Why are most bookshelf speakers made for analog?

[DaveDee]

Most people aren't listening to music on record players or CD players anymore. They listen to digital playlists, whether through smartphone or computer.

I got the Neumi BS5P recently and it comes with a RCA to RCA cable instead of a RCA to 3.5mm cable. Why? The latter should be the norm.

 

[kongwee]

Because bookshelf only accept audio analog. Also people enjoying listen on sofa.

 

[Duckeenie]

The majority of the smartphone market doesn't want to plug their phone into a pair of speakers, they're happy using bluetooth.

 

[JiiPee]

I'd say that there are two separate categories:

a) Bookshelf speakers that are intended to be on bookshelves or speaker stands, and connected to audio electronics via speaker cables if passive, or via rca/XLR/spdiff/toslink/usb/wireless if active.

b) Desktop speakers that are intended to be connected to computers/PDAs/smartphones via various means typical to those equipment.

The use cases are different.

 

[JiiPee]

Even though majority of us may listen music from computers (whether from a local computer, or via network), it does not necessarily mean that we want to connect our speakers directly to that computer (or to some connected wireless device). Many of use separate DACs and separate amplifiers anyway.

 

[AudiOhm]

Actually I am surprised that any Audio equipment comes with cables any more.

I have so many, I wish they would stop.

Ohms

 

[DaveDee]

The majority of the smartphone market doesn't want to plug their phone into a pair of speakers, they're happy using bluetooth.

Has anyone ever measured bluetooth? I assume it's terrible.

 

[DaveDee]

Even though majority of us may listen music from computers (whether from a local computer, or via network), it does not necessarily mean that we want to connect our speakers directly to that computer (or to some connected wireless device). Many of use separate DACs and separate amplifiers anyway.

Is there a real benefit to using, say, a Topping D10s with active speakers? Just louder volume? I was considering getting one but my speakers are already powered so I don't know if the difference would be significant.

 

[Moderate Dionysianism]

Has anyone ever measured bluetooth? I assume it's terrible.

No it isn't. The LDAC codec performs really well:

Topping BC3 Review (Bluetooth Receiver) & BT CODECs

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Topping BC3 Bluetooth receiver and headphone amplifier. It was sent to me by the online seller, Yaoyaotiger HIFI Audio Store and costs US $69. This is a follow up to our previous tests of Bluetooth receivers and investigating performance of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

FiiO BTR7 Review (Portable DAC & HP Amp)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the FiiO BTR7 portable battery operated USB & Bluetooth DAC and THX balanced headphone amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $199.99. A bright, high contrast IPS LCD greets you with lovely/star-trek style fonts which I liked very...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Fiio BTA30 Pro Bluetooth Transmitter and Receiver + DAC - Review

Hello Here is a review of a special device: This device is a Bluetooth Audio Transmitter, Receiver and DAC. This is the Fiio BTA30 Pro. The BTA30 Pro is about half the dimension of the (1U / half 19") RME ADI-2 Pro fs R in all directions: Half width, half height (without the antenna)...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[JiiPee]

Actually I am surprised that any Audio equipment comes with cables any more.

I have so many, I wish they would stop.

Ohms

Maybe in the future we have wireless connections and battery powered equipment with a separate charging station? Of course this is already what we have with PDAs/smartphones.

 

[Talisman]

Has anyone ever measured bluetooth? I assume it's terrible.

you're assuming wrong, you probably wouldn't be able to hear the difference even at low average bitrates, And in any case it's possible that some smartphone dac implementations are an even worse evil

 

[Hexspa]

No it isn't. The LDAC codec performs really well:

Topping BC3 Review (Bluetooth Receiver) & BT CODECs

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Topping BC3 Bluetooth receiver and headphone amplifier. It was sent to me by the online seller, Yaoyaotiger HIFI Audio Store and costs US $69. This is a follow up to our previous tests of Bluetooth receivers and investigating performance of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

FiiO BTR7 Review (Portable DAC & HP Amp)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the FiiO BTR7 portable battery operated USB & Bluetooth DAC and THX balanced headphone amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $199.99. A bright, high contrast IPS LCD greets you with lovely/star-trek style fonts which I liked very...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Fiio BTA30 Pro Bluetooth Transmitter and Receiver + DAC - Review

Hello Here is a review of a special device: This device is a Bluetooth Audio Transmitter, Receiver and DAC. This is the Fiio BTA30 Pro. The BTA30 Pro is about half the dimension of the (1U / half 19") RME ADI-2 Pro fs R in all directions: Half width, half height (without the antenna)...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Old Bluetooth had more limitations. Afaik Apple is not supporting the most recent version. I could be wrong.

 

[Hexspa]

you're assuming wrong, you probably wouldn't be able to hear the difference even at low average bitrates, And in any case it's possible that some smartphone dac implementations are an even worse evil

Is it not so that even the most basic Bluetooth supports almost 300kbps? The question is whether all that data is for audio and I believe it’s not. Using a regular mp3 as a standard, I think most people can distinguish between 128kbps lossy and lossless, even if it takes some training. By 256kbps, I’m not sure and I consider 320kbps to functionally identical to lossless assuming you’re just listening and not heavily processing the file.

 

[DaveDee]

I believe anything wired always performs better than wireless, even if inappreciable.

 

[bodhi]

I believe anything wired always performs better than wireless, even if inappreciable.

Many people like to spice up their hobbies with beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Bit strange in my opinion, but different strokes for different folks.

 

[Sal1950]

I believe anything wired always performs better than wireless, even if inappreciable.

Better ? More reliably, possible.
I'm old school and with you on this DaveDee
I use wired network where ever possible, etc.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I believe anything wired always performs better than wireless, even if inappreciable.

I used to believe it too when it came to gaming mice.
Until I got my G700s a few years back.

Never looked at cable mice again. Not having a cable work against you is so much nicer.

In audio: BT isn't lossless, maybe perceptually transparent but still not lossless. Still, convenience beats the potential loss in quality by a landslide.
Transmission via wireless home network is literally bit-perfect.

 

[DaveDee]

Many people like to spice up their hobbies with beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Bit strange in my opinion, but different strokes for different folks.

Better ? More reliably, possible.
I'm old school and with you on this DaveDee
I use wired network where ever possible, etc.

That's what I meant by better, as in more reliable.

 

[jasonhanjk]

Has anyone ever measured bluetooth? I assume it's terrible.

BT still losses to wired, even with the latest 5.3.

 

[TonyJZX]

i think OP is skipping a few steps

there's active speakers

there's active speakers w/ bluetooth

there's passive speakers

pick your poison... capitalism means there's heaps of choice in these categories