Showing 1 of 17 conversations about:
rastus
868
Sep 10, 2017
bookmark_border
What these folks are doing is bypassing the poor DAC typically on the Bluetooth chips, sending the data to the other off-chip superior DAC, here an AK4396 and also up-sampling. Most Bluetooth devices are, have been until recently, an audio "system-on-chip", an SoC, kinda like a PoS, thus the bad rap most here give them. I have a no-name Chinese Bluetooth (CSR8670) DAC that sends off to a 24bit ES9023 then a MUSES02, and it sounds great in the kitchen (pic). Bluetooth is just a transport means that can do up to 24Mb/s, and if it gets a good signal it can be just fine for what it is. The idea here is anyone can walk into the kitchen, linkup and play some very decent music. Oh,, if doing Bluetooth,
search
get a decent antenna please:) don't try to hide it, it's important... this bluMe has one and looks like a fine, well thought-out product.
Sep 10, 2017
hyOzd
3
Oct 28, 2017
bookmark_border
Bluetooth cannot do 24Mbps. Technically Bluetooth 3.0 can do it; but *over Wi-Fi*. This only happens between devices that has Wi-Fi. I've never seen it used. Practical rate of Bluetooth is around 1Mbps.
Oct 28, 2017
rastus
868
Oct 28, 2017
bookmark_border
I have google... I am assuming you do too?
I stand corrected though, was looking at older stuff, it is now up to 54Mb/s... thanks for making me look.
Tired of folks denegrating a communication protocol that simply uses an ignored so-called “trash” frequency. Yes it is limited range, that is known, use it for what it can do, and that is actually quite a bit (pun intended).
“Thomas J. Watson Jr. of I.B.M. is said to have opined in 1943 that, “I think there is a world market for about five computers.””
Pretty much the same was thought about 2400 to 2483.5 MHz until this age, that has a desire for short range communication.
search


https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/bluetooth-core-specification
“BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION Version 5.0 | Vol 1, Part A page 166 Architecture 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Bluetooth wireless technology is a short-range communications system intended to replace the cable(s) connecting portable and/or fixed electronic devices. The key features of Bluetooth wireless technology are robustness, low power consumption, and low cost. Many features of the core specification are optional, allowing product differentiation. There are two forms of Bluetooth wireless technology systems: Basic Rate (BR) and Low Energy (LE). Both systems include device discovery, connection establishment and connection mechanisms. The Basic Rate system includes optional Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) Alternate Media Access Control (MAC) and Physical (PHY) layer extensions. The Basic Rate system offers synchronous and asynchronous connections with data rates of 721.2 kb/s for Basic Rate, 2.1 Mb/s for Enhanced Data Rate and high speed operation up to 54 Mb/s with the 802.11 AMP. The LE system includes features designed to enable products that require lower current consumption, lower complexity and lower cost than BR/EDR. The LE system is also designed for use cases and applications with lower data rates and has lower duty cycles. Depending on the use case or application, one system including any optional parts may be more optimal than the other.”
Oct 28, 2017
hyOzd
3
Oct 29, 2017
bookmark_border
Do you know what 802.11 is? And are you sure that this device has it?
Oct 29, 2017
rastus
868
Oct 29, 2017
bookmark_border
Nowhere am I stating this device has it, the statements are in regards to Bluetooth capabilities. I really am also pointing out the deficiencies of typical Bluetooth solutions with low quality on-board DACs in SoC's (PoS's), that are widely used, giving Bluetooth the undeserved bad rap. This product is not in that schnickschnack category.
Bluetooth is a simply a useful protocol, and yes it can make use of 802.11 (bandwidth) for high data transfer as well, it crosses over, albeit at a power cost. So what are you really asking here, or just Bluetooth bashing for what reason? I am also a weenie marketing person too... guess it needs re-branding from all the dumping I see here... might as well be named BlueButt for some thinkers... so much for naming it after a King...
Next folks will say CCA, yes it is WiFi streaming, but not fidelity with an AK4430 THD -91dB, and using a DRV632 op-amp SNR 90dB. A cheap little doll hockey puck that makes some decent sound. Oh, but it's WiFi 802.11;) lol it takes more than that, every component in the chain... The confluence is coming in wireless streaming, merging quality and convenience and not in a closed format as some are, not buying. We have the hardware available to stream DSD, if we wish... Google can make a better grab at this market than what they did, or someone else will.
Hell,, somebody take a Snapdragon 835 and put it in a receiving Bluetooth/WiFi DAC unit, jobs been done pretty much for you... have a unit using the SoC itself, and an upgraded one with a nice off-board DAC, Rubycon thin-film caps and some nice MUSES03's and I'm in:)
search

search
Oct 29, 2017
hyOzd
3
Oct 29, 2017
bookmark_border
@rastus I think you misunderstood me. I never meant to bash bluetooth. Sorry, if it came that way. I use a bluetooth headset myself. And I like it. Heck I'm currently in the process of developing a Bluetooth device myself (not audio though). I merely wanted to point out that Bluetooth cannot do 24mbps by itself. Nevertheless, in practice data rate of communication protocol isn't everything. Depending on the device, antenna design can be far more important which is usually limited by the physical structure of the device. That's one of the reasons why devices must be tested for actual use case. Just saying that bluetooth does 24mbps means nothing to the customer.
Oct 29, 2017
rastus
868
Oct 30, 2017
bookmark_border
On same page I think then, nice stuff coming, maybe... BT orchestrates and grabs other bands to do the heavy hauling, works: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1273551
Ironically the Echo Dot, FFS, has a 802.11 AMP capable Qualcomm Atheros QCA6234 chip in it, but not giving us the level of use we would like for audio, Tesla is putting it in the cars as well, hotspot comm portal. I think Apple TV and the Fire stick? Same issue, not fidelity. I say put this one in a decent wireless DAC... I said the 835 as a lark, don't really need a phone in the DAC:) dug around and found this QCA6234 chip...
We will see if we really get this, like unlocking FM on your phone,, follow the money... I couldn't find a consumer wireless DAC with BT/WiFi 802.11 AMP in it, nor any hack even building one, they are still on the bit-perfect, holy grail quest... not the unholy wireless decent into darkness... wonder when they really do get the time to listen to music?
I'm only on this wireless thing because God wanted one, my wife, and I understand that the general public wants the press the phone or the talk to it and make it sing and play solution. So why not give them the best solution possible,, because we will often have to listen to it as well, for hours...
Oct 30, 2017
View Full Discussion