5 ms·

Bluetooth audio itself uses digital compression to keep the bandwidth low, and has a whole bunch of optional codecs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluet

Bluetooth audio itself uses digital compression to keep the bandwidth low, and has a whole bunch of optional codecs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles#Advanced_Audio_Distribution_Profile_.28A2DP.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles#Adv...). Your Kenwood may not support the higher quality codecs, meaning it would sound worse than a comparable headphone jack aux cable.

1_2__4 9y ago
Even the best codecs used for BT audio are lossy, aren't they? So wouldn't an aux or lightning connection always sound better?
- rusk 9y ago
  I think that's the point he's making.
  - 1_2__4 9y ago
    I don't think it is? He said: > Your Kenwood may not support the higher quality codecs, meaning it would sound worse than a comparable headphone jack aux cable. That implies there's BT audio codecs that sound the same (or I guess better, but I think he/she probably meant "same") as an aux cable. I was saying I don't think that's true, that even the best BT audio codecs are (noticeably) inferior to in-phone-DAC-to-analog connections.
    - rusk 9y ago
      Sorry yeah missed out on the "best" audio codecs part of your predicate, as if to say "the ceiling is lower than you think" - sorry
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- discreditable 9y ago
  It's a shame that Bluetooth can't do something like a stream copy. Quality could be better if your phone could pass the raw mp3/vorbis/opus stream over BT. Even with HQ codes like aptX it's pretty silly to be converting 256k mp3 to aptX at similar or higher bitrate.
  - rusk 9y ago
    Isn't that Bluetooth file transfer? Good idea but I guess the idea of a streaming protocol is it addresses realtime concerns in an unreliable medium. Imho that's the kind of thing analogue coding schemes are better at.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  If it can output 320kbps MP3 or equivalent, nobody's gonna notice unless you tell them.
  - Zpalmtree 9y ago
    Of course this is correct if you being with a lossless file, but if you start with an already lossy file, despite it being possible to sound the same as a lossless file, when you re-encode it with a different encoding, for example ogg -> mp3, you'll lose different parts of the file in the compression algorithm, so it will end up sounding worse. I can't say I know how the different bluetooth audio codecs work of course.
- keeperofdakeys 9y ago
  Just because it's lossy doesn't mean it can't sound good, but sure aux and lightning are probably better choices if you're concerned about it sounding good. The huge audio difference described above is atypical from my experience, so I'd blame the stereo's bluetooth support before bluetooth audio itself.

1_2__4 9y ago

Even the best codecs used for BT audio are lossy, aren't they? So wouldn't an aux or lightning connection always sound better?

rusk 9y ago
I think that's the point he's making.
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  I don't think it is? He said: > Your Kenwood may not support the higher quality codecs, meaning it would sound worse than a comparable headphone jack aux cable. That implies there's BT audio codecs that sound the same (or I guess better, but I think he/she probably meant "same") as an aux cable. I was saying I don't think that's true, that even the best BT audio codecs are (noticeably) inferior to in-phone-DAC-to-analog connections.
  - rusk 9y ago
    Sorry yeah missed out on the "best" audio codecs part of your predicate, as if to say "the ceiling is lower than you think" - sorry
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
discreditable 9y ago
It's a shame that Bluetooth can't do something like a stream copy. Quality could be better if your phone could pass the raw mp3/vorbis/opus stream over BT. Even with HQ codes like aptX it's pretty silly to be converting 256k mp3 to aptX at similar or higher bitrate.
- rusk 9y ago
  Isn't that Bluetooth file transfer? Good idea but I guess the idea of a streaming protocol is it addresses realtime concerns in an unreliable medium. Imho that's the kind of thing analogue coding schemes are better at.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
If it can output 320kbps MP3 or equivalent, nobody's gonna notice unless you tell them.
- Zpalmtree 9y ago
  Of course this is correct if you being with a lossless file, but if you start with an already lossy file, despite it being possible to sound the same as a lossless file, when you re-encode it with a different encoding, for example ogg -> mp3, you'll lose different parts of the file in the compression algorithm, so it will end up sounding worse. I can't say I know how the different bluetooth audio codecs work of course.
keeperofdakeys 9y ago
Just because it's lossy doesn't mean it can't sound good, but sure aux and lightning are probably better choices if you're concerned about it sounding good. The huge audio difference described above is atypical from my experience, so I'd blame the stereo's bluetooth support before bluetooth audio itself.