Bluetooth 5.2

[jde...@aol.com]

I am not sure if there is hardware to support the question I am about to raise, but I expect it will be a practical question in the near future.  I am thinking about creating a connection to my "legacy" stereo system (Read: old, but still good.  KEF 104.2 speakers.  B&K electronics) without moving my Brennan B2 from its current location in my home.  It seems that Bluetooth 5.2 would be a good solution.  Are there BT 5.2 dongles that would work via the USB ports on the B2?  Any suggestions for BT 5.2 devices for input into the old preamp?  Thanks.  JD

[JFBUK]

Hi,

how far will the Brennan and and your legacy system be apart from each other ?

A long range Bluetooth transmitter/receiver pair would work and you can choose a transmitter that has an optical input you can connect to your B2.

There are various ones available.

I have had one of these connected to my B2 optically and transmitting via Bluetooth to my Yamaha receiver which has native Bluetooth

https://www.fiio.com/bta30pro

A possible alternative to Bluetooth  is these

https://avantree.com/uk/audiplex-2403s-wireless-transmitter-receiver-set

which I came across recently but have no experience of.

John

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

Hi JD

The is a lot in the forum about Bluetooth connections to legacy systems. I would summarise my reading of these (I do not do this myself, just followed some discussions) that your best way forward would be to use the OPTICAL/DIGITAL output from the back of the B2 and connect this to an external Bluetooth DAC transmitter. The DAC/Bluetooth transmitter can then be Bluetooth 5.2 (or whatever your want) compliant AND I believe you can get them with extra powerful - extended range capability.

I think Brennan themselves have deprecated Bluetooth output using the dongle on the B2 (but the capability is still there).

Fred

[jde...@aol.com]

Thank you, John.  Apologies for the delayed response.  I was off visiting my 95 year old mother.  She is still a "hoot".  

The current location of the Brennan is about 10 meters from the legacy system; however, there is also a floor between them.  

In looking at the devices, should I assume I would only need one on the receiving end (the legacy system) or would I need two (one to transmit a stronger signal from the Brennan and one to receive that signal) ?  Joel

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

To use Bluetooth, one needs to be able to both send (from the B2 or something attached to it) Bluetooth signals, at the other end (your amplifier / speakers) you need to be able to receive and interpret the Bluetooth signals.

Fred

[PMB]

Hi JD,

I suggest you buy a Bluetooth receiver for your B&K (is that the guys from Southend - used to make modules?) and try pairing it with the B2. If it won't pair/play or the range isn't sufficient, you could then consider buying a Bluetooth transmitter for the B2 end.

I have noticed we are now shipping Bluetooth dongles marked V5.0, so assume the B2 has some support for Bluetooth V5.0.

Paul

Brennan Support.

[JFBUK]

Paul's suggestion is a good one and if the range is an issue you can connect an output from your B2 to a long range Bluetooth Transmitter to make the connection.

There are a couple of other things to consider.

The B2 can be a fit fussy about what it will connect with for Bluetooth output though I have never had an issue.

As far as I am aware the B2 will only connect using the lower audio quality SBC codec so if you want to have a higher quality audio connection using the aptX HD or LDAC codecs you will need a transmitter anyway.  What you hear is individual and subjective so SBC may sound fine for you.

You should certainly ensure that your receiver supports one or both of these for futureproofing.

John

[Davywhizz]

Just a couple of thoughts on what's been said so far, all of it useful advice. 

Though I've been impressed recently by how much Bluetooth audio has improved, and continues to improve, particularly the LDAC codec, there is still some way to go. I find the claims by the providers  misleading at this stage in the game, such as in suggesting that BT can deliver high resolution audio. Some BT can process high res files, but that's not what arrives at the speakers or headphones. The various codecs compress the audio along the way. 

As I understand it, the problem is that the limited bandwidth of BT (as compared to wifi) restricts audio transmission to below about 1Mbps (1000kbps). LDAC can manage up to 990kbps, but will reduce the quality to 660 or even 330 to maintain a stable connection. You may know that CD quality is seen as requiring 1411. 

The implications for JD are firstly that the quality of the BT connection is key and will probably remain so. Also, that the futureproofing John refers to should include apt-x lossless, which is currently being touted, almost unequivocally,  as offering CD quality (though still with some hedging, such as "designed to scale-up to CD lossless audio based on Bluetooth link quality").

Another way of future-proofing might be to spend a bit more at the hifi end and invest in a DAC that is a BT receiver and also has other digital inputs (optical, coaxial, USB). There are lots of them around, some very well priced and often include a headphone amplifier as a bonus feature.  At a later date, a second B2 plugged optically into that would be a wonderful thing.

[Daniel Taylor]

Paul,

I was surprised to read your message above, in light of the information posted in this thread:  Latest Bluetooth - CSR 4.0 vs 5.0
It was mentioned that Linux 4, used on the B2's Raspberry Pi board, does not support Bluetooth 5.0.

[JFBUK]

Hi Daniel,

I think Paul was just suggesting a strategy to minimize investment up front not that the B2 now supports Bluetooth 5.0 features.

The minimum investment would be to enable the legacy HiFi equipment for Bluetooth reception.

That may work and the performance and sound quality may meet JD's needs.

If not then as Davy and I have commented you can invest to improve things.

John

[Davywhizz]

Once again, you need to unpick the descriptions of the theoretical differences between BT 4 and 5 to find that, for music, in practice there isn't a lot in it. In theory, 5 offers eight times the data at twice the speed and a much bigger connection range. But a lot of the improvements were designed for smart devices and cars. One sensible quote I've seen that may be useful to this discussion is that "a Bluetooth 5 device can transmit far or fast, but not both at once". And the theoretical transfer rate of 2Mbps isn't currently claimed for audio by any of the codecs, which will still compress music files.

[jde...@aol.com]

Thank you all for some great ideas.  I am now thinking about putting the Brennan B2 with the legacy system with the output wired into that system and seeing if the bluetooth output is adequate to reach a "middle-fi" Bluetooth speaker (Klipsch The One) in the kitchen/great room which is one floor up.  Hopefully, I will not need a stronger Bluetooth transmitter or dongle.  Any suggestions for a device if the Bluetooth signal falls off too much?  I plan to obviate the hassle of being on two floors by using a smart plug for the Brennan.  I assume the web-based program that I use to control the Brennan will not be a problem because it is using wi-fi and should have enough power to transmit to the floor below.

I have another question:  Somewhere I read that the Brennan uses the same "radio" for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.  That post suggested that one could not stream internet stations via wi-fi and simultaneously play Bluetooth speakers using the Brennan B2.  That post is manifestly wrong as I have been listening to a fascinating mix of radio stations from around the world with just that sort of arrangement.  Is there a kernel of truth in that post that I am missing?  I assume the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi both operate at 2.4GHz.  Might there be a problem with that sort of setup if the devices are farther apart? JD

[Ray Dion]

JD, 

I'll take a crack at the radio portion of your question. The radios between Bluetooth and WiFi are different, the frequency band is the same. The radios are separate because the format, signal, and exact frequencies in use are different.  While a Bluetooth transmitter might try to broadcast on the same frequency as the WiFi, the circuitry is separate. From a software perspective, it does not even know about the radio aspects. Two different programs running in parallel on the same CPU, memory, and USB bus. Those items are built to share. Nothing in most devices would be designed to use the same radio in this time of cheap chips that do one thing and do it well. Connecting to the same antenna would be fool hearted.

Both devices are capable of using different channels within the same frequency band. Similar to your AM or FM radio. Each has a band of frequencies defined arbitrarily by the respective regulators (FCC in the USA) but you can be assigned different channels so as not to interfere. You may be assigned the same frequency as someone else but that person will be very far away and not interfere with you.

So if your router is smart enough it will detect that the band it is using to connect to clients has a lot of interference. The next time it reboots it may start up on a different channel and then all the clients will find it. The clients look at all channels and search for SSIDs, you chose the SSID and the client knows what channel. You can also manually change your router's channel. I found an interesting article at WiFi and Bluetooth interference - diagnosing and fixing - CodeJourney.net. I can't verify the solution but it makes sense and I have no reason to mistrust it.

You don't have the flexibility to change the Bluetooth.

So you won't have to worry about all of it if there are not a lot of networks available in your home (neighbors). You modify your channel to reduce the interference if necessary and chug on.

I successfully tested streaming radio stations to my Bluetooth EXOGEAR speaker with both wired and WiFi network connections. It worked just fine.

Ray

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

Hi JD

Regarding " Somewhere I read that the Brennan uses the same "radio" for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.  "

The way I think of this is to compare the B2 to a smart phone - 

The phone has 3 radio parts

1) the "telephone" radio which connects to the telephone masts and used for making telephone calls, text messages and (if you have an internet data plan (the SIM card controls this) for connecting to the internet)

2) a WiFi (limited range)  transmitter/receiver which connects to your house or "an internet cafe  type WiFi service (to get an internet connection without using your Internet data plan credits)

3) a short range (ie not very powerful) Bluetooth transmitter/receiver designed for connecting to personal devices you may be physically close to and using (eg wireless ear buds).

Governments, by international agreement, have specified the radio frequencies and "strength" that can be used for 1), 2 & 3) above so that the whole system can work.

2) & 3) are short range, where range = distance with 3) being MUCH shorter distance than 2) and share the same frequency band - which is divided into 16? (not sure about the exact number) channels on which individual devices can transmit. 

It is also important to understand that the signals sent across these systems are digital and the content needs to be encoded before transmission and decoded by the receiver. The senders and receivers know if bits of the data have been corrupted or lost in transmission and can ask for them to be sent again. In other words it is a complex "system" not just a radio connection. Further the "system"/standards for WiFi and Bluetooth are different and separate, even though they are doing similar things, both can exist simultaneously operating within the same radio frequency range. 

It is important to understand that there are specific INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS that all manufacturers have to follow to be able to make and sell and use Bluetooth and WiFi connections and devices and the use of the radio frequency range is controlled by governmental laws.

With the B2, rather than having the Bluetooth and WiFi  devices internally, there hardware delivering these is  plugged into the B2's USB ports. With these hardware dongles plugged in the B2 is capable of delivering you 

2) and 3) connections just like your phone.

The point I am trying to make is that in respect of Bluetooth and WiFi the B2 uses industry standard  3rd party components for these, you could use them in any PC or laptop!

Further, software inside the Brennan that supports WiFi and Bluetooth is not written by Brennan but is part of the Linux Operating System that runs on the Raspberry Pi inside the B2, again an industry standard.

It would be wrong therfore to regards the B2 WiFi, Bluetooth and Ethernet systems a "special" to the B2.

Fred

[PMB]

Hi jde...,

That statement refers to the BB1 - it uses a Raspberry Pi Zero which has the same radio section for WiFi and Bluetooth.

If you find you do need a Bluetooth transmitter, have a look at Avantree and Blitzwolf (and others) as these have an optical input. Using the optical connection between the B2 and the Bluetooth transmitter, keeps the audio signal in the digital domain, reducing the number of analogue-digital conversions which will help maintain best audio quality.

You could also consider Bluetooth devices with aptX - this is a CODEC which further improves audio quality when sent over Bluetooth. The transmitter and receiver must have aptX on-board for it to work.

Paul

Brennan Support.

[jde...@aol.com]

Thank you all for the general explanations of Bluetooth and WiFi with the wisdom and the mercy in sparing me the technical details of what I assume are the complexities of digital multiplexing with error correction.  I am pretty sure the details of multiplexing would have perplexed me!  

As you all predicted, the Bluetooth signal from the Brennan B2 dongle was not strong enough to make it from the location of my legacy system to the location of my "mid Fi" set up in the kitchen/great room.  I think the most cost effective solution may be to get a stronger Bluetooth transmitter to send a signal to the "mid Fi" system and to connect the legacy system directly to the B2.  It looks like that the  fiio.com/bta30pro would be a reasonable option, especially because it has the aptX codec and because it allegedly has a 30 meter range (unobstructed).  The 1Mii B03 also looks good.   Avantree Oasis Plus gets some good reviews.  I wonder if I should just buy a long range Bluetooth transmitter first and see if that is sufficient.

BTW:  Paul asked about the B&K.  The B&K company that produced my preamp and amp were located in Buffalo, NY.  That company has changed hands, perhaps a dozen years ago.  From what I can see, it's main products now are multichannel amplifiers.

Joel

[PMB]

Hi Joel,

Let us know how you get on and what setup you end up with, as I'm sure others will be interested.

Paul

Brennan Support.

[jde...@aol.com]

I saw a conversation on the forum from last year about the Avantree DG60 not working with the Brennan.  The person who posted the message attributed the problem to a lack of backward compatibility of Bluetooth 5 with Bluetooth 4.  Since Avantree noted that the DG60 was Linux compatible and since my B2 came with a Bluetooth 5.0 dongle.  I gave it a shot.  So far, no luck.  The Brennan tells me that it does not have a Bluetooth dongle when I plug the DG60 in.  I plugged the DG60 into my Windows computer and was able to use the Avantree with that device.  I'll see if Avantree or someone on this conversation has any ideas.  If not, I will return it.  It would be good to have some sort of Bluetooth transponder.  One inelegant solution to create a transponder would be to have a Bluetooth receiver near the Brennan and directly connect/wire that receiver to a transmitter.  It would be so much easier if I could only plug in a more powerful Bluetooth transmitter into the USB port!  Joel

[Daniel Taylor]

The way I understand it is this: The Raspberry Pi board that the B2 uses does not have the capability to handle Bluetooth version 5.  The 5.0 dongle that comes with the B2 is backward compatible with version 4.  That information comes from this thread.

If you want the better Bluetooth capability, it would be as you mention near the end of your comment:  "One inelegant solution to create a transponder would be to have a Bluetooth receiver near the Brennan and directly connect/wire that receiver to a transmitter."

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

My understanding differs slightly, as I understand it, it is not the Raspberry Pi board that is the problem. Rather it is the version of Linux that Brennan are using.

Bluetooth requires drivers and some of the more up to date drivers are not backward compatible with older releases of Linux. 

Fred

[Daniel Taylor]

You're right, Fred.  The R.Pi board has Linux 4 on it.  My choice of words was not the best.  The end result is that, unless one is ready, willing and able to perform software surgery on the B2, they will not be getting Bluetooth 5 functionality out of it.

[JFBUK]

Hi Joel,

as per the previous posts the only way I know that you will get Bluetooth 5.x connectivity from a B2 is to connect an external long range Bluetooth 5.0 transmitter to your B2.

Ideally I would do this optically. 

Bluetooth 5.x allows you to use the more advanced codecs such as aptx-HD which would give you a better quality transmission as well as better range.

A lot depends on your budget but Avantree, 1Mii and Fiio amongst many other companies have products that you can pair with a Bluetooth 5.x receiver  to feed your legacy hifi if required.

John

John

[jde...@aol.com]

Thank you all.  I wonder how hard it would be for Brennan to upgrade to Linux 5 and allow the device to use a new generation of equipment.  Is Linux 5 back compatible with Linux 4?  Joel