[Sonic Defender]

Related to this discussion, correct me if I'm wrong, but phone manufactures shouldn't need to pay for anything unless I'm mistaken, or perhaps the fees will be reasonable. Before if the phone was to support Apt X say, the phone manufacturer had to pay to have the codec operate on the phone and integrate it. But if it is baked into the OS now, the fees should be baked into the OS licensing which wouldn't that be between Google and Qualcomm/Sony? If this is correct, only the receiving device needs to have codec added so it could be conceivable that Sony has as good a chance if not better to get companies onboard, or just as likely a headphone will support both codecs so the user can decide. Not sure if my logic/assumptions hold up.

 

[rkw]

  only the receiving device needs to have codec added so it could be conceivable that Sony has as good a chance if not better to get companies onboard

 
The way I see it... there are many millions of Bluetooth headphones and receivers that currently support aptX, and they use Bluetooth chips that come with aptX already integrated (like this). I don't think these manufacturers are going to drop (non HD) aptX support. They can upgrade to a Bluetooth chip with aptX HD, which would be backward compatible (like this). Potentially, the new chip can be a direct swap for the old.
 
I don't doubt that LDAC is a potentially better technology than aptX HD. I just think that the large aptX customer base gives a tremendous business advantage over Sony.

 

[Sonic Defender]

   
The way I see it... there are many millions of Bluetooth headphones and receivers that currently support aptX, and they use Bluetooth chips that come with aptX already integrated (like this). I don't think these manufacturers are going to drop (non HD) aptX support. They can upgrade to a Bluetooth chip with aptX HD, which would be backward compatible (like this). Potentially, the new chip can be a direct swap for the old.
 
I don't doubt that LDAC is a potentially better technology than aptX HD. I just think that the large aptX customer base gives a tremendous business advantage over Sony.

Yes your reasoning is very sound, but I think that moving forward, if Sony is very strategic and stays the course, more headphone makers may opt to provide support for LDAC as well. I'm of course speculating, I guess we all are, but I do hope that Sony does well as they are one of a handful of audio companies that combines really solid R&D with scale of economy which can really be a benefit to the end customer. Personally I am happy with Apt X as it is now, so I don't really have a dog in the hunt, more a curious observer. Time will tell.

 

[BenKatz]

-deleted-

 

[BenKatz]

As you can see in the link below, there:s quite a big difference between LDAC and aptxHD when it comes to quality. Hint: 24/96 vs 24/48, 990kb/s vs 576 kb/s, 20-40k freq rng vs 20-20. So you see, even if no other manufacturer than Sony licenses LDAC, as long as you get an Xperia or an android phone with LDAC, if you wanna experience the best bt sound quality, you go with a pair of 1000x, for example.

https://www.google.ro/amp/s/georgechang.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/qualcomm-aptx-hd-vs-sony-ldac/amp/

Also, both aptxHD and LDAC are actually software features. They're only codecs. LDAC at least requires bt 4.0 minimum to work, from what I know. Now, since we found out that both aptx HD and LDAC are baked into Android AOSP, and that basically the quality goes aptx < aptxHD < LDAC, it's just like setting resolutions. That being said, It will only be left to headphone manufacturers as to what codec they want to put into their headphones (aka which licence to pay for, I doubt many will want to pay for both). But I'd guess high end bt headphones from premium manufacturers would probably gravitate to LDAC, since the headphone market is quite a battlefield and everyone is fighting for the best possible quality, LDAC being the only one that is ALMOST high-res in its current iteration.

 

[PCheung]

I've got to correct you on that. LDAC hasn't been availabe for licensing. LDAC is a Sony proprietary technology/codec. This is why you obviously only see it on Sony products. Also, the first time Sony opened up LDAC for outside use is in the current development of Android O in collaboration with Google. Now, I don't know if that means that you'll ever see LDAC on non Sony audio bt products, but apparently you'll definitely see it on many Android phones, which, in turn, will push a lot of Sony headphone/speakers to consumers.

Also, Bluetooth 5 won't improve audio in any way without LDAC or aptx codecs. Just like BT 4.X without LDAC/aptx (pixel, iphone 7).

ELECOM is the first 3rd party licensed LDAC and already release its BT speaker "Mezzoforte" in Japan.
 
http://www2.elecom.co.jp/products/LBT-SPHR01AVBK.html
 
As a WM-1Z and ZX100 user, I hope more Japanese maker will join the LDAC party in the near future, as my choice on wireless headphone are very limited.

 

[BenKatz]

  ELECOM is the first 3rd party licensed LDAC and already release its BT speaker "Mezzoforte" in Japan.
 
http://www2.elecom.co.jp/products/LBT-SPHR01AVBK.html
 
As a WM-1Z and ZX100 user, I hope more Japanese maker will join the LDAC party in the near future, as my choice on wireless headphone are very limited.

Interesting. This means Sony's also licencing LDAC as a receiver, not only transmitter CODEC. This opens up the tech for the whole Headphone/Speaker manufacturers. And a huge potential income for Sony. 

 

[kelly200269]

  Yes your reasoning is very sound, but I think that moving forward, if Sony is very strategic and stays the course, more headphone makers may opt to provide support for LDAC as well. I'm of course speculating, I guess we all are, but I do hope that Sony does well as they are one of a handful of audio companies that combines really solid R&D with scale of economy which can really be a benefit to the end customer. Personally I am happy with Apt X as it is now, so I don't really have a dog in the hunt, more a curious observer. Time will tell.

I personally think that LDAC is nothing more than Sony 'hype', and a way for Sony to avoid paying Qualcomm royalties for using Apt-X.
When I owned the MDR-1ABT's, I used LDAC with my Sony DAP's. But curiously, using Apt-X with my B&W P7W's now sounds better than LDAC via the 1ABT's. Yes, I know it's not a 'fair' comparison, different headsets etc., but I fail to see how any other BT codec could improve on the sound I'm getting from this wireless combo at the mo'.
I also noticed that Sony has dropped Apt-X support in its latest range of DAPs.

 

[meringo]

 
I personally think that LDAC is nothing more than Sony 'hype', and a way for Sony to avoid paying Qualcomm royalties for using Apt-X.
When I owned the MDR-1ABT's, I used LDAC with my Sony DAP's. But curiously, using Apt-X with my B&W P7W's now sounds better than LDAC via the 1ABT's. Yes, I know it's not a 'fair' comparison, different headsets etc., but I fail to see how any other BT codec could improve on the sound I'm getting from this wireless combo at the mo'.
I also noticed that Sony has dropped Apt-X support in its latest range of DAPs.

 I can confirm that there is an audible difference. 
 
When I first got my MDR-1000x, I had a AptX dongle that transmitted to the headphones. I did a direct comparison when I got my A35 player. LDAC had more oomph to the sound, especially with the bass frequencies. Everything cleans up nicely and fills in, compared to AptX. 

 

[rkw]

  Interesting. This means Sony's also licencing LDAC as a receiver, not only transmitter CODEC.

 
LDAC been available to license for awhile ( https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/design/eda-and-ip/sony-license-ldac-2015-05/) This is the first case I've seen of an actual license.
 
I want to be clear about my posts. I never suggested that aptX HD is as good as LDAC for sound quality. I'm just very skeptical that the consumer electronics industry is interested in adopting LDAC, and there are business reasons why they wouldn't be. You can see this already – manufacturers didn't line up to license LDAC when it became available. The industry has adopted aptX, and I think most manufacturers will simply move on to aptX HD.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Hopefully the industry goes the way of choice and at least the better headphones feature support for as many codecs as possible. I really don't know how expensive or how these licensing models would work, but I would have to think it will be possible for companies to support both. As I said before, who knows? Time will tell, but either way consumers are the winners. As for whether or not LDAC is hype, frankly I tend to think that above 320 bitrate it is all transparent to the user, but for those who do feel they can hear differences between 320 and lossless bitrates it is good news that the industry is really making strides in wireless audio. Once I can test the difference I will see if I can actually hear a difference myself, but at this point I can't test so I have no position on LDAC.

 

[aertus]

is LDAC still superior to aptxhd? I heard aptxhd is on par with it

 

[Sonic Defender]

  is LDAC still superior to aptxhd? I heard aptxhd is on par with it

So subjective so the answer will vary depending I'm sure on who you ask.

 

[rkw]

  is LDAC still superior to aptxhd? I heard aptxhd is on par with it

 
LDAC has a higher maximum data rate than aptX HD. But data rate is just one factor for sound quality. Many bigger factors affect the sound including design and tuning of the headphone, and personal sound preference.

 

[Roen]

I use Sony cable from MDR-10RC (mic cable and normal cable), fit perfectly. Mdr-10RC isn't expensive headphone (35€ on amazon flash sale).

So the cable from the MDR-10RC fits the 1000x, no issues?