[killaHz]

At times, it's even about SoC as most Qualcomm mid to premium range chipsets support TWS+ but the device manufacturers simply don't turn it on OOTB. Some do via OTA updates and some simply don't bother.

Same goes for DAPs if they're using a Qualcomm SoC then they can enable it by default but probably don't due to reasons known to them.

I had seen somewhere that not all the Snapdragon chipsets can support TWS+—that it was only in the model numbers 700+. Is that not right?

 

[Barusu Lamperouge]

I had seen somewhere that not all the Snapdragon chipsets can support TWS+—that it was only in the model numbers 700+. Is that not right?

Even the newer budget chipsets support TWS+ and most of the BT chipset used in the DAPs use QCC3xx which supports TWS+. It's not like they have to add a separate modem for TWS+ like 5G.

 

[ClieOS]

I had seen somewhere that not all the Snapdragon chipsets can support TWS+—that it was only in the model numbers 700+. Is that not right?

Even the newer budget chipsets support TWS+ and most of the BT chipset used in the DAPs use QCC3xx which supports TWS+. It's not like they have to add a separate modem for TWS+ like 5G.

@killaHz Yes. Last I check, only the mid- to top range SnapDragon supports TWS+.

@Barusu Lamperouge You need both the source as well and the receiver chipset to support TWS+ in order for it to work. Having only the receiver's end supporting TWS+ is not enough.

 

[assassin10000]

You need both the source as well and the receiver chipset to support TWS+ in order for it to work. Having only the receiver's end supporting TWS+ is not enough.

Not only that, the firmware also needs to support it.

Many of the Pixel phones have a TWS+ compatible chip but do NOT have the firmware which enables TWS+.

 

[Peddler]

I have to say that I'm a big fan of the iBasso CF01 adaptor. They don't seem to be getting a lot of love in this thread. I'm currently using them with their own iBasso IT00 IEM's and think that this is a match made in heaven. Definitely the flattest, most accurate and powerful bluetooth headphones in my collection. I have also tried the adaptors with the Magaosi K3 Pro's to good effect (even though these are multi-driver balanced armature hybrids).

I also like their form factor - the charging case is well thought out and features wireless charging.

 

[ClieOS]

....They don't seem to be getting a lot of love in this thread..

20 ohm of output impedance is hard to love, especially when it messed up my IEM's frequency response. Opposite to your experience, it is the least accurate of all the BT adapter I have tested and don't have much power either.

 

[Barusu Lamperouge]

@killaHz Yes. Last I check, only the mid- to top range SnapDragon supports TWS+.

@Barusu Lamperouge You need both the source as well and the receiver chipset to support TWS+ in order for it to work. Having only the receiver's end supporting TWS+ is not enough.

I was referring to the post by @killaHz where he stated that despite having TWS+ enabled earphones, one is unable to use them with his mobile and DAPs

Not only that, the firmware also needs to support it.

Many of the Pixel phones have a TWS+ compatible chip but do NOT have the firmware which enables TWS+.

This. The implementation has to be enabled via firmware as most of the newer chips are compatible with TWS+.

 

[FiiO Willson]

Thanks for your prompt and clear response.

One doubt, if Fiio M6 can have aptX codecs despite not having a Qualcomm SoC, can Fiio put TWS+ on it in future ? @FiiO Willson

also i am trying to find, in normal TWS is sound still using a master-slave method ? does it not play independently in both earbuds ?

In what way is TWS+ exactly beneficial compared to normal TWS ? is TWS/TWS+ only way to output send music via bluetooth on TWS type earbuds ?
it seems this codec is needed on smartwatches or small sized DAP also.

FiiO M6 has aptX because it runs a simplified version of Android (*though it is also very possible that M6 is using Qualcomm Bluetooth chip inside as Qualcomm is one of the biggest BT chip supplier around). aptX generally is fairly easy to implement on Android as it has very little hardware requirement and licensing from Qualcomm isn't very difficult to get. Basically any Android devices that uses an Qualcomm BT chip should have no problem getting aptX to work.

TWS+ on the other hand is a different story - Qualcomm is making TWS+ as a special feature on some of its higher-end SoC in order to push more manufacturer to use its SoC (and generally any manufacturer that use Qualcomm SoC will almost always going to use its BT chip as well) - so the situation is, if a devices has a Qualcoom SoC that supports TWS+, it will almost always has aptX as well. But if the devices has aptX, it however doesn't means it can support TWS+ at all. These are two different features offered by two different components - aptX by BT chips and TWS+ by SoC.

----

Yes, normal TWS configuration is a master-slave setup, where both left and right audio channel are transmitted via a single BT wireless channel to the master side first (*while the master side only playback one audio channel), then the master re-transmits the other channel to the slave side. TWS is less efficient because its needs to push two audio channel into one BT channel, then required another BT channel between master and slave side (*which will not be as easy since they are block by the human head). The master side will need to do a double duty. TWS+ is more efficient as two sides can operate independently using two BT channels and typically the connection will be stronger / more stable since the source will likely has a stronger connection to each side than the two sides between each other.

As for TWS+ vs. TWS - the main benefit is stability by a stronger BT connection. You won't get instant better SQ by going from TWS to TWS+. If you can get a stable TWS connection as much as you can get from TWS+, then you won't likely to notice any different when using the same BT codec

Remember, TWS+ is NOT a BT Codec. It is a special BT connection scheme that only certain Qualcomm SoC can support - so you can't just 'upgrade' to TWS+ if the device doesn't has any of those SoC. BT codec like aptX on the other hand is mostly software based and doesn't have as much restriction.

Yes,@ClieOS 's answer is correct.

TWS+&TWS are two different types of connections.
In addition, Qualcomm has a TWM connection, which is similar to Apple's TWS, and is the most opt-in connection method.

UTWS3 now support TWS+, and UTWS5 will support TWM.

Because of the limitations of the technical solution, our current TWS headset is still in the fumbling stage.

 

[Nalin]

Yes,@ClieOS
UTWS3 now support TWS+, and UTWS5 will support TWM.

Any estimate on UTWS5 launch date?

 

[monsieurfromag3]

Has anyone tried Null-Audio’s Nyx?

 

[Urnamaster13]

Sony latest TWS are supposed to support LDAC, the Sony WF-1000XM4.

 

[Urnamaster13]

Yes,@ClieOS 's answer is correct.

TWS+&TWS are two different types of connections.
In addition, Qualcomm has a TWM connection, which is similar to Apple's TWS, and is the most opt-in connection method.

UTWS3 now support TWS+, and UTWS5 will support TWM.

Because of the limitations of the technical solution, our current TWS headset is still in the fumbling stage.

TWM is better or TWS+ ? also any chance UTWS 5 will support LDAC ?

also, will you launch any music players which output using TWS+ ? preferably same size as M6 player

 

[ClieOS]

TWM is better or TWS+ ? also any chance UTWS 5 will support LDAC ?

also, will you launch any music players which output using TWS+ ? preferably same size as M6 player

TWM is an evolution of the original TWS, but not necessary going to be better than TWS+ SQ wise. In original TWS, one side of the TWS setup acts as a master device while the other is the slave device. The smartphone connects to the master device only, then the master re-transmit the signal the the slave device. Generally speaking, if the connection between the smartphone and the master device is lost, the slave device will automatically lost connection as well - in a TWM however, the slave device will automatically take over as the master (while the master switches to slave), which means the overall connection between a TWM setup is going to be much more stable than a TWS setup. TWS+ on the other hand allow both side to connect to the smartphone at the same time ((so basically they are both master devices on their own channel), sop losing connection to one side doesn't cut off the other side.

So in a way, if the connection isn't the most stable, TWM can in theory better than TWS+. But of the connection is very good, then they are likely not going to be any significant different between TWM and TWS+. Of course, Qualcomm is more likely going to push for TWM as it is in theory a more versatile solution, but I'll imagine they will likely going to limit TWM support only to smartphone with Qualcomm SoC, and maybe even only to higher end SoC like they do with TWS+. It is still too early to tell.

As mentioned before, TWS+ support required the source has a higher end Qualcomm SoC, which isn't going to be easy as those are not cheap or easy to find (*well, not on smartphone, but on DAP). I'll say the chance is slim - very slim in fact.

 

[FiiO Willson]

TWM is an evolution of the original TWS, but not necessary going to be better than TWS+ SQ wise. In original TWS, one side of the TWS setup acts as a master device while the other is the slave device. The smartphone connects to the master device only, then the master re-transmit the signal the the slave device. Generally speaking, if the connection between the smartphone and the master device is lost, the slave device will automatically lost connection as well - in a TWM however, the slave device will automatically take over as the master (while the master switches to slave), which means the overall connection between a TWM setup is going to be much more stable than a TWS setup. TWS+ on the other hand allow both side to connect to the smartphone at the same time ((so basically they are both master devices on their own channel), sop losing connection to one side doesn't cut off the other side.

So in a way, if the connection isn't the most stable, TWM can in theory better than TWS+. But of the connection is very good, then they are likely not going to be any significant different between TWM and TWS+. Of course, Qualcomm is more likely going to push for TWM as it is in theory a more versatile solution, but I'll imagine they will likely going to limit TWM support only to smartphone with Qualcomm SoC, and maybe even only to higher end SoC like they do with TWS+. It is still too early to tell.

As mentioned before, TWS+ support required the source has a higher end Qualcomm SoC, which isn't going to be easy as those are not cheap or easy to find (*well, not on smartphone, but on DAP). I'll say the chance is slim - very slim in fact.

At the moment it feels like Qualcomm has given up on TWS+ and they seem to be more willing to push TWM.

 

[FiiO Willson]

Sony latest TWS are supposed to support LDAC, the Sony WF-1000XM4.

The Sony WF-1000XM3 also supports LDAC