Hi all,
Just wondering anybody know of a decent android phone which I could use as a bluetooth music player?
I would like 5" or higher screen or as close to 5" as possible.
Also would want a decent android experience, e.g. not a laggy phone!
Doesn't have to be latest android or anything.
Only requirement is larger screen, not laggy and has bluetooth.
Don't care about it having 4G or anything else.
Thanks
IIRC, testing indicates that high-bitrate SBC will generally not produce audible artefacts:
http://soundexpert.org/encoders
http://soundexpert.org/news/-/blogs/bluetooth-audio-quality-…
http://soundexpert.org/news/-/blogs/audio-quality-of-bluetoo…
(I know it's only one site, but there aren't many other good tests.)
aptX does offer much lower latency, which is good for gaming and perhaps even movies when you can't adjust the sync manually. Not much difference for music though.
Most listening devices, even many expensive ones, don't support aptX anyway.
A lot of the time the reason an aptX-capable receiver sounds better is because the hardware is better (DAC, amp, etc.), not because the codec is better. The hardware has a greater effect.
Basically: sure, get something that supports aptX if you can, but don't rule out those that don't support it. They're not automatically bad. Interesting to note that no Apple/iOS devices support aptX, though they do support AAC (over A2DP). I don't know how many receivers support AAC.
A note about Android: there have been reported issues with skipping BT audio on phones with v4.4+ (when they introduced the Bluedroid stack). I personally haven't had issues with my G4.
I'd argue that Apple has always been using their proprietary stuff anyways. There have constantly been rumours around them ditching the conventional 3.5mm plug for example, with lightning port or 2.5mm headphone jack. If I go into the territory that I can remember, they didn't allow using FLAC on iPods (I assume license issues, though FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Codec?), they used ALAC. I've heard stuff about video codecs on iPads (how they support less codecs than Galaxy Tab series), but that's an area that I have little clue in. Not to mention, Apple has been slow with adapting technology like NFC and newer Bluetooth specifications.
That said, I think you might be right given that everything is perfect. I haven't seen any comparative data on aptX and SBC on the website (they mention that they require some user input to create a test file for aptX). The results they are showing for SBC, according to their measurement system are fairly low in the list in both cases (High and Medium quality).
If you look at 320kbps+ list, SBC results are near the bottom (Max. bitrate is slightly better, but "High" quality one is at the bottom). Looking at their scoring system, there were cases where people can hear little audio artifacts (score of 4). However, the average score was above 5 . I personally think if SBC can perform this well consistently, it wouldn't be problematic for many if not most people.
If you go into 224kbps, (for "medium" quality), the results vary from 3 to 5 which is distinctly audible but tolerable sound artifacts to no artifact. The average lies closer to 5 (4.8 something, I've closed the page before finishing this), but I think it shows that there can easily be audio artifacts with SBC. I'd assume this is where most people's complaints came from. I've seen people complaining about how Nexus series don't support aptX and they found it noticible coming from phones that support aptX.
I've found many devices nowadays support aptX anyways. I've even seen some $20 USD Chinese brand one with aptX support (I've seen them from Amazon as well, so I don't think they were lying).
Yea, I recall reading the argument somewhere that all modern devices (should) use max bitrate anyway, given that modern Bluetooth can easily support that rate. But it's difficult to find hard data on this, unfortunately.
Then where is the point of having specfications?
Anyways, this is pretty much circular. I don't think any of us can say for certain that aptX is better than SBC. At best, you can only make educated guesses. However, I think I've given supports on why some people might hear artifacts in their product using SBC given the specifications and given the scores given on the website you've provided.
If I go into making educated guesses with SBC and aptX, these will probably be it.
The trend is, higher bitrate, the better the score is (from just looking at the trend from the website). Using this correlational relationship, I can make these hypothesis. aptX will at least likely be better than medium quality (due to how it's specifications says higher bitrate than SBC medium quality). I'd assume similar results for high quality SBC as well, simply because of the bitrate difference in specifications. These guesses are made with assumptions that at the very least aptX performs equal to SBC at same bitrate (which I personally don't think is unreasonable).
I don't know what the maximum bitrate that aptX can get to, therefore I think talking outside the spec and making comparisons solely on "what is possible" is questionable at best. It's plausible that aptX and SBC can be similar in this category, however, I cannot make that kind of assumptions without having any evidence.
Also, another thing is, even if aptX performs better, whether it can be heard by human is another question (though as I said, I've seen people complaining about no aptX support on Nexus, so I think the differences is at least detectable by human ears?)
I'm not saying SBC is better than aptX, nor am I saying that aptX is pointless. What I am saying is that aptX is not necessarily a requirement for a good listening experience. It might make it better. It might not. Those differences might not be audible at all. It might even make it worse when you have other connection issues, given the smaller buffer size.
Then where is the point of having specfications?
When I say max bitrate SBC, I really do mean the maximum bitrate as defined in the specifications.
Oh, I did some digging and found the original article I was looking at about a month ago (the site has since gone down): https://web.archive.org/web/20150811025242/http://bringsound…
A representative of Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR), the company which currently owns the rights to the aptX codec, privately acknowledged to me that the theoretical difference in sound quality between aptX and SBC isn’t necessarily audible in normal music reproduction.
So, yea. The difference might be more apparent with higher dynamic ranges, e.g. orchestral pieces. But I'd guess that you wouldn't be able to hear a difference with the majority of music, and even with the rest you'd need pretty high-grade audio equipment.
I don't know what the maximum bitrate that aptX can get to, therefore I think talking outside the spec and making comparisons solely on "what is possible" is questionable at best.
Apparently aptX is typically 384kbps. Already higher than the max for SBC. But note, again, that at no point did I go "outside the spec". Also note that while SBC is clearly defined with minimal requirements for A2DP, devices are actually free to implement any codec they wish, and presumably at any rate they wish above the minimum. If you really want to talk "outside the spec", aptX as a whole goes further "outside the spec" than any bitrate of SBC.
I've seen people complaining about no aptX support on Nexus, so I think the differences is at least detectable by human ears?
As before - the latency difference is quite obvious. I have yet to see any blind tests say that there's definitely an audible difference between max-bitrate SBC and aptX. As far as complaining about lack of support — aptX has been touted as a huge achievement (with a glaring lack of proper blind testing) in CSR press releases and in the media. This is enough for a lot of people to recognise it and want it, regardless of whether it really brings a quality benefit or not.
Again, my point basically is that while aptX might be helpful it's not really required for a good listening experience, for music at least. If it doesn't cost much more to get an aptX-supporting device, or if said device is better for other reasons - sure, go for it! It's not something to avoid. However, it's also not necessarily a reason to rule out, say, a Nexus just because it lacks aptX.
@elusive: Basically, the problem I have with your assumption is that you are assuming that SBC performs at the maximum spec. I've been using recommended settings by Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) in A2DP specifications (A2DP_SPEC, Revision V12) in previous comments (as it was used by the people you've brought up in the first place).
I am simply saying where is the evidence of SBC working at optimal level all the time?
If SBC always uses maximum bitrate, why does SIG give out recommendations on setting? The latest one is from 2015, v.1.3.1, and the spec on the bitrate haven't changed as far as I can see. That's why I've meant by spec. You can bring theoretically optimal bitrate, but without proof that it is being used, I have to stick to the recommended settings, not theoretical maximum spec. Those settings did have audiable artifacts according to the tests that you've brought up.
I've mentioned this before. I personally think it is not unreasonable that aptX and SBC don't have that much difference in optimal condition. I've mentioned this, SBC at maximum bitrate don't look that bad. Also simply from what I've seen with MP3 and other codecs, this makes sense. That said, in optimal condition means a lot, I simply have a huge doubt that SBC will perform at maximum bitrate.
Maybe, I think what you've said about aptX having lack of quality control does make me question the codec slightly. That said I will still rule out devices that don't have aptX if I were going for something that's purely for audio. If you are going for something that's for audio and audio only, it's better to go for something that has more potential. Besides, it's not like aptX means no SBC support as far as I can see. Many devices I know support aptX (every Lumia phone supports them and they are dirt cheap) and most bluetooth headphones that claim they are audiophile grade have aptX support.
Every non aptx device is bad because of how much it skips.
My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. I have no skipping with my SBC devices with Android. A friend had skipping with both aptX and SBC from a range of Android phones (w/ Bluedroid, the old Bluez stack was fine) and receivers but no skips with SBC or AAC from an iPhone. He actually had worse skipping with aptX - the lower latency means a smaller buffer, making it more sensitive to brief interruptions.
Thanks.
I don't really need APTX, just anything that would play stereo over bluetooth.
I am considering a Lumia though due to their lower price. Any recommendations?
If you're looking for a cheap 5" phone just for playing music via Bluetooth then get a China droid. Check focalprice or gearbest etc. OK spec'd chinadroids can be bought for Us$50 delivered.
Any recommendations, seems like quite a few cheap 5" phones only have like 512mb / 1gb ram which will most likely give a pretty crappy android experience. Laggy….
Don't get hung up on ram when you're only using it for audio. A 512 mg ram device will handle audio BT just fine. If you're not wanting to make spreadsheets, 3d game, make calls, listen to music all at the same time then it will be fine.
ah ok. from the looks of it, i just want to use:
1. Audio
2. Youtube
3. Maybe video lol.
Unfortunately, some of the really low spec devices will actually struggle to run, say, Spotify. At the bottom are devices that can't even manage smooth music (never mind battery life!). Somewhat better are the devices that'll play fine but lag while you're selecting music - and that can be annoying.
Yeah probably true for most lower end phones, those with s200 or less and 512mb of ram. Just make sure gets something with s400 or better, 1gb of ram, and runs kitkat. I have a zte fit (mind you that phone scores 30k Antutu) and it runs apps like Spotify just as well as any flagship phone, and better than windows phones. Spotify app is buggy on windows phones for some reason.
Lumia 640… It's sub $200 and will do everything you want
The Huawei Y635 are $89 at Australia post at moment. Probably cheapest 5 inch Android phone with OK specs at <$100. S410 plus 1gb of ram, runs Android well.
Hmmm, I hate recommending another OS phone wihtout any reasonable reason, but entire Lumia range supports/will end up supporting aptX.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-au/mobile/support/faq/?action=si…
aptX basically is a bluetooth codec that does compression better than conventional method that many bluetooth devices use (SBC).
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/can-aptx-give-you-better-sound-o…
So if you need something cheap, cheap lumia phone is an option.
In terms of Android phone, I am sure others will bring decent option. I've always heard aptX is almost a must if you are serious about listening music over bluetooth from people, not sure how much it is true. So I will talk about phones with aptX support. If you don't have a bluetooth device with aptX support, you probably would be fine with other phones.
Nexus 5 I've heard don't do aptX along with Nexus 6. I am not too sure about newest addition to Nexus.
LG G2 probably does (but because I've seen few irks with the phone, it's something I mention but not recommend). Though I assume most of LG phones after G2 at the very least supports aptX (on flagship level at least), so they might be an option.
Galaxy S3 onward (on flagship level at least) supports aptX from Samsung side as far as I know. I personally found TouchWiz to be alright after debloating it. If you can't stand TW, custom ROMs are an option as well.
There probably are other phones, I am sure others will bring decent Chinese phones and other brand phones that I have little knowledge in.