helmutcheese
Headphoneus Supremus
I should sue them for their aptX Adaptive (backwards compatible with aptX LL & aptX HD claim or just poor wording at the very least).
aptX Adaptive / aptX Lossless USB Transmitters
- Thread starter mcnaugha
- Start date
For example, QCC514x has Bluetooth 5.2, but they don't support isochronous channel needed for LE Audio. Why? That's because 5.2 doesn't require isochronous channel to be supported. An even QCC5151 doesn't have LE Audio (well, kind of. Seems that there's some hardware bug which made it impossible to do. Or just Qualcomm being Qualcomm and wanted to get more sales for QCC5171).
"While support for LC3 will be mandatory" on the screenshot isn't enough? Ok, I'll find it.
Wanna a funny thing? Snapdragon 778g+ has FastConnect 6700. FastConnect 6700 page has LE Audio. 6/7 gen 1 have LE Audio. And 778g+ does not. Cool, right? But no one said that 778g+ has it. It's just 5.2 (or 5.3? Doesn't matter. Without LE Audio it's basically the same as 4.2 in terms of audio).
True.I don’t think you even understand what it means if you’re making this argument. LE Audio is a set of specifications.
True.
Once again, true.
mcnaugha
100+ Head-Fier
First of all… There was no citation there whatsoever. Secondly, read the screenshot Question. It’s not the same question at stake here.
They haven't defined that "backwards compatibility" means, right? Good luck then. As for compatibility, it might be true, actually. But not in the way one would expect. Maybe the codec algorithm is the same (all those hard math stuff), but some parameters are different (which is true for aptX Classic/LL/HD). So aptX Adaptive libraries could encode/decode aptX Classic/LL/HD. The problem is that there's no way to test it. In "real world" (with off-the-shelf devices) aptX Adaptive would be used on both sides.
mcnaugha
100+ Head-Fier
A screenshot from where? You need to cite a reputable reference. Anyone could have made that screenshot.
also the question doesn’t match my point. LE Audio is not LC3 And vice versa.
They clearly linked it. Here's another quote from their link:
"LC3 is being introduced with LE Audio, and support is mandatory for all LE Audio products".
https://www.bluetooth.com/media/le-audio/le-audio-faqs/
Last edited:
mcnaugha
100+ Head-Fier
That may have been the Bluetooth SIG’s intention but it’s not the reality and that’s my point. Sometimes the industry has more power than the self-anointed standards bodies.
Here is an example of how the industry is actually doing things… not having LC3 does not discount a product as supporting LE Audio where that marketing site says mandatory or not.
The Earfun Air Pro 3 are explicitly calling LC3 out as a separate addition and others will follow that have already shipped products supporting LE Audio the pseudo platform upon which LC3 runs.
Here is an example of how the industry is actually doing things… not having LC3 does not discount a product as supporting LE Audio where that marketing site says mandatory or not.
The Earfun Air Pro 3 are explicitly calling LC3 out as a separate addition and others will follow that have already shipped products supporting LE Audio the pseudo platform upon which LC3 runs.
There is a link. Also spec is here. And it states (page 25) that at least 16 kHz is required:
True, but LE Audio implies (at least) LC3. Same as SBC with A2DP: every A2DP devices has SBC. Without any exceptions.
mcnaugha
100+ Head-Fier
That’s what they intended/wanted but it’s not really what has materialised just yet. In essence we are not there yet. This was about LE Audio and its right to stand as a separate entity to LC3. LC3 is but as aspect. LE Audio is so much more And manufacturers have chosen to run without LC3 for one reason or another for the time-being. It therefore would not be right to say that a device doesn’t support LE Audio because it doesn’t have the LC3 codec. That’s just marketing silliness. Maybe we will be able to equate the scenario with SBC in the years to come but for right now, reality does not reflect the intention of the BT SIG.
Show me at least one device with LE Audio and without LC3. You can't because it is required: the Bluetooth SIG will not certify such a product and will sue anyone who would use LE Audio term in their marketing. Well, at least I hope they will sue.
No, they're not. That's marketing. Saying "LE Audio & LC3" is just like "cholesterol-free sunflower oil" or "non-GMO salt".
While it's technically possible to don't have SBC on some A2DP headset (one can get QCC51xx dev board from AliExpress and try, sellers usually give all software development tool), it doesn't mean it's not required.
It is mandatory and that's why one can't find A2DP devices without SBC.
It is mandatory and that's why one can't find A2DP devices without SBC.
This means you have counter example?
mcnaugha
100+ Head-Fier
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/a...forms/snapdragon-8-plus-gen-1-mobile-platform
I disagree. I say that because products are out there with LE Audio and no LC3. Earfun has called it out specifically because this is the reality we have been watching in this forum for the past two years!
mcnaugha
100+ Head-Fier
That’s because SBC was the first and history has been written on that one. LC3 is hardly anywhere yet.
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/application/audio/qcc5100-series/qcc5171
Show me. 8+ gen 1 has LC3 even though it's not stated on the product page.
Once again, QCC5171 has LC3.
Users who are viewing this thread
