4 ms·
Feel 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.
by bearjaws 4y ago
Feel 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.