• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Kali Bluetooth Receiver and BT Codec Quality (Video)

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
34,942
Likes
129,740
Location
Seattle Area
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
12,455
Likes
18,770
AAC does have Joint Stereo encoding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

The term joint stereo has become prominent as the Internet has allowed for the transfer of relatively low bit rate, acceptable-quality audio with modest Internet access speeds. Joint stereo refers to any number of encoding techniques used for this purpose. Two forms are described here, both of which are implemented in various ways with different codecs, such as MP3, AAC and Ogg Vorbis.
 

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,560
Likes
3,127
Location
Brussels, Belgium
It would be interesting to use an iPhone for AAC (if any of your households have one).

Apple’s iTunes is basically high bit-rate AAC and their AAC encoder is allegedly really good.

Also AAC is the only Bluetooth codec available in the Apple eco system. They never pay for licensing of codecs that add nothing to the table.
 

GGroch

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
1,487
Location
Denver, Colorado
Thanks much for this!
Bluetooth is extremely popular because it is convenient; but it is seldom measured because it is not audiophile. This is ironic because some components like DACs have become so good that the measurements do not matter so much. Differences between Bluetooth hardware and different Codex are potentially huge by comparison.

I think Bluetooth is analogous to Audio Cassettes in the 70's-80's. Cassettes are audibly inferior to LP/Reel to Reel, but they were so convenient that cassette decks were part of most home audio systems. Tape deck manufacturers put a real emphasis on improving noise reduction schemes, tape formulations, head configurations etc. because Hi-fi magazines tested them. It would be nice to see that happen with Bluetooth.

ASR could do a real service with a series testing Bluetooth Codecs, Transmitters and Receivers. These components are mostly cheap and easy to ship. Perhaps performance is almost entirely dependent on the Chipset used, but your discovery of noise issues with the Kali seems to contradict that. Another factor that would benefit from standardized testing is reliable transmission/reception distance. That said, i think it's likely a Bluetooth series would be more popular on YouTube than it is here at audiophile ASR.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
34,942
Likes
129,740
Location
Seattle Area
I am motived to do a detailed analysis and testing of bluetooth codecs. Need to assemble the right sources and receivers with easy ability to select codecs, their profiles, etc.

And yes, the idea of testing different BT codecs came from youtube comments on previous videos.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
1,517
Likes
963
Location
Mzansi
but thought I also do a video since people on YouTube had asked to learn more about lossy encoding.
Good - if the general public learns more, then maybe it follows that DJ/producers would learn more as well. Too many just don't know that you can't really "convert" or "upsample" 128 kbps to 320.
 

testp

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
192
Likes
77
It would be interesting to use an iPhone for AAC (if any of your households have one).

Apple’s iTunes is basically high bit-rate AAC and their AAC encoder is allegedly really good.

Also AAC is the only Bluetooth codec available in the Apple eco system. They never pay for licensing of codecs that add nothing to the table.
yes, they never pay for licensing, and turns out their new macbook air's don't even have usb inputs... yuppi-yei for usb users...
 

infinitesymphony

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
1,039
Likes
1,672
yes, they never pay for licensing, and turns out their new macbook air's don't even have usb inputs... yuppi-yei for usb users...
MacBook Airs have two USB-C ports that support charging, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt 3, USB4, and USB 3.1 Gen 2 which is backwards-compatible. That's more standards than many laptops, most of which are also moving to USB-C only.

Apple pay R&D costs up-front for a number of the technologies they use (for example their collaboration with Intel on Thunderbolt), so it's not like they get everything for free.
 

thehun

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
28
Likes
34
It would be interesting to use an iPhone for AAC (if any of your households have one).

Apple’s iTunes is basically high bit-rate AAC and their AAC encoder is allegedly really good.
256KBps but yes very good quality.
Also AAC is the only Bluetooth codec available in the Apple eco system. They never pay for licensing of codecs that add nothing to the table.

You mean for IOS? Yes AAC, for Macs or Mac OS Aptx is available.
 

JimWeir

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
15
Likes
15
I am motived to do a detailed analysis and testing of bluetooth codecs. Need to assemble the right sources and receivers with easy ability to select codecs, their profiles, etc.

And yes, the idea of testing different BT codecs came from youtube comments on previous videos.
The AAC comment about preecho is false. You are looking at a frequency plot. What you are seeing is the effect of the windowing function of the frames or records of the codec. It has nothing to do with when thing occur.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
34,942
Likes
129,740
Location
Seattle Area
The AAC comment about preecho is false. You are looking at a frequency plot. What you are seeing is the effect of the windowing function of the frames or records of the codec. It has nothing to do with when thing occur.
It is a duality. The quantization in occurs in frequency domain and hence spreads the noise throughput the frame in time domain.
 

JimWeir

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
15
Likes
15
It is a duality. The quantization in occurs in frequency domain and hence spreads the noise throughput the frame in time domain.
Using that logic wouldn’t earlier in frequency be longer in time? I just think calling it a pre-echo it misleading what you seeing in the measurement. If indeed we are seeing a widening of the effective noise bandwidth of the device in the reproduction of a tone, and not a family of side bands, then you can say the response of the device increases noise
but not before the tone cycle begins.

this performance typical of an FFT wit a windowing function that does not reach zero at the ends of the frame of record. The CODEC is probably truncating lower bits to preserve processing bandwidth.

just my two bits.
 
Top Bottom