11 ms·
Qualcomm has open sourced its aptX and aptX HD encoders
- bearjaws 4y agoFeel like this makes the most sense with so many vendors moving to LDAC due to its inclusion in AOSP, and Google Pixel phone not having aptX at all.
- jsheard 4y agoLDAC is pretty well established in over-ear headphones now but I think it's still quite rare in true-wireless earbuds? Typically you only get some version of aptX and/or AAC.
- bearjaws 4y agoSoundcore and Xiaomi have added it to all their newer TWS. It does lower battery life compared to aptX from my understanding, so hopefully they will add it in the future.
- Melatonic 4y agoMaking me wonder if I should update my Soundcores. I have the exercise oriented ones (with the little ear hooks) but firmware updates have been pretty smooth so far.
- awill 4y agoBecause Apple doesn't use it. Hard to convince hardware manufacturers for just a subset of a subset of Android users.
- fomine3 4y agoBut without LDAC, hardware manufacturers can't put a golden "Hi-Res" sticker
- out_of_protocol 4y agoSound-wise, there are no alternative, LDAC with its quality profile at 990kbps wins by brute force. aptX is not even close in terms of quality (compared to non-BT codecs, wired connection with 128kbps opus wins by landslide against any BT codec. checked that on a decent headphones + usb/bt DAC) P.S. maybe not just a codec, maybe BT stack ruins sound somehow
- grumpyprole 4y agoEven new super premium wireless cans like the Focal Bathys don't have LDAC. Despite Samsung being the most popular Android vendor and famously having LDAC but not licensing AptX. One would need to use SBC with the Bathys on a Samsung. Although it was quite established, LDAC seems to be used less and less, I wonder why, license fees?
- rickdeckard 4y ago> Despite Samsung being the most popular Android vendor and famously having LDAC but not licensing AptX. Samsung implemented LDAC because they use two different HW-platforms: Qualcomm and Exynos. When using Qualcomm the AptX license comes free, for other platforms it should be licensed. To have feature-parity in a device-model using both platforms (like Galaxy S-series) Samsung implemented LDAC on both and AptX on none. Not sure how this will play out now that the latest flagship Galaxy S23 is no longer using Exynos platform, but apparently AptX is still not implemented. Meanwhile they developed their own codec called SSC ("Samsung Seamless Codec" or sthg), so I expect their opposition to AptX to continue (hopefully LDAC is here to stay though...). > Although it was quite established, LDAC seems to be used less and less, I wonder why, license fees? For headphone-vendors: If you are a larger manufacturer, use a Qualcomm chip and apply AptX, you qualify for marketing support from Qualcomm. If you see an AptX logo on an advertisement, it's likely that Qualcomm gave some marketing support funding to drive adoption of AptX/AptX HD. --> I strongly suspect that a qualification criteria for this funding is to not implement other "HD" Audio codecs like LDAC (as it aims to establish a standard for "Bluetooth HD audio")
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jhasse 4y agoPixel phones support aptX (HD). Not aptX adaptive or LL though.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoReading between the lines - decoders aren’t included, which would seem to suggest that you will still need Qualcomm patents for that. Maybe I’m misreading?
- orra 4y agoI think it's warranted to be sceptical. It does appear to specifically be encoders. Yet, presumably encoding is more patent encumbered than decoding.
- jsheard 4y agoIndeed it's just the encoders. Qualcomm seems to reserve the decoders as a unique selling point for their silicon, as far as I can tell they won't license them out for use on any competing hardware. Every teardown I've seen of a device which supports decoding aptX has had a Qualcomm Bluetooth SoC inside.
- AlotOfReading 4y agoLast time I worked with aptx directly was in the CSR days, but they used to have a library they'd provide in binary form only for your specific platform and compiler settings. It was fuck-off expensive ($1+/device + certification), so the easier way to do things was just to buy their silicon which had the IP "for free". A couple years back someone put a decoder of dubious legality into FFMPEG [1], though. The code was subsequently migrated into bluez as well. [1] https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/aptx_8c_source.html https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/aptx_8c_source.html
- bubblethink 4y ago>dubious legality into FFMPEG Why dubious ? FFMPEG is not incorporated in the US and does not recognize software patents. All the popular codecs such as h264, h265, etc. are similar in nature.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
- shmerl 4y ago> aptX and aptX HD codecs are proprietary to Qualcomm, so OEMs would previously acquire them directly from them. It's not enough Qualcomm try to get parasitic fees for existing free codecs (they tried attacking Opus I think), they also want to charge for their own NIH ones? How Qualcomm like.
- admax88qqq 4y agoCharging a fee for your own tech seems like the opposite of "parasitic"
- shmerl 4y agoPoint is, those codecs don't need to exist. What can they do that free ones can't? But since some might actually make such exact conclusion, Qualcomm try to go after free ones as a classic racketeer.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoEven SBC as a codec is good enough, at the bandwidths used by A2DP at least.
- LeFantome 4y agoWell, I don’t know anything about these codecs but the article says that they are widely recognized as superior. Are you countering that? If they are superior and some people are willing to pay for that, I guess that is why they exist. Charging for them seems perfectly fine as long as they are not abusively using some form of leverage to do so. Giving away the encoder side seems smart but it also seems to indicate that the demand is not great enough for them to easily monetize both sides. It may all go Open Source eventually.
- shmerl 4y agoIf they'd be so superior, Qualcomm wouldn't try to attack free codecs.
- 4y ago
- whatever1 4y agoWireless audio is good. But the one freaking thing I cannot understand is why after almost 20 years of wireless audio in computers, the microphone quality is still atrocious. Anyway, I know the next version of Bluetooth will fix it.
- izacus 4y agoBecause the bandwidth, bitrate and audio codec for HFP profile hasn't been upgraded in a decade. AptX and co. are only used in stereo profile with no mic support. As soon as you request bidirectional audio it downgrades to horrible old codecs.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago> Anyway, I know the next version of Bluetooth will fix it. I knew that back in the time of bluetooth 2.0. Sadly it didn't... especially not the high quality stereo audio + microphone at the same time.
- mort96 4y agoWas better bidirectional audio advertised as a feature of Bluetooth 2.0?
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoNo, but "the next version will surely have that". And versions are comng up to 5.4 now.
- j45 4y agoAlways the next version of Bluetooth. It just needs more research and committees and not using it in the wild.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoThere has been no new features or changes in bluetooth audio for two decades. The new LE audio is the first new version ever since a2dp was introduced.
- throw0101b 4y agoAs some of the commenters noted: what about patent grants?
- slicktux 4y agoIs CD quality audio (16/44) not doable without aptX?
- wkat4242 4y agoHmm I hope this improves support for them. Which is fairly lacking right now
- cherioo 4y agoIsn’t Bluetooth LE Audio supposed to be the one standard to rule them all? I was really hoping to see more handset and headset supporting it, but its news seem to have fizzled out. Anyone in the industry is able to share news there? Do we just need to wait? Is it encumbered in patents or too expensive to implement?
- rektide 4y agoI'm trying to find reference, but I believe Fraunhofer has a bunch of patent encumbrances on LC3. Although maybe software encoding & decoding licenses are free? The tests where LC3 were chosen over Opus seem semi-dubious too, with only the general audio Opus codec tested at low complexity, in a speech test. I'm not sure but I think/hope Opus hardware implementations would not be hardware emcumbered, but I'm not certain. For headsets this can be a significant power consumption win. LC3 is not a high quality codec. It's a decent quality low bit-rate codec. Fraunhofer has a complementary lc3plus but it's unclear what grants of use there are on it to me. Qualcomm here with Apt & AptX has notably not released decoding grants of use at all. This allows systems to output AptX, to the benefit of Apt/aptx receivers having better support, and they all pay Qualcomm & I expect largely use Qucomm chips. This is opposite to the longstanding case of Dolby Digital 5.1 & newer, where many computers have decoders, but Dolby Digital or Dolbt whatever encoding is ultra ghastly super rare. People were keeping their ancient ass Nvidia chipset motherboards from 2001 because it was like one of the only rare options available. It's deeply scarring to me that so many of the important relevant ways to send data around, that define our digital world, are so jealously guarded secrets. We raise worse people on this planet by denying them curiosity & experimentation & playing with stuff, and a huge subsector of our critical AV systems is deeply shrouded in red tape & black boxes.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- out_of_protocol 4y agoThis is funny, but google actually added opus for BT in recent version of Android, for some unknown internal reasons (maybe 5.1, VR or so). No one using it obviously though P.S. there is! https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114566.msg1023511.html#msg1023511 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114566.msg1023511.htm...
- AraceliHarker 4y agoaptX is still free to implement on the encoding side, like on Windows or macOS or Android, but you need a Qualcomm chip on the decoding side, like on earphones or speakers, so I wonder if it makes much difference even if the decoding side becomes open source.
- ac130kz 4y agoThey didn't release the sources for aptX Lossless though, still seems like a good start
- ksec 4y agoIn a sort of off topic question which I had for two years now. If the world, or vast majority of the world are using wireless headphone or speakers. And all using codec with the Bluetooth profiles. Shouldn’t we just encode the original music ( Original as in Spotify and Apple Music ) with those codec to avoid conversion lost? Even AAC on Bluetooth headset are not pass through. Right now everything you listened to on wireless are being re-encoded and decided on the fly.
- NovaDudely 4y agoI second this. It this just a case of the BT audio spec just isn't considered good enough? Or it there another reason?
- dopa42365 4y ago>Or it there another reason? As you can see, no one that isn't forced to has any interest in aptX. Someone (everyone?) in the BT consortium makes/made additional money from using something proprietary. Otherwise BT would just support Opus for many years already.
- NovaDudely 4y agoThere it is! Explains it perfectly. Thanks!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- netr0ute 4y agoIn practice, this can't actually happen because what if you need to play a notification sound? Then you would need two different streams to send to the device without having to reencode everything.
- ksec 4y agoIf I remember correctly Bluetooth Dual Steam is a thing on latest Profile.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y agoReminder that "aptX is not as good as the advertisements say", "SBC codec is OK" and "LDAC is a marketing fluff": https://habr.com/en/post/456182/ https://habr.com/en/post/456182/
- Aardwolf 4y agoAptX (even the non-LL one) is the only codec I know that has acceptable latency where it's even good enough for gaming. Sony WH-1000XM3 had AptX, WH-1000XM4 does not and other latest generation ANC headphones also do not. So headphones from 5 years ago are more useful than modern ones. Modern ones are so bad, if you stop a song you hear the song still playing a bit after you pressed stop. Might this open sourcing increase the likelihood of acceptable-latency first-tier ANC headphones again? Or are they still going to be like "open source is too open, let's keep using my own high latency proprietary codec anyway and add a few ancient even higher latency ones like SBC for compatibility"
- noname120 4y agoaptX LL has 40ms latency in the best conditions[1]. You should look into: – LLAC/LHDC LL: 30ms[2]. – BLE LC3: 7.5ms[3]. – BLE LC3Plus: 5ms[3]. [1] https://www.aptx.com/aptx-low-latency https://www.aptx.com/aptx-low-latency [2] https://www.soundguys.com/understanding-bluetooth-codecs-15352/ https://www.soundguys.com/understanding-bluetooth-codecs-153... [3] https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/communication/lc3.html https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/communication/lc3.ht...
- Aardwolf 4y agoI don't seem to find any modern first-tier ANC headphones support any of those (LLAC, LHDC, BLE LC3) either though...
- HunOL 4y ago> So headphones from 5 years ago are more useful than modern ones. Modern ones are so bad, if you stop a song you hear the song still playing a bit after you pressed stop. I have similar observation. 3-5 years ago it was easier to find headphones with that support multiple codecs. Now aptx is kit always supported.
- trollied 4y ago"As per our usual business processes, the licensing of aptX, Snapdragon Sound and the underlying technologies, will continue to remain unchanged apart from contributing the aptX and aptX HD encoders to AOSP." Open source != free to use anywhere. (In this case)
- meinheld111 4y ago> Open source != free to use anywhere This is the way. And while you may not be legally entitled to, you can.
- pietro72ohboy 4y agoOpen source with arbitrary restrictions on its usage. I don’t get how “this is the way”. Examples like these make it clear why FSF explicitly distances itself from the term open source.
- meinheld111 4y agoI see oss like a garden without a fence. The owner doesn’t have to allow my trespassing, just tolerate it, and we’re golden.
- oblio 4y agoThat's not OSS. That's just some random permissive license. OSS is "there is no tresspassing". It's as close to public domain as you can get with software (because public domain software has some weird caveats in the US from what I remember).
- SergeAx 4y agoaptX HD is one of the greatest things happened with Android ecosystem. One day I just bought a cheap BT-receiver with aptX HD support and optical output and connected it to my old-fashioned music system (receiver + amp + floorstanding speakers connected by wires). The music quality became so much better compared to 3.5mm jack and I can listen all the music from the internet in my room with decent result.
- Melatonic 4y agoAre you sure about that? I thought a good 3.5mm connection would be miles better (assuming the source device has a decent DAC) The real secret in my opinion though is the old Chromecast Audio. It has no microphone and is super tiny and only has a 3.5mm output (DAC is not amazing but also not bad). But the best kept secret is that the 3.5mm also can act as a mini TOSLINK (optical). I have mine connected to an old (but still very high quality) Yamaha receiver via mini toslink to regular toslink cable and set the quality to the highest settings. Music sounds amazing with full 5.1 channel large speakers. And I have a second chromecast audio in a different room that is in a "group" with the first which allows you to perfectly sync music in both rooms (basically ghetto Sonos). Goodluck doing that with bluetooth. Best part is though that once you start the stream you can turn your phone off (or whatever device that started it) because the chromecast audio then goes directly to the internet. Nothing is actually streaming from the phone anymore.
- SergeAx 4y agoAside question: what if I write an aptX decoder from scratch just looking at the source text of encoder? Will it be an independent or derivative work?
- lathiat 4y agoYou want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- oigursh 4y agoThis is excellent news, aptX HD in particular is a great sweet spot for latency (for video), high enough quality, and robust enough encoding to avoid dropouts.