Wifi streaming or is BT AptX etc good enough now?

[NoxMorbis]

I have a chance to receive one of these transmitter/receivers for streaming. It's a WiFi solution, not Bluetooth. The trans plugs into a 3.5mm audio out, such as a computer. As such, it would be using the computers' sound card or onboard sound option. Or is BT using aptx aptxHD, or even LC3 (the new codec coming) LDAC etc good enough now?

I can send it to Amir too.


Link: WiFi Streaming

 

[JRS]

That's a good question as I would love to untether my phone and BT audio to my DAC.

 

[NoxMorbis]

That's a good question as I would love to untether my phone and BT audio to my DAC.

You almost never see WiFi streaming options anymore. Sound Blaster made one, but it was a USB type that used it's on sound card built into the USB dongle. I never thought about sound quality back then. It sounded the same to me, the same as playing a CD vs playing a CD in my computer through the Sound Blaster option, but I wasn't trying to really critically judge it. It sounded fine to me for that time in my life. But this one is not using a sound card, but like you say, relies on your source.

I also don't know how clean the item is. I guess Amir would have to test it. If it tested well, it would be well worth requesting it and having it for future use. You enver can tell when something like this will not be offered again (since BT dominate wireless audio now, for better or worse).

 

[JRS]

You almost never see WiFi streaming options anymore. Sound Blaster made one, but it was a USB type that used it's on sound card built into the USB dongle. I never thought about sound quality back then. It sounded the same to me, the same as playing a CD vs playing a CD in my computer through the Sound Blaster option, but I wasn't trying to really critically judge it. It sounded fine to me for that time in my life. But this one is not using a sound card, but like you say, relies on your source.

I also don't know how clean the item is. I guess Amir would have to test it. If it tested well, it would be well worth requesting it and having it for future use. You enver can tell when something like this will not be offered again (since BT dominate wireless audio now, for better or worse).

You'd be surprised--I would hazard to say that nearly all stereo receivers and AVR's have BT, many, if not most DAC/preamp/amp combos in one form or another have BT input, as do many active speakers systems. Finally, for the use case where one has an older device without BT fuctionality, there are dedicated receivers that pick up and output in digital and/or will convert to analog output.
is
From what I can tell the aptX delta modulation is transparent, esp those using the higher sampling rates--most have greater than 320k capability, not sure about SBC which if I understand things fine--is a lower fidelity default should sustaining higher rates be a problem. Given I have trouble discerning FLAC from 320, I'm sure it's fine in that regard. Was just curious if anyone out there with a high quality system has found that not to be true. I know that some authorities have issues with using a phone or tablet in any form and that a hardwired laptop at a minimum is required for the best sound.

 

[NoxMorbis]

You'd be surprised--I would hazard to say that nearly all stereo receivers and AVR's have BT, many, if not most DAC/preamp/amp combos in one form or another have BT input, as do many active speakers systems. Finally, for the use case where one has an older device without BT fuctionality, there are dedicated receivers that pick up and output in digital and/or will convert to analog output.
is
From what I can tell the aptX delta modulation is transparent, esp those using the higher sampling rates--most have greater than 320k capability, not sure about SBC which if I understand things fine--is a lower fidelity default should sustaining higher rates be a problem. Given I have trouble discerning FLAC from 320, I'm sure it's fine in that regard. Was just curious if anyone out there with a high quality system has found that not to be true. I know that some authorities have issues with using a phone or tablet in any form and that a hardwired laptop at a minimum is required for the best sound.

I was talking about WiFi 2.4 vs Bt WiFi, I know it's confusing. Sure, BT is everywhere, but true WiFi (non Bluetooth) options like the product mentioned above is a rare bear. True WiFi is lossless. Whatever gets transferred gets received exactly as it was transferred, no compression codecs. The only loss is signal loss due to a poor WiFi signal. BT took over because it is more adaptive to mobile system, whereas WiFi sucks a lot more power than BT. It is is what it is and can't really be modified like BT can for low power etc.

For a home system, WiFi transfer is preferable to BT because you're not limited to a battery operated device and WiFi is not a non compressed transfer. I mean, that's the theory, but BT is getting so good I just wonder if going WiFi nonBT is really worth it anymore. Also, WiFi 2.4 has 11 channels while BT has something like 40-80, and BT doesn't broadcast as far as WiFi 2.4, so interference with WiFi is another problem BT tries to solve.

 

[Syntactic]

If you can get a good Bluetooth connection in your home, AptX is great. It's effectively lossless. LDAC is also an excellent codec but it uses more battery and has higher latency.

I would go wifi over SBC in a heartbeat, but if you have AptX or any of its newer variants then you're good.

 

[JRS]

I was talking about WiFi 2.4 vs Bt WiFi, I know it's confusing. Sure, BT is everywhere, but true WiFi (non Bluetooth) options like the product mentioned above is a rare bear. True WiFi is lossless. Whatever gets transferred gets received exactly as it was transferred, no compression codecs. The only loss is signal loss due to a poor WiFi signal. BT took over because it is more adaptive to mobile system, whereas WiFi sucks a lot more power than BT. It is is what it is and can't really be modified like BT can for low power etc.

For a home system, WiFi transfer is preferable to BT because you're not limited to a battery operated device and WiFi is not a non compressed transfer. I mean, that's the theory, but BT is getting so good I just wonder if going WiFi nonBT is really worth it anymore. Also, WiFi 2.4 has 11 channels while BT has something like 40-80, and BT doesn't broadcast as far as WiFi 2.4, so interference with WiFi is another problem BT tries to solve.

Oh, ok, my bad. I would love to get rid of speaker wire altogether. Especially as more and more channels are called into play. Jiminy XMAS, one has 4 SW's and full ATMOS, it is a jungle for those of us faced with temporary installs.

 

[NoxMorbis]

If you can get a good Bluetooth connection in your home, AptX is great. It's effectively lossless. LDAC is also an excellent codec but it uses more battery and has higher latency.

I would go wifi over SBC in a heartbeat, but if you have AptX or any of its newer variants then you're good.

Original aptX is not even close to lossless but you probably can't tell the difference. Not even aptX HD is lossless, but they say is "sounds like on a par with 24-bit / 48kHz or even 24-bit / 96kHz." Qualcomm's new aptX Lossless is suppose to do CD quality. But it still has compression to get it under BT's 1 Mbps rate (CD is 1.4Mbps). The difference in the new aptX lossless is that even though it still compresses, it inflates without any loss of bits, like FLAC does.

You know, since I just read about that new aptX lossless codec, I'm just not going to worry about WiFi streaming anymore. The trouble is now finding support for the new codec, as they tend to roll out slowly. The new Aiyima 08 pro I have supports aptX, aptX HD, LDAC, but no aptX Lossless. And then you ahve the Windows ghetto system that only supports aptX, even currently, no matter what BT card you have installed.

I think my question is answered! I'm not going to worry about WiFi vs BT anymore.

 

[NoxMorbis]

Oh, ok, my bad. I would love to get rid of speaker wire altogether. Especially as more and more channels are called into play. Jiminy XMAS, one has 4 SW's and full ATMOS, it is a jungle for those of us faced with temporary installs.

You would need two amps one for each speaker and two seperate BT sinks, one for each speaker, and tehn it would somehow have to keep the latency between each speaker aligned. Is there such a thing?

 

[JayGilb]

You would need two amps one for each speaker and two seperate BT sinks, one for each speaker, and tehn it would somehow have to keep the latency between each speaker aligned. Is there such a thing?

I'm guessing it would have to be a pair of powered speakers with one of them acting as bluetooth receiver and then a tethered connection to the other speaker.

 

[NoxMorbis]

I'm guessing it would have to be a pair of powered speakers with one of them acting as bluetooth receiver and then a tethered connection to the other speaker.

Well, that's the way it is now, yes, the amp resides in one of the speaker boxes, and a speaker wire connects the passive side. In order to get rid of that power connection to the passive side, well, I don't know if that is actually possible due to limitations of physics itself.

I once had a system that used satellite speakers and a sub / woofer and I hide all of the wires either in the ceiling or under the raised floor under the house. Other than that, string 'em out!

 

[Chazz6]

From the ad: "Wireless audio transmitter and receiver support 2.4GHz, the delay is less than 20ms." If your home network would benefit from an additional device able to receive both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, no go here. I don't know enough to evaluate the 20 ms delay.

 

[DWPress]

Ummmmm, Apple has been doing this for a number of years now. Airplay anyone????

I just picked up a 3rd gen Apple TV with optical out for $5 at a Restore and even the old tech will run circles (on paper, not audibly) around most BT codexes.

 

[NoxMorbis]

Ummmmm, Apple has been doing this for a number of years now. Airplay anyone????

I just picked up a 3rd gen Apple TV with optical out for $5 at a Restore and even the old tech will run circles (on paper, not audibly) around most BT codexes.

You mean AAC?