How does bluetooth headphones compare to HIFI headphones?

[somy]

Hi,
I currently own the B&O H8i bluetooth headphone. I've compared it to other popular BT ANR headphones such as SONY WH-1000XM4 and there is no big difference in sound quality. In general I'm happy with the headphone, but one thing that drives me crazy is the constant background electrical noise, I also wish it could be better at classical works.
I'm curious how those consumer grade BT headphone compares to traditional "HIFI" headphone today? Can a premium one like B&O/B&W PX7 touch the level of a decade old HD600 (talking both BT and wired connections)? If not I'd like to switch to the conventional headphone, and my next question is, which one is easier to drive and can be used with mobile phone and portable amp (like chord mojo size)?
Thanks a lot in advance!

 

[Human Bass]

The only BT headphones that can really compete are hi-fi BT headphones like the THX Panda and the Ananda BT.

 

[3125b]

Well, the only bluetooth headphone I've heard lately was the Bose QC25 (it's an older model to be fair), they havent really impressed me. Ok for casual listening, pretty bass heavy. The K371 (wich I had with me, so in direct comparison) are superior.
I don't think you can directly compare open back to closed back headphones, the HD 600 would sound vastly different.

 

[somy]

Hi, thanks both for your reply!
If I were to keep only one headphone, how much sound quality can I gain to switch to a hifi grade headphone with similar price (400euro) if I were to trade in convenience of BT and ANR. I use HD6xx because it is in the same price range.

 

[ZolaIII]

A you need good headphones, B you need good BT reciver & C deacent DAC & Amp section.
Unfortunately theirs no over the ear solution from factory that's BT which I would call really good. There are some IEMs in a neck band form which come close but again have some flaws. For instance FiiO has a neckband with old AKM DAC and QC BT module which supports LDAC. The combo (LDAC high & AKM DAC) should be enough for around 100 dB SINAD but there whose production problems with bands with two pin connectors (MMCX ones didn't have problems) which I don't know if they resolved. LC-BT2 should be around 70~75$.
https://www.fiio.com/lcbt2
If they resolved the two pin connector model problem suggestion for pairing should go to FiiO FH1s (60~70$) if not & generally a little better with Creative Aurvana Trio (currently around 100$) of course with MMCX neckband. There are now & Creative Aurvana Trio BT with QC BT SoC and amp but those don't support LDAC (AptX HD max) 100$ & older One More triple drivers which do support LDAC (not a QC BT SoC, unknown DAC no AptX). Generally Aurvana Trio sounds best (to me) from one's I mentioned.
Edit: For a LDAC high bit rate stable connection & deacent implementation you will still need higher tier Sony or LG phone (can be & couple generations old).

There are & BT dongle alikes such as Shanling UP4 or FiiO BTR5 both with ESS DAC's (dual balanced and unbalanced outs) which you can pair with efficient enough headaphones, including over ear ones for example ATH-AD700X if you want to go that path.

Best regards.

 

[somy]

Ok, sounds like for sound quality BT headphone is not the way to go at the moment. Any recommendation for balanced hifi headphone easy to drive below 400eur? I was looking at HD650 or HD660S, but not sure they're also good for pop (I listen classical, pop, jazz mainly)

 

[ZolaIII]

Ok, sounds like for sound quality BT headphone is not the way to go at the moment. Any recommendation for balanced hifi headphone easy to drive below 400eur? I was looking at HD650 or HD660S, but not sure they're also good for pop (I listen classical, pop, jazz mainly)

You will have to find what suits your taste the best & you will have to do it yourself regarding headphones. Because everyone has its own. Scales are only for orientation purposes. There are couple of popular treads about headphones around hire where you could get some hints and from there go & try them out for yourself. I personally don't favour those Senns at all.
I wouldn't call BT which reaches the 100 dB (LDAC high) as either bad or immature after all that's perfectly enough for 99% music you will ever encounter.

 

[somy]

You will have to find what suits your taste the best & you will have to do it yourself regarding headphones. Because everyone has its own. Scales are only for orientation purposes. There are couple of popular treads about headphones around hire where you could get some hints and from there go & try them out for yourself. I personally don't favour those Senns at all.
I wouldn't call BT which reaches the 100 dB (LDAC high) as either bad or immature after all that's perfectly enough for 99% music you will ever encounter.

It is just difficult to find place to try them where I live, but will give a go.
Surprising that the modern BT headphones don't match the performance of 20 years old product

 

[ZolaIII]

Headaphones are headaphones and will always be that, not much changed in last 20 years, even 40~45 years. DAC's however advanced a lot in last 20 years, most significantly in last couple of years (starting with ESS 32 bit ES90xx series). There are people who like bass more than anything those comply to Harman target usually European and US, their is more balanced traditional Japanese approach (which I like & follow) balanced bass and great mids which tend to be a bit bright and variations on theme such as:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easurements-using-brüel-kjær-5128-hats.15352/
Answer is always somewhere in between determined by; your own preference, hearing... For me it's more to the measurements thread I linked but with a small drop around 3.5 KHz and less prominent boost in uper mids and highs (Japanese tuning with smooth deep totally straight bass which goes all the way down).
You have to find out what you consider perfect so more auditioning is less money you will trow avay of course if possible.

 

[Bob-23]

I listen classical, pop, jazz mainly)

For classical and jazz, give the K702 a try - prices have fallen drastically as it is no more produced in Austria: I prefer it at the moment over my HD600, mainly because of the immersive soundstage of K702, and for the big eared among us: it has wide earcups, better than the HD600s'. A much underrated headphone. Needs good recordings (which you still find in classics and Jazz), and a bit of eq.
Edit:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/akg/k702

 

[MayaTlab]

I'll leave it to the experts to bring in the numbers but in my limited experience I feel that Bluetooth itself is less a problem than widespread poor implementation and the scarcity of decently well voiced / tuned headphones.

Reading that article :
https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/
I don't know if its methodology is rock solid, but if we assume it is to an extent, we can see that
1) A good BT implementation can, at least for some metrics, be in effect indistinguishable from wired,
2) For the AAC codec, the implementation quality varies sufficiently greatly that some sources may have audible problems.
It's entirely possible that the same variation in implementation quality occurs with SBC.

Then, the other problem being that most BT headphones on the market today deviate quite a lot from the various frequency response targets that research (Harman's Sean Olive for ex.) seems to have landed on. In other words most consumers' preferences seem to gravitate towards a more or less specific frequency response curve (with some modest variations between them). And most BT headphones just plainly don't gravitate towards these curves at all. That being said a lot of wired headphones, including expensive ones, don't either. But at least they have the excuse of not having a chip inside of them that could rather easily be used to EQ their frequency response.
The Bowers & Wilkins PX7, for example, is just wildly off the mark : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#1619/3992/1626
Unexpectedly... the Beats Solo Pro doesn't do too badly .
Most of the usual suspects (Sennheiser Momentum 3, Sony WH-1000 series, Bose 700, etc.) tend to have somewhat whacky FR curves, and difficult to correct across a wide range of applications for most of them as their EQ capabilities are limited.

So in theory, if we can demonstrate that BT protocols / implementation is good enough that it send any distortion into inaudible abysses, that the headphones have a decent frequency response, and low distortion, theoretically there shouldn't be much difference from wired headphones I think ?

Personal experience : Coming from a pair of HD650s, I had a pretty good time with my ex Bowers & Wilkins P7 Wireless (which is a much better pair of headphones than the PX7). The P7W had a much more elevated bass, not to my liking, but mostly sub bass, and the rest of the FR wasn't excessively dissimilar. It's definitely when I tried them for the first time that I felt that BT headphones don't were starting to match the performance of 20 years old product.

In the future powered headphones (of which BT headphones are a part of) will definitely have the advantage over passive wired headphones. Conscious companies will be able to apply sophisticated DSPs to have the FR reach the intended curve(s) more precisely, and we'll probably start to see quite soon BT headphones that analyse the user's ears and apply a specific profile to fine tune the sound to that specific user's morphology.

 

[somy]

Some of BT headphones nowadays also can be used as conventional wired headphone. For example I can connect my B&O H8i directly to the headphone jack and there is improvement in SQ. I guess in this case the internal DAC and BT are not used anymore. Now interestingly, if we add a good source and amp, can those headphones get closer to the level of HIFI ones?

 

[Bob-23]

Audio over Bluetooth: most detailed information about profiles, codecs, and devices

https://habr.com/en/post/456182/

A Bluetooth Blind Test

http://www.brentbutterworth.com/bluetooth-blind-test.html

 

[dasdoing]

most devices use a 345 kbit/s codec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBC_(codec); and in cases like AAC source they will just use that.
any diference in sound is only in theory.
the only real problem is the latency

 

[weasels]

For classical and jazz, give the K702 a try - prices have fallen drastically as it is no more produced in Austria: I prefer it at the moment over my HD600, mainly because of the immersive soundstage of K702, and for the big eared among us: it has wide earcups, better than the HD600s'. A much underrated headphone. Needs good recordings (which you still find in classics and Jazz), and a bit of eq.
Edit:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/akg/k702

I wish I read this before I bought HD6XX from Drop. I like the sound quality of the Sennheisers but man the oval earcups do not work with my big ears.

I've bought an enormous number of headphones (probably an endemic problem to visitors of these forums) and I honestly go back to a pair of Grado 325s for most of my music listening. I replaced the stock pads with the larger bowl pads from up their range, which gives more room to the big ears and takes care of what was the biggest issue for me - the foam in the pads is very stiff. I understand Grados aren't necessarily neutral, but I really like the sound profile.

I have several pairs of BT headphones which are fine to use paired to a phone, but get occasional signal drops which is just annoying.

 

[somy]

For classical and jazz, give the K702 a try - prices have fallen drastically as it is no more produced in Austria: I prefer it at the moment over my HD600, mainly because of the immersive soundstage of K702, and for the big eared among us: it has wide earcups, better than the HD600s'. A much underrated headphone. Needs good recordings (which you still find in classics and Jazz), and a bit of eq.
Edit:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/akg/k702

How is bass comparing to hd600? Do you think it also works for vocal and pop music occasionally?

 

[Bob-23]

Yeah, big audiophile ears can be a burden, but once you take into account that comfort accounts for 51% of the value of a headphone, it may also save you a lot of money because there are not many phones with wide ear cups around...
The earcups of the 6xx get softer over time, and the headband will widen, (and you man actively widen it yourself very carefully, touch only the metal, so that the plastic doesn't break - I haven't done it).

 

[Bob-23]

How is bass comparing to hd600? Do you think it also works for vocal and pop music occasionally?

I find bass better on the K702, more defined, more precise, not less than the Hd600's - but, of course, not enough for bass heads. I, generally like a bit of bass, but with the K702 I never miss it - that immersive sound stage compensates for everything, at least for me.

I used to eq the K702 with the Oratory 1990 values for the Anniversary Edition, which worked quite well, and pushed bass quite a lot (though the anniversary edition differs a bit from the 'standard K702, so it's not 'optimal', if his should be a criterion.)

Having recently built an Baxandall EQ, I don't use Oratory anymore: just the 2 knobs of the Baxandall, in the reach of your hands while listening, so that you can blindly adjust more/less bass/treble according to the actual recording (bass amount differs in recordings, so prefixed eq-values are suboptimal), it's just 2 variable shelving filters - so now, usually, l let bass, as it is, but usually lower treble, more or less. Coltrane's or Garbarek's sopran saxes must be lowered.

Pop music: it depends, if its well recorded, it works, but well recorded popmusic seems to be somehow a contradictio in adjecto. Midrange and vocals are better on the 6xx, but then again, sound stage of the 6** is narrow in comparison. For pop you might need a more forgiving headphone, K702 is brutally honest and non-forgiving, Hd600 are honest but more forgiving.

EDIT: I'd specify a bit more: K702 are phones to lean back and dream away (not only on rainy days), they like wide soundscapes (think of 'Cinematic Orchestra' - they're not particularly made for very fast and hard beats... I like the ECM-label very much.

 

[somy]

I find bass better on the K702, more defined, more precise, not less than the Hd600's - but, of course, not enough for bass heads. I, generally like a bit of bass, but with the K702 I never miss it - that immersive sound stage compensates for everything, at least for me.

I used to eq the K702 with the Oratory 1990 values for the Anniversary Edition, which worked quite well, and pushed bass quite a lot (though the anniversary edition differs a bit from the 'standard K702, so it's not 'optimal', if his should be a criterion.)

Having recently built an Baxandall EQ, I don't use Oratory anymore: just the 2 knobs of the Baxandall, in the reach of your hands while listening, so that you can blindly adjust more/less bass/treble according to the actual recording (bass amount differs in recordings, so prefixed eq-values are suboptimal), it's just 2 variable shelving filters - so now, usually, l let bass, as it is, but usually lower treble, more or less. Coltrane's or Garbarek's sopran saxes must be lowered.

Pop music: it depends, if its well recorded, it works, but well recorded popmusic seems to be somehow a contradictio in adjecto. Midrange and vocals are better on the 6xx, but then again, sound stage of the 6** is narrow in comparison. For pop you might need a more forgiving headphone, K702 is brutally honest and non-forgiving, Hd600 are honest but more forgiving.

It does look very interesting especially considering the price (half of HD600). There is also K712 which seems to be good value if you want more bass. Does K7xx need good amp? Can MacBook/phone drive it w/o amp?

 

[Bob-23]

It does look very interesting especially considering the price (half of HD600). There is also K712 which seems to be good value if you want more bass. Does K7xx need good amp? Can MacBook/phone drive it w/o amp?

I haven't listend to the K712 yet - but I doubt very much that it's worth paying the premium, I've got he impression the drivers are the same (the highs of the K702 have to eq'd a bit, depending on the recording!) But read the full text, and decide yourself:
Solderdude has measured both of them:
"Bass extension is (inaudibly) and slightly better extended on the K702 (same mechanical/cable construction) obviously is a lot ‘clearer/forward/brighter’ sounding."
https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/akg/k712/

I can't tell you if a macbook works - don't use them. May be sufficient. Output impedance - which otherwise may be 'too high' in your macbook -
is NOT a problem with the K702, their impedance is flat (contrary to the HD600s').

I use (selfmade) Objective 2 (O2) amps, clean sound, sufficient power, solid metal case.
Available in the US (JDS Labs) or here in Germany:
http://www.headnhifi.com/amplifiers/desktop-headphone-amplifiers/O2-desktop-amplifier
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/07/o2-design-process.html
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/nwavguy-the-audio-genius-who-vanished

EDIT: I could well imagine that your macbook is sufficient, in particular, as we don't have an output impedance 'problem' - in any case, I'd try it out for some weeks, and would only then decide if an additional amp is necessary.