aptX Adaptive Blutetooth 5.0 transmitters?
post-15325577
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 11

Dogway

New Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Location
Spain
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Location
Spain
Posts
37
Likes
1
I'm searching Bluetooth transmitters for the PC to send aptX adaptive LPCM audio to my DAC (thinking Qudelix-5K here). For some reason description on transmitters is always vague or ambiguous.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15327677
Post #2 of 11

Monstieur

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
288
Reaction score
87
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Posts
288
Likes
87
Doesn't exist.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Dogway
post-15327678
Post #3 of 11

Dogway

New Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Location
Spain
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Location
Spain
Posts
37
Likes
1
Thanks!
 
     Share This Post       
post-15378773
Post #4 of 11

visanj

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
395
Reaction score
34
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Posts
395
Likes
34
Please don't use aptx adaptive. Aptx HD is way better codec than Adaptive. for starters, aptx adaptvie limits quality to 470 kbps ps and the quality varies depending on the signal strength and most of the times it falls to lowest quality of 270 kbps which is lower than normal aptx. LDAC is facing same problem now. LDAC supports upto 990 kbps but since its adaptive, most of the time it defaults to 330 kbps which is worse.

After using all the codecs, I can safely say that Aptx HD is way better codec than LDAC
 
     Share This Post       
post-15611952
Post #5 of 11

Toth21

New Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Location
Europe
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Location
Europe
Posts
26
Likes
4
Please don't use aptx adaptive. Aptx HD is way better codec than Adaptive. for starters, aptx adaptvie limits quality to 470 kbps ps and the quality varies depending on the signal strength and most of the times it falls to lowest quality of 270 kbps which is lower than normal aptx. LDAC is facing same problem now. LDAC supports upto 990 kbps but since its adaptive, most of the time it defaults to 330 kbps which is worse.

After using all the codecs, I can safely say that Aptx HD is way better codec than LDAC
Do you have a link to a report on this? What was this tested on? This sounds weird, what would be the point if by default it usually only hits worse than Aptx quality?
 
     Share This Post       
post-15612010
Post #6 of 11

vmiguel

Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
54
Reaction score
88
Location
Portugal
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Location
Portugal
Posts
54
Likes
88
I use Creative BT-W2, wich has SBC, normal aptx and aptx low latency.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Infoseeker
post-15612297
Post #7 of 11

Monstieur

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
288
Reaction score
87
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Posts
288
Likes
87
Please don't use aptx adaptive. Aptx HD is way better codec than Adaptive. for starters, aptx adaptvie limits quality to 470 kbps ps and the quality varies depending on the signal strength and most of the times it falls to lowest quality of 270 kbps which is lower than normal aptx. LDAC is facing same problem now. LDAC supports upto 990 kbps but since its adaptive, most of the time it defaults to 330 kbps which is worse.

After using all the codecs, I can safely say that Aptx HD is way better codec than LDAC
Your device is defective. There's not much difference between aptX flavours - HD has 2 more bits in the low frequencies resulting in a marginal but audible difference in sound quality. All of them are measurably worse than "real" psychoacoustic codecs like AAC.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15614626
Post #8 of 11

Dogway

New Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Location
Spain
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Location
Spain
Posts
37
Likes
1
You mean AAC sounds better than aptx HD?
I'll post here my notes in case someone finds it useful:

Code:
    Bluetooth sends LDAC HQ (990kbps at 24 bit/96 kHz) LDAC LQ (330 Kbps @ 24 Khz) (connection often fails though)
    Bluetooth sends SBC* encoded audio (328 kbps 48Khz) (but worse quality response than simple aptX -crushed treble-)
    aptX sends aptX LL  (352 kbps 16-bit/48Khz) (32ms)
    aptX HD sends aptX HD  (576 kbps 24-bit/48Khz) (1-32ms)
    aptX Adaptive sends aptX VBR  (279-420 kbps 24-bit/48Khz) (80ms)
    AAC (256 Kbps 16-bit/48Khz) (on paper worse than SBC, on real better)
    * through A2DP interface (can send MP3 without transcoding but in reality all devices reencode to SBC)
 
     Share This Post       
post-15614867
Post #9 of 11

Monstieur

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
288
Reaction score
87
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Posts
288
Likes
87
You mean AAC sounds better than aptx HD?
I'll post here my notes in case someone finds it useful:

Code:
    Bluetooth sends LDAC HQ (990kbps at 24 bit/96 kHz) LDAC LQ (330 Kbps @ 24 Khz) (connection often fails though)
    Bluetooth sends SBC* encoded audio (328 kbps 48Khz) (but worse quality response than simple aptX -crushed treble-)
    aptX sends aptX LL  (352 kbps 16-bit/48Khz) (32ms)
    aptX HD sends aptX HD  (576 kbps 24-bit/48Khz) (1-32ms)
    aptX Adaptive sends aptX VBR  (279-420 kbps 24-bit/48Khz) (80ms)
    AAC (256 Kbps 16-bit/48Khz) (on paper worse than SBC, on real better)
    * through A2DP interface (can send MP3 without transcoding but in reality all devices reencode to SBC)
Those numbers are mostly irrelevant. The algorithm used by the encoder and device-specific implementation have the highest impact on fidelity. The bitdepth such as 16-bit and 24-bit is only applicable to PCM signals and the concept is not applicable to psychoacoustic codecs like AAC and MP3. aptX uses adaptive PCM compression, so while bitdepth is still applicable, it's reduced at the output and the number is just a marketing gimmick.

SBC encodes with audible distortion and can be written off immediately. Someone conducted an analysis of SBC and found that most devices have a low quality implementation. In rare devices with a high quality implementation, it was not audibly distorted.

aptX (all flavours) are simple bit-discardation adaptive PCM encoders. They are low fidelity by design and are meant for low power hardware implementation. aptX HD is transparent to the ear but measurably inferior to psychoacoustic codecs.

AAC is measurably the highest fidelity codec and is transparent at 256 kb/s. The only AAC sources are Android, iOS, and macOS. The iOS and macOS AAC encoders are the highest quality ones and are transparent. The Android AAC encoders are low quality and may not be transparent.

MP3 is almost as good as AAC and is still audibly transparent. However there are no Bluetooth sources that use it so it's irrelevant.

LDAC is a marketing gimmick and has no reason to exist next to AAC. It's a psychoacoustic codec but is still inferior to AAC. The higher bitrates are irrelevant when AAC is transparent at 256 kb/s. It could be useful on PC as there is no AAC encoder on Windows (only SBC and aptX, both of which are audibly distorted), but there is no LDAC on PC either.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Dogway
post-15614906
Post #10 of 11

Dogway

New Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Location
Spain
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Location
Spain
Posts
37
Likes
1
While inferior a psycho acoustic or visual encoder (audio or video) mostly is so to counteract the lack of bitrate. Now an encoder that doesn't have a psychoacoustic algorithm of any kind like apTX is quite of a shock, but given that LDAC has one I doubt that it is inferior to AAC given the difference of bitrate. But I can't tell without an AB. In windows I encode with qaac.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15614917
Post #11 of 11

Monstieur

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
288
Reaction score
87
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Posts
288
Likes
87
While inferior a psycho acoustic or visual encoder (audio or video) mostly is so to counteract the lack of bitrate. Now an encoder that doesn't have a psychoacoustic algorithm of any kind like apTX is quite of a shock, but given that LDAC has one I doubt that it is inferior to AAC given the difference of bitrate. But I can't tell without an AB. In windows I encode with qaac.
With the additional constraint of real-time low power encoding, software psychoacoustic encoders are typically run in low quality mode for Bluetooth transmission. iOS devices for example have hardware AAC encoders that encode in in normal / high quality mode. In high quality mode, software encoders will outperform hardware encoders, but at the cost of high CPU usage and reduced battery life.

LDAC is not used as a storage format, but only for real-time transmission. Thus for Bluetooth it's a comparison between a low quality real-time software LDAC encoder and a normal / high quality hardware AAC encoder.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Dogway and Hemlocke

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top