Bluetooth tempo and pitch issues?

Rel - I didn't even know such an item existed, so I certainly haven't heard it.

Think about this: any codec used by Bluetooth has to be lossy in order to fit within the available bandwidth. Additionally, a CD player needs a bit-rate of at least 1.4 megabit-per-second for stereo, and A2DP allows for a maximum of 512 kilobits-per-second for stereo.

I'm not saying Bluetooth can't offer a 'quite satisfactory musical experience', but even you admit it's not as good as your Wavelength. I LOVE the convenience of Bluetooth music, but not for serious listening -- in MY opinion, & from MY experience.

M_snow: You seem to be throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall in the hope that something will stick.

You admit (now) that Bluetooth can offer a "satisfactory musical experience," but initially stated that it involved a "HUGE loss in quality." When asked why a company like Chord would sell a $10,000 Bluetooth-enabled amp if the use of Bluetooth entailed such a HUGE loss in quality, you replied that you have neither heard--nor heard of--the unit, and declined to comment.

OK, fair enough; but then you say, essentially, that Bluetooth couldn't possibly sound any good, as its 0.5 megabit per second data rate is less than half that of the CD standard (1.4 megabits per second). This spec may have applied to the very first Bluetooth devices, but current (3.0 and above) devices have data rates of 3 to 24 megabits per second--more than adequate for CD.

The data rate, however, in and of itself, is not a very reliable indicator of overall audio quality. The CD standard was not, after all, carved on stone tablets and handed down from on high. It was merely the best that the Sony & Philips engineers had to offer at the time that CD was introduced.

I could just as easily say that CDs represent a HUGE loss in quality when compared to SACDs (which offer a bandwidth 5 times greater than CD) and that CDs are, therefore, unsuitable for serious listening. The fact is that while SACDs are theoretically capable of better sound than CDs, there are many well-recorded CDs that SOUND a whole lot better than many poorly recorded SACDs.

Bottom line, bandwidth is only one of many factors that affect the quality of a recording. How it actually SOUNDS is what really counts. And when I asked what kind of set-up you were using that allowed you to conclude that Bluetooth SOUNDS really bad, I received no reply.

Then you attempt to use my own testimony against me by saying "even you admit it's not as good as your Wavelength," which is true, BUT when I offered that observation it was to illustrate that the twice-as-expensive Wavelength DAC sounds better AS A DAC then the more modest Chordette Gem does AS A DAC. How each DAC receives its input (whether via USB or Bluetooth) probably contributes a relatively small amount to how each unit sounds.

As audiophiles, we are all, no doubt, in search of the best possible sound, but there are many times when something just a notch down will do just fine. So if you are willing (at times) to listen to vinyl rather than master tapes; to digital rather than analog; to CDs rather than SACDs; to AIFF rather than WAV; to ALAC rather than AIFF, then you might just possibly want to consider Bluetooth!
-

lol...sorry Rel for abandoning this thread for a bit. I'm pretty sure that it is my crap belkin bluetooth adapter that is to blame, but I'm not sure either that I want to fork over for the 600 plus for the Chordette. I do love sitting and being able to browse on the ipad and playback whatever i find through my system, so it may have to happen. I found one by ARCAM for 250, but haven't found any reviews on the quality. I'm not getting into a debate about wireless vs wired. I work in a professional recording studio where wireless is always forbiden. I agree though that in some cases, for convenience, it is nice to use a wireless connection. Just looking for other devices like the chordette around. I really don't want to go down the wifi/sonus route, as they seem to be inserting their amps and routers into a world where we already have all that stuff.
If bluetooth is on that 10,000 dollar amp, I agree, it must have a benchmark far better than what i have now...so I'll keep looking! thanks for the input.
jack

Jmacinnis: I do NOT work in a professional recording studio, but when I listen to some of the recordings produced in such places, I sometimes wonder about those who do! ;-)

Glad that you chimed back in. I'm gonna guess that your Belkin is the most likely source of your problem. I haven't surveyed the Bluetooth receiver offerings of late, but I've been pretty happy with the ARCAM receiver (not a Bluetooth receiver, but a 5 channel all-in-one unit) that I use in a secondary system, so you might want to investigate their offering further.

Bluetooth is becoming more and more common, but primarily on the lower end, which is why so many seem to have such a poor impression of it. Little wireless speakers like the Jawbone Jambox--and others far less capable--have begun to proliferate profusely. I recently discovered my beloved Tivoli PAL (Henry Kloss's Portable Audio Lab) now comes in a Bluetooth version. (OK, now I've completely blown all my audiophile cred).

The fact that wireless is forbidden in your recording studio is interesting, but doesn't really prove anything. Too often, such decisions are made on the basis of inaccurate preconceptions, or other practical considerations that may have nothing to do with the actual audio quality.

Somehow, I seem to be painting myself into a corner as a starry-eyed Bluetooth booster. This is really not the case. All I'm really trying to say is that Bluetooth may not be nearly as bad as you think, and might even be completely acceptable in a particular application.

Or to repeat that most tiresome of audio clichés: Trust Your Ears!
-