ50 PRO 2 Bluetooth Receiver Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the XDUOO XQ50 PRO 2 BT receiver and DAC. It was kindly donated by an overseas member and costs US $89. As you can instantly see, XQ50 Pro 2 has this wonderfully informative display that shows the codec in use (LDAC), sample rate (missing a zero as...

www.audiosciencereview.com

But surprisingly, it did very poorly (relatively) despite the ES9018K2M's potential performance. That's sus and indicative of some poor engineering.