The Gadgeteer Reviews Bluetake's Stereo BT Headset

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/bluetake-bt420-iphono-review.html' target='_blank'>http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/blueta...ono-review.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"It's hard to review a product that is a first in its class because there's nothing to compare it with, no standard of excellence that it needs to live up to. Such is the case with the Bluetake's new i-PHONO BT420EX stereo headphones, which are the first Bluetooth headphones on the market...Wired headphones can be cumbersome. I listen to my iPod daily, and there have been many instances where I've either gotten up out of my chair and not remembered that I had the headphones on, or I've managed to snag the wires on the arm of my chair. Usually when this happens, the headphones are pulled off my head, and I'm startled. Argh! Needless to say, I wasn't going to turn down an opportunity to review a set of wireless headphones when Bluetake contacted me about them."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/parekh-20040708-GadgeteerBluetake.jpg" /><br /><br />Not only are these one of the first pairs of Bluetooth stereo headphones to hit the market, they are also bundled with an adapter that enables devices that don't have BT support (or that lack the necessary BT stereo audio profiles) to utilize them, much like Jabra's solution. I can't wait for Pocket PCs to natively support A2DP, which should enable seamless stereo listening... but in the meantime, you might want to check this review out.<br /><br /><b>Update:</b> Geekzone's also posted a review <a href="http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?ContentId=3006">here</a>, and Mauricio shows off a iPAQ 4155 connected to the Bluetake dongle. 8)

[Zab]

cant wait until they work with a PPC. the price is steep but as soon as a set comes out that works with a PPC id be willing to pay $100 for a good set of wireless headphones. and by the time they come out with the set that works with a PPC the price should have dropped to around that range hopefuly.

[DaleReeck]

The iPaq 2200 doesn't support bluetooth headsets out of the box, though with a registry hack, they can. Also, the Dell Axim X30, iPaq 5555 and Asus A716 support bluetooth headsets via the Widcomm stack. I used an iPaq 5555 and a Asus A716 with a Jabra headset to listen to audio books. The question is, will this headset work with these PPC's I just mentioned? I don't know about that A2DP profile, but if its just an issue of redirecting audio via BT, those PocketPC's should work, shouldn't they?

[R K]

The devices you've mentioned all use the Bluetooth Headset Profile.
This profile is configured for mono-sound headsets with less-than-stellar sound quality.

The new range of Bluetooth stereo headphones that are coming out have their own profile. If I remember correctly, I think it requires Bluetooth 1.2 to use, so I don't think any current Pocket PC will handle it directly.

[SeanH]

Very Cool. I wonder when Apple will integrate Bluetooth in to the iPOD. It seems like everyday there is a new cool Bluetooth device.

Sean

[DaleReeck]

The devices you've mentioned all use the Bluetooth Headset Profile.
This profile is configured for mono-sound headsets with less-than-stellar sound quality.

The new range of Bluetooth stereo headphones that are coming out have their own profile. If I remember correctly, I think it requires Bluetooth 1.2 to use, so I don't think any current Pocket PC will handle it directly.

Figures. How about someone make a BT 1.1 headset that works with products that are actually out now? Grrrrr.

Actually, now that I recall, the site listed a bunch of phones that work with the headset. And all those are BT 1.1, so the headset must support BT 1.1. I assume BT 1.2 is downward compatible with BT 1.1 devices?

I also remember that there was a "beta" headset you could buy from a company in Korea I think. They used a DSP on the headset to help compensate for BT 1.1's slow transfer rates. So, I think it can be done. It's just that no one wants to apparently.

[Janak Parekh]

Figures. How about someone make a BT 1.1 headset that works with products that are actually out now? Grrrrr.
They can't. BT 1.1 doesn't have enough bandwidth to handle raw uncompressed audio streams, which is what the old profiles (Headset, Handsfree) do. :|

I also remember that there was a "beta" headset you could buy from a company in Korea I think. They used a DSP on the headset to help compensate for BT 1.1's slow transfer rates.
This, again, would require compression on the Pocket PC, i.e., driver/new profiles.

--janak

[GadgetGirl]

At first, this didn't sound so interesting, since I would like to listen to my iPod and have incoming calls from my cell phone go to the headset too. I thought that I would have to have a cellphone-music player, or cellphone-PPC to do that. Well, I looked closer at Julie's review and the specs, and it seems like it does do that. Very cool! The specs show that up to 5 devices can be paired to the headset. Now I want this. :D

I'd also like to use this for TeamSpeak while playing games. Normal headset cords are annoying.

[rob_ocelot]

Oh for crying out loud, just how unwieldy and expensive can they make this?

A FAR better and cheaper solution would be to use a small FM broadcaster (Like the i-Rock) and a small FM radio headset. There's the added bonus that this set up doesn't drain your PPC's battery by using bluetooth, in addition to the batteries for the dongle and the headset. The whole setup would be the same size, if not smaller than that ugly dongle and headphones. (AFAIk there are some frequency restrictions in Europe that prohibits these devices from being sold -- that's one minus)

Why are they still contriving to use bluetooth in places where BT gives no advantage over the older way of doing things, other than making it more expensive? The latest one I heard was using BT in home theaters for the speakers -- completely idiotic when you are just trading one wire for another and then the speakers have to be battery powered. Who wants their speaker batteries craping out in the middle of a loud movie?

[jeffmd]

hmm, so it uses a codec (SBC, what ever that is, never heard of it) to get stereo quality sound out of the 1mbit of bw bluetooth offers. But it requires hardware support from the bluetooth adapter to use it, a proprietory profile that nobody actually has yet. Is this not the most worthless thing youve seen? Why can't they make a ppc driver? it shouldnt need any fancy profile, just a data connection over blutooth, and let the driver or program handel the routing of audio to it.

pass.

[Janak Parekh]

Why are they still contriving to use bluetooth in places where BT gives no advantage over the older way of doing things, other than making it more expensive?
That simply isn't true here. GadgetGirl points out one huge advantage of this solution -- a cell phone call can cut in front of the music. Try that with your FM headphones. ;) All the FM headphones I've seen, also, are horribly bulky.

The latest one I heard was using BT in home theaters for the speakers -- completely idiotic when you are just trading one wire for another and then the speakers have to be battery powered. Who wants their speaker batteries craping out in the middle of a loud movie?
Very often, power wires are easier to manage than signal wires.

--janak

[foldedspace]

Actually, the Sony Walkman HM01V AM/FM Headphone seems to be about the same size and very similar design. It's available for less than 30 dollars. I think I'll pick a set up just to see how they work with the iTrip and iPod.

[SeanH]

A FAR better and cheaper solution would be to use a small FM broadcaster (Like the i-Rock) and a small FM radio headset.
Audio quality is one of those crazy things that is 100% based on the end users perception of quality. Some people claim old vinyl records offer better quality sound then a CD. The audio range of the human ear is above 0 hertz to about 22KHz assuming the person is young. CD’s are sampled at 44KHz base on the Nyquist Theory that the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the highest frequency of the input signal in order to be able to reconstruct the original perfectly from the sampled version. Some people claim that 192kbps MP3 sounds bad compared to a CD. Some people claim there is a huge difference between 192kbps and 128kbps. Personally I can not tell a difference between any of the standards I just mentioned (vinyl, CD, 192kbps MP3, 128kbps MP3). But anything lower I can. A FM modulator in a car or a cassette interface has substantial loss in audio quality compared to all the specs I mentioned.

To many specs, back to the point. Bluetooth is evolving and not all profiles are implemented in all the devices. A2DP is supported in the Bluetooth 1.1 spec but many devices do not support it. Bluetooth has plenty of bandwidth for audio and it’s a good fit. Bluetooth supports speeds of 724Kb, a compressed audio stream at 44KHz 16bit stereo using MP3 compression at 128kbps uses less then 20% of the bandwidth of Bluetooth. A2DP uses MP3 compression. Bluetooth is a good fit for stereo headsets and speakers. Bluetooth audio quality can always surpass the low quality of a FM modulator or a cassette interface for your car.

Sean

[shawnc]

My problem is as much with the review as with the product. Unless I missed it, the price was not mentioned until the end of one reveiw, and not listed at all in the other.

$250 for a set of headphones whose most redeeming quality is the lack of wires? I'm all for a wireless world, but $250 to remove what most would consider a minor annoyance at best seems a tad excessive to me. If you point out the price in the beginning of the review my guess is many folks wouldn't even spend the time to read it. I know I wouldn't have. Most reviews I have read does this. A cynical person might surmise that these reviewer's not mentioning price until the end were done to keep the readers interest.

[freitasm]

At first, this didn't sound so interesting, since I would like to listen to my iPod and have incoming calls from my cell phone go to the headset too. I thought that I would have to have a cellphone-music player, or cellphone-PPC to do that. Well, I looked closer at Julie's review and the specs, and it seems like it does do that. Very cool! The specs show that up to 5 devices can be paired to the headset. Now I want this. :D

I'd also like to use this for TeamSpeak while playing games. Normal headset cords are annoying.

Have a look in our review, linked from the original Janak's post. Other reviewers seem to have missed the point of this headphone: it's a dual device actually.

You can pair it with your mobile phone, and when a call comes in, the sound is switched to the cell phone connection. When you terminate the call, it goes back to the sound source stream.

[freitasm]

hmm, so it uses a codec (SBC, what ever that is, never heard of it) to get stereo quality sound out of the 1mbit of bw bluetooth offers. But it requires hardware support from the bluetooth adapter to use it, a proprietory profile that nobody actually has yet. Is this not the most worthless thing youve seen? Why can't they make a ppc driver? it shouldnt need any fancy profile, just a data connection over blutooth, and let the driver or program handel the routing of audio to it.

pass.

It's not a proprietary profile. The A2DP is implemented according to Bluetooth specifications. Companies can not implement proprietary profiles when using Bluetooth. It's just that's it's a new specification. Like the SIM card access, and like the Video distribution profile (I want to see THIS one).

[TinMan]

Figures. How about someone make a BT 1.1 headset that works with products that are actually out now? Grrrrr.
They can't. BT 1.1 doesn't have enough bandwidth to handle raw uncompressed audio streams, which is what the old profiles (Headset, Handsfree) do. :|

--janak
This BT stereo headset doesn't use any more bandwidth than BT's current limitation. The raw throughput of Bluetooth won't increase until Bluetooth EDR's debut. And even then, EDR's 2.1 Mbps won't cut it for hi-fi stereo headset use (without compression). The i-PHONO headset solution (including the transmitter dongle) obviously compresses the stream at the dongle, and decompresses it at the headset. As I doubt this compression is loss-less, and assuming an already lossy-compressed source (e.g., MP3 player), that means double compression is going on.

Of course the "profile" for the server-side is more than just a BT profile, as it is doing real-time data compression. Obviously, in order to use this headset with something other than its transmitter dongle that "something" will need to be able to handle real-time data compression as well (most likely, while doing other things at the same time).

I would think, as this device seems to target MP3 players anyway, that a better solution would be to stream the raw MP3 file to the headset, and have the headset "play" the MP3 natively. That approach will likely fall flat, however, thanks to our ubiquitous friend DRM (nor will that help when plugging the device into a headset jack as a source).


-Mike

[John C]

cant wait until they work with a PPC.

Why wouldn't they work with a PPC?

John

[Janak Parekh]

My problem is as much with the review as with the product. Unless I missed it, the price was not mentioned until the end of one reveiw, and not listed at all in the other.
Every reviewer has their standard format. As for Geekzone's, since they're in a different country the pricing would be substiantially different. I really don't think it's anything other than that.

$250 for a set of headphones whose most redeeming quality is the lack of wires? I'm all for a wireless world, but $250 to remove what most would consider a minor annoyance at best seems a tad excessive to me.
Realize this is brand-new technology and as such will have early-adopter pricing. You should know - you bought a 1GB SD card. ;)

--janak

[freitasm]

cant wait until they work with a PPC.

Why wouldn't they work with a PPC?

John

The i-PHONO already works with a Pocket PC (or any 3.5mm device). I think Zab wants native support for headset/handsfree/audio distribution profiles on Pocket PC.

Have a look in my review, there's a picture of this one connected to my h4150.

[Janak Parekh]

I would think, as this device seems to target MP3 players anyway, that a better solution would be to stream the raw MP3 file to the headset
Actually, I think A2DP specifies/supports a MP3 codec... so if a handheld were to implement A2DP directly, in theory they could send the actual bits of the MP3 file. :) Of course, with a dongle this isn't going to happen.

--janak

[SeanH]

Actually, I think A2DP specifies/supports a MP3 codec... so if a handheld were to implement A2DP directly, in theory they could send the actual bits of the MP3 file. :) Of course, with a dongle this isn't going to happen.
That is exactly how it works:

In a typical hardware implementation for streaming audio playback, data received over the Bluetooth link is processed by the protocol stack and passed to an application, which takes the audio stream data and sends it over a hardware interface to the audio IC. The audio IC decodes the digital audio and converts the signal to analog.

The audio IC will decode the MP3 stream in the headset. Like I posted earlier a 128kbs MP3 stream will only consume 20% of the Bluetooth bandwidth.

Sean

[jeffmd]

uhmm.. this thing uses the sbc codec. absolutly nowhere in either reviews have I heard mention of mp3. MP3 also requires a liscense to encode as well as to decode in hardware. The encode fee alone would be pretty sizable.

when I said proprietory profile..I ment it was not default.. and therefore not part of the original bt spec and so not compatable with original blue tooth adapters in stereo mode.

[Janak Parekh]

uhmm.. this thing uses the sbc codec. absolutly nowhere in either reviews have I heard mention of mp3.
AFAICT, it's embedded in the A2DP profile specification, which this device supports. I guess it's possible it supports more than just MP3. (I did a quick Google for my info; I'm no expert on it, though.)

MP3 also requires a liscense to encode as well as to decode in hardware. The encode fee alone would be pretty sizable.
You'd think a hardware manufacturer would be able to afford the license, right?

--janak

[jlp]

A cynical person might surmise that these reviewer's not mentioning price until the end were done to keep the readers interest.

That's why I systematically use my browser search ability to find "$": easy and fast. :D

[freitasm]

A cynical person might surmise that these reviewer's not mentioning price until the end were done to keep the readers interest.

That's why I systematically use my browser search ability to find "$": easy and fast. :D

In my case because of all specs of any product, the most likely to change is the price. And even so, you probably can find cheaper on-line through Froogle, or other search engines. And not 100% of readers live in the US, so posting a price tag is not of help to anyone in Europe, where prices ARE very different. I remember seeing a price here in NZ almost US$250 more than the same product in South Africa (the Sony Ericsson P900).

[jlp]

Right.

At least one knows if it costs 10 bucks or 10 thousand :D

[Zab]

cant wait until they work with a PPC.

Why wouldn't they work with a PPC?

John

The i-PHONO already works with a Pocket PC (or any 3.5mm device). I think Zab wants native support for headset/handsfree/audio distribution profiles on Pocket PC.

Have a look in my review, there's a picture of this one connected to my h4150.

correct...and the price is still too high for me personally

[shawnc]

That's why I systematically use my browser search ability to find "$": easy and fast. :D

Excellent idea. I just never got the impression that a reviewer was intentionally withholding the price until the end simply to keep the readers interest.

Realize this is brand-new technology and as such will have early-adopter pricing. You should know - you bought a 1GB SD card. ;)

--janak

Your point that one shouldn't judge what others spend their money on is well taken. Note however that I did say $250 was a bit high for ME. Others may find it reasonable. Most of my issue was with the reviewer not mentioning the price until the end. I also don't buy the price is likely to change or not 100% of the readers live in the US argument. If that was the case, why mention price at all. The fact of the matter is price is important to MOST readers and I thought it have been mentioned up-front.

But you are absolutely correct in your assertion about what folks spend their money on. Heck, I'm into my PDA for close to a grand. No sane person that I know would understand that :wink: !

[TinMan]

Actually, I think A2DP specifies/supports a MP3 codec... so if a handheld were to implement A2DP directly, in theory they could send the actual bits of the MP3 file. :) Of course, with a dongle this isn't going to happen.
That is exactly how it works:

In a typical hardware implementation for streaming audio playback, data received over the Bluetooth link is processed by the protocol stack and passed to an application, which takes the audio stream data and sends it over a hardware interface to the audio IC. The audio IC decodes the digital audio and converts the signal to analog.

The audio IC will decode the MP3 stream in the headset. Like I posted earlier a 128kbs MP3 stream will only consume 20% of the Bluetooth bandwidth.

Sean
The fact that the headset (or other sink device) decodes a compressed stream is self-evident, considering Bluetooth's bandwidth.

The point I brought up, and which Janak responded to, was about the source of the compressed data-stream. It's obvious that, in this headset/dongle solution, the dongle is performing lossy compression from an analog source. No surprises there.

But that source (for this headset/dongle combo), assuming an MP3 player or iPOD, is the analog output from an already lossy-compressed source. The dongle/headset combo simply goes through another itineration of lossy compression. I don't see this as a good thing. Then there's the fact that the dongle must handle analog-to-digital-conversion on that analog stream. As my music collection is mainly high bit-rate or VBR MP3s, I have on occasion transcoded from one lossy format to another (yes, I admit it). However, I certainly didn't handle the conversion by plugging the output of my MP3 player into the line-in jack of my PC. That would, in effect, add yet another round of degradation. In my opinion, that's about what this headset/dongle does. Now if the source were a CD player, at least there'd be only one itineration of compression going on.

Oh, and the i-PHONO solution does indeed use the SBC codec, which is not as good as MP3 ("This is understandable since the Bluetooth SBC is a low-complexity and less sophisticated Codec compared to MP3, in order to optimize on memory and MIPS"). Source (http://www.impulsesoft.com/HomePage/btaudioguide.pdf).

I suggested, for PPC/laptop/whatever use, that streaming the raw uncompressed data, via BT, might be a better option for such usage. You seemed to indicate that this is exactly what is already happening. Do you have any real-world examples, besides this headset/dongle combo?

While the A2DP profile (optionally) supports direct streaming from codecs other than SBC, I don't believe it actually streams the data from the file stored on the source device. From what I've read, and I could be wrong, A2DP still takes an uncompressed stream and then compresses it, perhaps even using MP3, to send over the BT link, to the BT sink. The A2DP profile seems to require Quality of Service Provisioning. While buffering could certainly be handled using a raw compressed stream, I don't see how it could drop "the media bit-rate using the Bluetooth SBC parameters that control the compression ratio" (same source as before). Unless you're compressing on-the-fly, that's not gonna' happen with an MP3 sitting on someone's hard-drive. And if the sink device could be sent raw MP3, AAC, etc. data, it would have to be a jack-of-all trades music player. The source device would be, to the sink device, little more than a wireless hard-drive.

Further, how exactly does DRM fit into this scenario? You can't simply play protected AAC tracks from an iPOD on a generic player. If the sink device is going to decode-and-play the raw compressed MP3/OGG/AAC stream from a source device how will it handle DRM, let alone the multitude of formats (with all their associated bit-rates) it might encounter? I'm guessing that it can't work this way (at least not now). AFAICT, the A2DP profile must compress an audio stream on its own. This means, to stream a protected ACC track as an example, that you would need a player on the source device that can handle the protected ACC (including DRM, if needed). That player's output is then captured by the A2DP "profile," compressed using whatever codec is in place (probably SBC), and then sent over the BT link to the BT sink. If this is not how it works, I would love to be proven wrong.

In my opinion, a device like this should not be performing another round of lossy compression (not counting the ADC in the dongle scenario). Perhaps if it weren't for Bluetooth's current abysmal bit-rate, then a lossless codec could have been utilized (e.g., FLAC). You can get about a 60% compression level with several of the lossless codecs. As uncompressed CD-quality audio consumes 1.4 Mbps, 40% comes in at around 564 Kbps. Since it can still peak well above 1 Mbps, it's not suitable for Bluetooth. Hmmm, maybe they should have gone with WiFi...

(Oh, and I don't think I care all that much that this headset can function with a BT phone. The design is the very antithesis of the sleek and unobtrusive "look" of your typical BT headset. If I wanted to look like Dumbo, I'd go to Disney Land and buy a hat.)


-Mike

[SeanH]

But that source (for this headset/dongle combo), assuming an MP3 player or iPOD, is the analog output from an already lossy-compressed source. The dongle/headset combo simply goes through another itineration of lossy compression. I don't see this as a good thing. Then there's the fact that the dongle must handle analog-to-digital-conversion on that analog stream.
The way I understand it and I am not an expert either, if you are not using a dongle a Bluetooth enable player will take the compressed audio in MP3, OCG, WMA, or AAC and stream it directly to the headset. The headset will have a decoder IC like the ST STA013 http://www.st.com/stonline/prodpres/dedicate/mp3/sta013.htm that will decoded the stream and convert it to an analog output. ST, Philips and Atmel all make similar devices. The dongle is a temp solution and does not make sense to me. Let’s hope Apple starts using Bluetooth in new iPOD’s. At this point it’s Bluetooth or a proprietary standard.

Further, how exactly does DRM fit into this scenario?
DRM still can be managed by the player before it sends the decoded stream to the headset.

DRM sucks!! Books and Libraries have been around for century’s with out some type of DRM or BRM (book rights management) But I know its here to stay.

In my opinion, a device like this should not be performing another round of lossy compression
I agree.

Perhaps if it weren't for Bluetooth's current abysmal bit-rate, then a lossless codec could have been utilized (e.g., FLAC). You can get about a 60% compression level with several of the lossless codecs. As uncompressed CD-quality audio consumes 1.4 Mbps, 40% comes in at around 564 Kbps. Since it can still peak well above 1 Mbps, it's not suitable for Bluetooth.
Bluetooth has plenty of bandwidth for what it was designed for. Your math makes sense but a MP3 encoded at 192kbps or 128kbps uses 192Kb or 128Kb to stream compressed stereo audio sampled at 44KHz 16bit. 128kbps uses less then 20% of the bandwidth of Bluetooth.

Hmmm, maybe they should have gone with WiFi...
WiFi is based on a 20 year old wired Ethernet with a TCP/IP stack on top. Both from day one were meant for networking and there has been very little development to turn it into a peripheral standard.

Sean

[TinMan]

The way I understand it and I am not an expert either, if you are not using a dongle a Bluetooth enable player will take the compressed audio in MP3, OCG, WMA, or AAC and stream it directly to the headset. The headset will have a decoder IC like the ST STA013 that will decode the stream and convert it to an analog output.
Yes, hardware decoder/encoder chips have been around for some time. However, can each one handle the myriad of codecs and bit-rates that one might encounter? In order to stream the actual raw content from the source device (no changes: data is sent to the BT link as-is from the source device) it will need to (else the stream will have to be decoded on the source device, then encoded in a format the sink device can decode--in other words, double compression).

If I didn't know better, I'd guess the BT/A2DP camp assumes that the average user will use this technology to stream uncompressed music (e.g., from an actual CD). As this is 2004, I would think such an assumption is inaccurate.

The dongle is a temp solution and does not make sense to me. Let’s hope Apple starts using Bluetooth in new iPOD’s. At this point it’s Bluetooth or a proprietary standard.
If Apple does add BT to the iPOD, I'd be willing to bet it won't work with this headset (at least not without a major upgrade to the headset). If the iPOD is going to send its raw AAC stream via BT the headset must support the same DRM as the iPOD itself (and it must be registered). There is no other way around this, aside from the double-compression method used by the dongle. If the iPOD removed DRM, and then sent a raw, yet unprotected, AAC stream via BT it would be rather trivial to capture that stream and, in essence, retain a completely unprotected file (and I don't believe removing DRM is a matter of stripping out a few bits, so this approach may very well be unworkable). Regardless, I don't think Apple would go for that, but perhaps I'm thinking too far from the mindset of the "masses" for Apple to care. As The Gadgeteer review didn't seem to complain about the loss in audio quality (and, for sure, there was a loss in quality), maybe Apple will take a similar approach as the dongle (essentially, blending the functionality of the dongle into the iPOD).

DRM still can be managed by the player before it sends the decoded stream to the headset.
Huh? Bluetooth cannot handle a decoded stream, at least not at "CD-quality." If you meant that the player would somehow strip out DRM, and then send the encoded, and unprotected, stream to the headset, there are other issues involved beyond the technology needed to do that.

DRM sucks!! Books and Libraries have been around for century’s with out some type of DRM or BRM (book rights management) But I know its here to stay.
I agree about DRM! I'm just trying to figure out how it fits into the A2DP profile needed for Hi-Fi audio over BT. If it necessitates another round of lossy compression, that's a double whammy (one for DRM, and one for the extra round of compression).

Bluetooth has plenty of bandwidth for what it was designed for.
Interestingly enough, when BT first debuted, I asked an engineer at the consortium (at CES) about using BT for a (stereo, Hi-Fi) headset. I was promptly told that that wasn't the market BT was designed for, and that I had better wait for BT 2.0. :)

Your math makes sense but a MP3 encoded at 192kbps or 128kbps uses 192Kb or 128Kb to stream compressed stereo audio sampled at 44KHz 16bit. 128kbps uses less then 20% of the bandwidth of Bluetooth.
I'm sure you realize that it doesn't matter what the original sample-rate was: a (constant bit-rate) 128 Kbps MP3 will always consume 128 Kbps of bandwidth (whether the source was sampled at 44 KHz 16-bit stereo, or 22 KHz 8-bit stereo).

Anyway, I have no doubt that BT can handle a 128 Kbps stream. However, most of my music has been ripped at a higher rate than that. A 256 Kbps stream will consume over 35% of the meager 721 Kbps Bluetooth allows for data transfer (unless BT 1.2 allows the "whole" Mbps to be used for the A2DP profile). This speed, in my experience, is a best-case scenario. In the real-world, I've seen BT barely able to hold a 192 Kbps stream (I tested this using two laptops, streaming MP3s from the hard-drive on one laptop to WMP on the other--via BT.) Regardless, apparently the bandwidth is not enough, and is being doubled in a future release.

Further, what happens when there are other devices in the already-crowded 2.4 GHz spectrum nearby? (Let alone other BT peripherals.) I've seen BT speed drop to absurd levels under such scenarios (however, BT 1.2 is a bit better at frequency hopping, etc., so maybe it will be more resilient to encroachment in the 2.4 GHz spectrum). While I'm on a roll, since BT is such a low-range protocol anyway, and barely makes it through obstacles as it is, why not move it to 5.8 GHz?

WiFi is based on a 20 year old wired Ethernet with a TCP/IP stack on top. Both from day one were meant for networking and there has been very little development to turn it into a peripheral standard.
Although I was being sarcastic about the WiFi comment, I could turn your comment around as: "While Bluetooth was released in practically a beta format, consumer confusion and all, WiFi is based on a tried-and-tested protocol that has been used in mission-critical operations for years." ;)

Oh yea, long before BT came along (or at least had any sort of meaningful penetration), I was streaming high-bit-rate music (and video) to my Pocket PC wirelessly via WiFi. Just a point to ponder...

I am not intrinsically against Bluetooth. I just think it's taken far too long for it to live up to the hype it had received at "release." And now that it's picking up some steam, it's crippled by low bandwidth that, in my humble opinion, has necessitated the need for kludges such as this headset/dongle combo. I won't even get into the "low price" hype, which this headset is evidently not adhering to. As usual, YMMV.


Regards,
Mike

[Mark Johnson]

Is the standard "profile" for this an "revision" of the Bluetooth HID profile, or a completely new profile?