I guess a great pair of computer speakers could work too. I'd like to keep the kit under 5 lbs (excluding source)
If you surf the web, particularly eBay and Amazon, there are any number of Bluetooth (BT) transmitters and receivers.
If its labelled 4.0 and particularly if it claims APT-X, then it probably is.
IME some of this gear is badly implemented enough that it may actually have a sonic signature.
The BT in more recent cell phones such as my Samsung S5 are alleged to be fully capable of APT-X.
In about a week I may have the time to do some bench tests, and maybe even be able to post music files excerpts for ABX-ing. If there are any uploads laying around in public places that have critical passages, I'd like to hear about it before I run my tests, rather than... after.
Arny, it has been over a decade since we last corresponded, but it is nice to talk to you again!
Actually, most Bluetooth 4.0 devices are not aptx. BT 4.0 primarily means low energy BT. I think that APTX and other codecs were always allowed in the A2DP profile, which long preceded BT 4.0. Thus 4.0 doesn't imply APTX, nor APTX imply 4.0.
Yes, your and my Samsung Note 5 are aptx sources. I verified this using these steps (the last answer is mine): http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/26410/how-do-i-determine-which-a2dp-codecs-my-phone-supports-is-currently-using/100420
Unfortunately, most of my BT sinks are only using the required sbc, and then only with medium quality. It isn't very good:
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.14
2017-03-01 22:53:31
File A: OFortuna.wav
SHA1: eaf3fb5ca7b05f187a82de511264c0e30e3bf80e
File B: OFortuna_sbc.wav
SHA1: a95882eb3e45159242b33c883fb6756ede12b0b1
Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO
22:53:31 : Test started.
22:56:20 : 01/01
22:56:36 : 02/02
22:56:57 : 03/03
22:57:15 : 04/04
22:57:40 : 05/05
22:58:06 : 06/06
22:58:18 : 07/07
22:58:29 : 08/08
22:58:48 : 09/09
22:58:48 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 9/9
Probability that you were guessing: 0.2%
-- signature --
b7daff94e04961488fe5266d743b2f20423b7b17
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.14
2017-03-01 21:33:28
File A: 5.wav
SHA1: b51660c14afca6b208b51e71f503d71f4508aff5
File B: 5sbc.wav
SHA1: 92ff60ffbe9ab48ec872e9cdd7974f781c5b7468
Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO
21:33:28 : Test started.
21:39:23 : 01/01
21:39:56 : 02/02
21:41:43 : 03/03
21:43:55 : 04/04
21:45:36 : 05/05
21:47:01 : 06/06
21:48:31 : 07/07
21:49:45 : 08/08
21:51:12 : 09/09
21:51:12 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 9/9
Probability that you were guessing: 0.2%
-- signature --
ffee232fbeeb263c77b3ed83e446d1b745bbb1dc
APTX is much better, mostly because it uses a higher bit rate than medium-quality sbc. However, there is (to my knowledge) any software implementations of APTX freely available, so there aren't many test files available for testing.
I prepared the sbc files myself, and am happy to share (if it can be done legally). Specifically, the first loud section of O Fortuna from Carmina Burana shows clear flaws in the sbc (medium profile) setting, however mp3 at 128 kbs does much better. Would be interesting to see how they do on APTX.
I'd be happy to collaborate on this testing...