This was posted 6 years 1 month 9 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Logitech Bluetooth Audio Adapter $29.26 C&C @ The Good Guys eBay

220
Logitech Bluetooth Audio Adapter $29.26 C&C @ The Good Guys eBay
Go to Deal
Cashback
OzSikh on 16/03/2018 - 11:16 ebay.com.au (779 clicks)
Last edited 16/03/2018 - 17:42 by 1 other user
PICK5

Multipoint Bluetooth. Pair smartphone & tablet simultaneously
Convenient, 1-push pairing button
Automatic re-pairing
Bluetooth Operating range: up to 50 feet / 15 meters line of sight
Works with PC speakers, Home Stereo Systems & AV Receivers, Smartphones & Tablets
Auxiliary inputs: 2

Original PICK5 5% off Sitewide at eBay Deal Post

————————————————————————

Here is the link to TGG website, as someone might have store credit and want to utilise it or some of you might be closer to OW, you can have 5% price beat @ OW

Electrical & Electronics Logitech

Related Stores

eBay Australia
eBay Australia
Marketplace
The Good Guys
The Good Guys

closed Comments

  • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 11:20

    JB's selling for $48 (if anyone was interested in what these normally sell for)

    https://www.jbhifi.com.au/computers-tablets/accessories/logi…

    But can be found in numerous online outlets for high $30's.
    $29 doesn't seem too bad. Plus vote :).

    Been out for a while now though (2014), so an update could be coming?

    Reviews are mixed online.

    • OzSikh on 16/03/2018 - 11:27
      -1

      an update could be coming?

      lol

    • OzSikh on 16/03/2018 - 11:30

      4.5 stars @ JB HiFI website link that you shared.

      Doesn’t seem any bad !!

    • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 11:33

      Neg?

      You offended by my detailed reply above (and then unpublish a silly request) ?

      Why so serious :) ?

  • Dealayed on 16/03/2018 - 11:22

    A few years ago this was a good device. Why would you buy now when you can get the CC Audio for almost the same price?

    • jjcf on 16/03/2018 - 11:25
      +5

      Because CCA isn't bluetooth and this is?

      Why would you buy an apple when we have milk now?!

      • Dealayed on 16/03/2018 - 11:40

        OK. So where would you want to use this where you can't use a CC Audio? This is mainly used for older systems that did not have bluetooth capabilities. Why would you want to use this and restrict your range whereas you could be anywhere in your property and still cast with CC.

        • PainToad on 16/03/2018 - 12:17

          Because Bluetooth is an open standard and not tied to one company and doesn't rely on app support.

          Eg. I'm guessing you can't stream Apple Music from iOS to Chromecast?

        • jjcf on 16/03/2018 - 12:19
          +6

          Because you are using an app that doesn't support casting.
          Because you want to play local media and don't want to mess around with adding more apps that only work intermittently.
          Because someone came over and just wants to play a tune from their phone.
          Because you are in a hotel, or at work, or somewhere else where you can't just push remote media.
          Because you are somewhere in your house without wifi and you don't want to buy another access point or run cable.
          Because literally any reason people use bluetooth.

        • eug on 16/03/2018 - 12:25
          +1

          So where would you want to use this where you can't use a CC Audio?

          I have CC Audio but prefer Bluetooth as everything will get routed automatically, from any app at any time, with no connection delays, and without having to tell it to cast to which device.

          If the only thing I'm doing is playing music from e.g. Spotify like in a party setting, I would use CC Audio.

          So for me, "where" just depends on what's being done. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Bluetooth can do just about anything CC Audio does, but CC Audio can't do everything Bluetooth does.

        • Trishool on 16/03/2018 - 17:46

          What if you get poor wifi connection where you want your system (eg garage)? This is perfect for that. I've had one for a few years now, bought on special for about $26 and it has been great. I wouldnt pay $48 for it though.

        • Dealayed on 16/03/2018 - 19:17

          Each to their own. I wouldn't use Bluetooth for a home audio setup.

    • dcep on 16/03/2018 - 11:26

      does CC audio works the same, as in turning any speakers into bt enabled ?

      • albert0pia on 16/03/2018 - 12:26

        CC Audio has to be on the same WiFi network as the device that is casting to it. But yeah, when connected to speakers with a 3.5mm input, they consequently become wireless.

      • Jalif on 16/03/2018 - 13:45

        No, cc audio is not Bluetooth. It is a wifi device that can access online streams.

    • Grok on 16/03/2018 - 11:26
      +2

      What is the CC Audio?

      • dcep on 16/03/2018 - 11:28
        +1

        chrome-cast audio

      • jv on 16/03/2018 - 11:28
        -3

        Visa, Mastercard & Amex.

        No Diners Club though…

      • Cleremy on 16/03/2018 - 13:10

        Useful question as Googling "CC Audio" does not bring up relevant results.

        • notout50 on 18/03/2018 - 12:04

          Kind of ironic as it's a Google product. Thought they'd include that in their search terms…

      • Grok on 16/03/2018 - 14:07

        Does Chromecast audio have worse latency compared to Bluetooth, is it better or worse for watching videos or movies?

    • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 11:26
      +2

      This one gives you RCA outputs though… handy if you want to tuck cables behind the AV receiver and have a neat install.
      The Chromecast Audio is 3.5mm jack only I thought?

      • jjcf on 16/03/2018 - 11:32

        Because 3.5mm to RCA cables haven't existed for literally decades I guess.

        • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 12:32
          -1

          Better SNR through RCA cables mate.

          That's why receivers these days still funnily enough use RCA, and not just 3.5mm ports.

          Literally decades proves that I guess.

        • eug on 16/03/2018 - 12:51
          +1

          @UFO: Receivers use RCA sockets because that has been the standard for decades, and they're tougher than a 3.5mm socket. There is absolutely no reason for a receiver to switch from RCA to 3.5mm.

          Better S/N ratio - I bet in a double blind test with good quality sockets, no one would be able to tell the difference. A socket does not add noise, and rca sockets on typical receivers are not 100% shielded behind the panel.

        • jjcf on 16/03/2018 - 13:05

          @UFO: definitely a massive factor in selecting a non-AAC/APTx bluetooth 3.0 receiver that doesn't even list an SNR in its specs.

          Hope you got yourself a filtered power source too. Don't want to lose 14.3 superfidelities.

        • Cleremy on 16/03/2018 - 13:13

          The only advantage of a bluetooth reciever over a 3.5mm to RCA cable really is you can still muck around on your phone while playing music on a Hi-Fi, or you can leave your phone on charge in another room.

        • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 13:19
          -1

          @eug:

          You're ignoring the most important bit, the cable.
          You WILL get better SNR with the 4 separate lines provided in a traditional RCA cable set up.

          And I'm not talking double blind tests that measure 'apparent' differences, I'm talking real actual scientifically measureable results. It's not the socket that adds noise, it's the reduced fidelity through a single 3.5mm cable vs a double RCA cable.

          You adding other factors like shielding to RCA cabling is a useless argument. Show me a normal 3.5mm cable that is just as good as normal 2xRCA cables in transmitting a signal between two audio devices, and I'll show you a pig that flies. Physics.

        • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 13:20
          -1

          @jjcf:

          Why are you bringing external factors into play? I'm simply discussing the difference between RCA and 3.5mm cable setups.

        • eug on 16/03/2018 - 13:34
          +1

          @UFO:

          You're ignoring the most important bit, the cable.

          You're ignoring the most important bit, whether or not humans can tell the difference in a double-blind test.

        • jjcf on 16/03/2018 - 14:17

          @UFO: The entire question is 'why would you buy this when the CCA exists', and your argument is because RCA. How are they 'external factors'?

          Which I assume you got, given 'handy if you want to tuck cables behind the AV receiver and have a neat install.'

          I only see one guy here jerking off over the technical specifications of cable types in isolation as if it were the question at hand.

        • jjcf on 16/03/2018 - 14:19

          @Cleremy: I was talking about connecting a CCA to your receiver via a 3.5mm -> dual RCA cable.

    • kingmoron on 16/03/2018 - 13:24

      exactly. why would you even get that though when for less than both you can get a car RF adapter. they can be had for about $5.00

  • Grok on 16/03/2018 - 11:26

    This adapter is Bluetooth 3.0, is that a factor affecting sound quality?

    • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 11:32
      +1

      Nope.

      Big difference from BT 2.0 —> BT 3.0 though.

      4+ brings in the low energy protocols… headphones, battery life etc.
      BT 3.0 has plenty of bandwidth for decent signal transmission.
      Wired connection still superior if absolute fidelity required, but for casual use BT 3.0 fine.

    • dcep on 16/03/2018 - 11:38

      it's the codec that matters , but then the ones with aptx support costs a lot more !

      • eug on 16/03/2018 - 11:42
        +1

        Not necessarily; this one is $18.18 delivered.

        • dcep on 16/03/2018 - 11:44

          wow ! i'd give that a try

          good reviews too !

    • Diji1 on 16/03/2018 - 11:47
      +1

      All Bluetooth devices compress audio meaning dramatic quality loss if playing from from already compressed sources such as mp3. Lossless audio does not suffer this loss.

      Only aptx enabled bluetooth devices compress to "cd quality", both devices must support aptx to use it.

      • UFO on 16/03/2018 - 13:24

        Lossloss Audio refers to how its recorded… however transmitting through BT will result in a loss, just like any other format.

        But I do agree with what you said about aptx enabled devices, that'll certainly minimise that loss.

  • dcep on 16/03/2018 - 11:27

    got this for $22 from TGG when they had 50% off all logitech sale just a couple weeks back

    haven't tested it though, can't comment

    • Grok on 16/03/2018 - 12:38
      +2

      True blue OzBargainer, buy it because it is cheap and put it away.

  • MitchyD1989 on 16/03/2018 - 11:32
    +1

    Out of stock for C&C almost everywhere in Melbourne…

    • Cleremy on 16/03/2018 - 13:14

      Should have figured…

  • Yanoflies on 16/03/2018 - 11:41

    Can I use this to connect my speakers to my TV AND my PC which is like 2 metres away?

    • OzSikh on 16/03/2018 - 11:42

      Yes you can

      • Yanoflies on 16/03/2018 - 11:43

        Wonder if it will be weird having my speakers behind me when using my PC.

    • eug on 16/03/2018 - 12:14

      If your speakers have an extra input that you can connect it to, then yes. If it only has one input, then no, unless you get a switch.

    • SaddenAscentAspirin on 16/03/2018 - 13:52

      Yes, but you'll occasionally get lag. Not a concern if your player lets you adjust audio timing.

  • Futurist on 16/03/2018 - 11:45

    Just to confirm, is this is a bluetooth audio receiver device ? Not a bluetooth audio sending device ?

    ie music from tablet to this device via bluetooth, and it outputs audio to an RCA plugged speaker ?

    And not a TV audio output (via RCA) input to this device to broadcast out bluetooth audio to other bluetooth wireless earphones ?

    Is this correct ?

    • PeppaCat on 16/03/2018 - 11:51

      yes, it's a receiver.

  • Sunny84 on 16/03/2018 - 11:45

    Wish it had aptX audio codec…

    • eug on 16/03/2018 - 12:16
      +1

      Give this a try?

  • Make it so on 16/03/2018 - 11:55

    I was going to get this a few years ago, until I discovered I can stream music to a normal (first gen) Chromecast plugged into my receiver without having to turn my tv on. If you have an HDMI receiver and a Chromecast, you don't need this.

  • Higibbo on 16/03/2018 - 11:57

    Has anyone used this with the echo dot?

  • SaddenAscentAspirin on 16/03/2018 - 13:53

    I paid 30 for one of these about a year ago. Use it daily. I have to reconnect 2-3x a week as output gets choppy occasionally. Other than that, can't complain.

  • diddy50 on 16/03/2018 - 13:55

    I am not very impressed, range isn't very good and it crackles or cuts out a fair bit.
    Easier to leave my phone plugged directly into the amp rather than bluetooth it.

    Regular Chromecast does a better job as it uses wifi

  • lawyered on 16/03/2018 - 14:06

    need some help guys. is this suitable to plug into an older 'dumb' FHD LCD TV.. to allow me to connect bluetooth headphones and listen to the TV's audio output through the bluetooth headphones?

    • OzSikh on 16/03/2018 - 14:07

      I don't think it would work, as it is a receiver not transmitter

  • Sammyboy on 16/03/2018 - 17:10

    Really need something with the CSR8675 bluetooth audio SOC. Supports aptX HD
    https://www.amazon.com/TROND-Transmitter-Microphone-HD-Defin…

    This looks interesting too
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Bluetooth-5-0-CSR8675-Bluetooth…

    So far not one bluetooth adaptor with CSR8675 for MMCX socket earphones yet. I tried a generic cheap ebay one and it sounded horrible on my shure 535.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join