????
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Denon DN-200BR Professional Bluetooth Receiver Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Is this a Denon dn-200r review or another advertisement for Topping? I can't tell.
There's twice as many Topping D70 measurements in this 'Denon' review than Denon measurements.
There's twice as many Topping D70 measurements in this 'Denon' review than Denon measurements.
OK, "made for" is not accurate, but it's the de facto BT CODEC of apple devices, and some measurments demonstrate that the performance is optimized on Apple devices or at least have a better implementation.
Unfortunately, some people here have not been able to distinguish between the signal standards of consumer consumer audio equipment and professional audio equipment.
All of the broadcasting equipment I used to design for Japanese TV stations and radio stations was designed with 0dB = 0.775V (600Ω/1mW) as the reference value.
I recognize that this Denon DB-200BR is a simple product that enables temporary connection between those professional equipment and popular consumer equipment. Depending on the content of the actual broadcast, there are situations where such a connection is required, and I believe that DENON has developed this product to meet that requirement. If you have an understanding about that, you won't be able to develop an argument that is too far off.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #65
Good because there was no attempt to advertise Topping. I post those as I noted: without a reference it was impossible to know if the SINAD was good or bad. And without LDAC test, you can't tell how much of that is due to the codec. Also, recently there has been requests to test the bluetooth on newer DACs so I thought I show that and demonstrate that nothing is changed with respect to BT.
Really John, I am doing extra work here and you are complaining about that?
ocinn
Senior Member
Topping BC3 can do more output voltage and better performance for a whopping $70 lol.
I guess still the cheapest solution for >16bit optimal Bluetooth performance is a cheap LDAC receiver coupled to a balanced DAC with digital inputs (modius?, or something used).
I guess still the cheapest solution for >16bit optimal Bluetooth performance is a cheap LDAC receiver coupled to a balanced DAC with digital inputs (modius?, or something used).
SBC could be much better with some proper configuration:I don't think the following statement is correct: "The unit only advertised SBC codec which is better than aptX but not as good as LDAC."
SBC clearly stands at the bottom of the foodchain as far as Bluetooth codecs are concerned. AFAIK, the order is from worst to best SBC < AAC < AptX < LDAC.
Bluetooth Codecs: The Ultimate Guide (2024)
How are Bluetooth codecs different? Which is the best for audio quality or latency? And how to change it on your device.headphonesaddict.com
Understanding Bluetooth codecs
Want to know more about wireless audio? Take our crash course in Bluetooth codecs, bitrate, standards, and uses from SBC to LDAC and more.www.soundguys.com
Audio quality of SBC XQ Bluetooth audio codec - Articles - SoundExpert
Subjective and objective measurements of SBC at high bitrates.. SoundExpert news and articles
soundexpert.org
Alternative A2DP Driver
You wanted to say was Apple does the best AAC decoder in the market.
Apple was not even part of the development team. Back in 1997 Apple's CEO was Gilbert Amelio, they were about the buy Next and Steve to make a come back. I don't think they had any resources to affect an international standard. Besides, Apple had no products that utilize AAC for the next four years.
Advanced Audio Coding - Wikipedia
I did not say that apple made the best decoder in the market. Not sure where you got that. Yes thanks for telling me who developped it. But you already said so on a previous post. An I already admitted that, it was not specifically made for Apple.You wanted to say was Apple does the best AAC decoder in the market.
Apple was not even part of the development team. Back in 1997 Apple's CEO was Gilbert Amelio, they were about the buy Next and Steve to make a come back. I don't think they had any resources to affect an international standard. Besides, Apple had no products that utilize AAC for the next four years.
Advanced Audio Coding - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
One of Apple's key business models is optimising how the communication works between 2 of their devices. Bluetooth has the perfect opportunities to optimise how the AAC codec works between 2 of their devices as there is a negiotation phase. I did briefly do a bluetooth network capture (because I am interested in this type of thing) and I could see significantly different packets between my AirPods Pro and a MacBook (where I was running the network capture) and a non-Apple bluetooth device with AAC enabled and the same MacBook.
Of course, this does not mean it actually is better just that they have the opportunity to optimise how the AAC codec work on both the transmitter and receiver.
Of course, this does not mean it actually is better just that they have the opportunity to optimise how the AAC codec work on both the transmitter and receiver.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Your reviews, your site. You present that any way you want.
That said, do you think the Denon DN-200br got a fair, impartial and extensive review? Hardly. It was cut short. It was apparently competing with another Topping review. Is that the way going forward? I hope not.
Reference points are fine. Dredging up another entire data set in a supposed single product review is not.
I realise that. I was being sarcastic as it seems from reading various comments that Apple devices perform better.
JayGilb
Major Contributor
I have several Bluetooth receivers and they sound just fine regardless of the protocols being used. Never had a guest or friend comment on whether or not the lossy codec was impacting the sound quality.
My amplifiers have high gain, so a lower output doesn't matter. My main system uses xlr to xlr connections. Bluetooth is used only for convenience and to allow others to play their music on my systems.
My amplifiers have high gain, so a lower output doesn't matter. My main system uses xlr to xlr connections. Bluetooth is used only for convenience and to allow others to play their music on my systems.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #76
I am pretty sure there is no such optimization on Apple platform. Every AAC file is decoded first, then re-encoded into AAC at lower quality due to its real-time nature. It was an error on their part thinking that forcing AAC into a BT device helps them in some ways. Architecturally that just doesn't work since the OS has to mix output from multiple apps so everything has to be decoded first anyway. As I noted earlier, I tested AAC on a Mac and it had the same problem with BT that Android etc. show.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #77
I have yet to see this implementation. Who has it?
What is sort of different with 2 apple devices connected via bluetooth is that Apple open a second LE bluetooth connection at the same time as the primary bluetooth connection. This connection is used effectively as a control channel with lots of proprietary apple messages (often marketed as 'continuity' , some of these have been decrypted a few years ago e.g.
GitHub - furiousMAC/continuity: Apple Continuity Protocol Reverse Engineering and Dissector
Apple Continuity Protocol Reverse Engineering and Dissector - furiousMAC/continuity
github.com
There was an associated security research paper published at this time and apple responded by changing their protocol:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.10600.pdf
For this reason Apple could (and I don't know if they do as I believe they started to encrypt the communication going across this separate channel) use this separate 'control' channel and then not always need a mixer or at least decide when a mixer would be needed. As they push more complex AAC formats e.g. Dolby/Spatial audio, I find it hard to believe that they would not just control when then need to mix this stream into 'normal' 2 channel audio with other OS system 'beep' etc and leave the streams encoded as they are.
this thing is pretty ancient?
www.denonpro.com
it runs only BT 2.1? it does support AptX... which is the original version... not AptX HD or LL etc.
I think you need any modern snapdragon phone to pair to get AptX?
but yeah the money they want for this for outdated BT kinda says it all
Denon Professional - DN-200BR
Denon Professional DN-200BR Stereo Bluetooth Audio Receiver
it runs only BT 2.1? it does support AptX... which is the original version... not AptX HD or LL etc.
I think you need any modern snapdragon phone to pair to get AptX?
but yeah the money they want for this for outdated BT kinda says it all
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 624
- Likes
- 1,041
Not to doubt @amirm, but both products shown in the review exhibit the same distortion at those two frequencies (when using SBC) so it seems to be the case.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
