Am I the only one who noticed that...

[dantesan]

Audio codecs have been disappearing from many high end phones? Go to Bluetoothcheck.com and look at Samsung's or Motorolla's new models. (I even read they removed some codecs from the S9) What is going on and why isnt LTT reporting on it? 

[dantesan]

More to the point... They never include audio codec support in LTT phone reviews. WHY!? James did that "50 true wireless earbuds" review and both sound quality and codecs were never even mentioned. Although I guess I shouldnt be surprised no one does anything more than "cursory glance" evaluations of phone cameras at LTT either despite having several photographer/videographers in the building.

[mariushm]

Why would you need an audio codec if you don't have analogue outputs like 3.5mm stereo output for headphones?

The processor has the audio stuff integrated and data is digitally sent directly to bluetooth in digital form ... the conversion from digital to analogue now happens in your headphones, not inside the phone.

So it's pointless to ask what codecs are used in the "50 true wireless earbuds" - you're not sending decoded analogue audio to those earbuds - you're sending digital data and the codec/processor inside the phones has the codec. 

 

 

[Commodus]

27 minutes ago, dantesan said:

More to the point... They never include audio codec support in LTT phone reviews. WHY!? James did that "50 true wireless earbuds" review and both sound quality and codecs were never even mentioned. Although I guess I shouldnt be surprised no one does anything more than "cursory glance" evaluations of phone cameras at LTT either despite having several photographer/videographers in the building.

Probably because few people actually care that deeply about codecs.  Now, codecs can affect quality, but diving into wireless audio formats in the midst of an 8-minute video is probably not the best way to retain an audience.  You'd have more of a point about camera quality, although I suspect that's harder to do when LTT is more focused on CPU performance than camera output.

[dantesan]

1 hour ago, mariushm said:

Why would you need an audio codec if you don't have analogue outputs like 3.5mm stereo output for headphones?

The processor has the audio stuff integrated and data is digitally sent directly to bluetooth in digital form ... the conversion from digital to analogue now happens in your headphones, not inside the phone.

So it's pointless to ask what codecs are used in the "50 true wireless earbuds" - you're not sending decoded analogue audio to those earbuds - you're sending digital data and the codec/processor inside the phones has the codec. 

 

 

What on earth are you talking about? Codecs arent even relevant to analog audio except for file formats. We're talking about codecs that travel over bluetooth not DACs. Like AptX HD, AptX LL and Sony LDAC. (On supported devices) We're talking about the new generation of phones LOSING those codecs (that they previously had in earlier generations of the same company's phones)

[dantesan]

46 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Probably because few people actually care that deeply about codecs.  Now, codecs can affect quality, but diving into wireless audio formats in the midst of an 8-minute video is probably not the best way to retain an audience.  You'd have more of a point about camera quality, although I suspect that's harder to do when LTT is more focused on CPU performance than camera output.

Did you see the silly "50 earbud" video? Sound quality wasn't even mentioned and he eliminated many of them for the most superficial reasons. Audio codec support would have been an actual reason in any kind of world that makes sense. 

 

Even some of the shortest most inane wireless audio product review on youtube in "Engrish" inform you which codecs the phone (or device to use with a phone) supports.

[dantesan]

44 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Anything based on Android 8 or later has native support for LDAC

 

Anything Android 5 or later can be given AptX HD support by flashing a mod in TWRP (custom recovery)

 

A lot of phones support AptX and perhaps HD as well, but simply didnt advertise it. 

 

LDAC is already very good (better than AAC and AptX HD) and people who settle for bluetooth audio probably dont bother to critique.

 

Wrong. Samsung deliberately disabled AptX HD from developer settings. (AOSP) I agree its SUPPOSED to support it but it doesn't. As far as adding AptX HD by sideloading/rooting etc...

 

Aint nobody got time for that. I want it built into the OS as standard. I do not want to jump through hoops and only to "maybe" have it work. (And likely get broken by updates) I want it official, advertised and GUARANTEED. (So that I can take legal action if it doesnt work)

 

I didnt buy a $350 set of LDAC headphones to get dicked around.

 

My $500 OnePlus 5T can do AAC, AptX HD and LDAC with no questions asked and its a three year old phone. There's no excuse for 2019 $1000 phones (especially flagships) to make that a problem.

 

Your comment about "People who settle for bluetooth audio" is also false. I have many wired high end headphones and good DACs to go with them for when Im sitting at home. When I am walking/running/cycling/mowing or doing practically anything else I don't want wires. (And by the way most of the time those activities generate too much microphonic cable noise to tell the difference anyway.)

 

I am also an ex studio recording engineer, by the way.

 

Note: Even Oneplus phones have been losing "official" support for codecs. Look through these.

 

https://bluetoothcheck.com/search?q=Oneplus

[dantesan]

49 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Disabling AptX HD doesnt disable LDAC...

 

1. Connect bluetooth headphones
2. Long press bluetooth in dropdown settings
3. You will see your headphone/bt receiver there as connected. On the right there is a cogwheel. Tap it.
4. You can now enable LDAC audio. This setting will stick

 

I mistyped and then corrected myself but didnt correct the second mention of AptX HD. In my first draft I erroneously said LDAC was removed from Samsung. (I corrected the first half but not the second)

 

At any rate I would like midrange or better android phones to be very loud and clear about supporting formats. The fact we have to rely on AOSP for these things is silly enough. I want AAC, aptX HD, aptX LL and LDAC listed on the webpage and on the box and on the TV ads and on all the retail store stands. No joke.

 

Most importantly I want phone reviewers to start paying attention to it and shouting at companies who don't.

 

Too much emphasis on how many megapixels and not enough on audio.

 

Im tired of buying expensive  D.A.P.s with shitty interfaces.

 

Its 2019 I want it all on the phone.

[kirashi]

5 hours ago, dantesan said:

Did you see the silly "50 earbud" video? Sound quality wasn't even mentioned and he eliminated many of them for the most superficial reasons. Audio codec support would have been an actual reason in any kind of world that makes sense. 

If you're referring to the video where they reviewed 50 cheap and inexpensive earbuds, they proly didn't compare codecs because none of those earbuds would sound better at their pricepoint with a good codec anyway. They might sound better, but they're not even close to the quality that flatly-tuned expensive studio IEM's can deliver.

 

1 hour ago, dantesan said:

Its 2019 I want it all on the phone.

I agree with you here; give me functionality I want in a phone, and I'll be your customer for life. But nooo, instead phone manufacturers know they can get away with sealing batteries inside the chassis, building phone bodies from glass instead of plastic, and removing headphone jacks that some of us actually need because we're not about to spend $300 of our money + time replacing our car stereo. Solution? Build your own phone, or settle for a non-flagship device that has the features you need.

[dantesan]

About cheap true wireless earbuds... There are a tiny few out there for that price that are beginning to show up with at least AAC or regular AptX (or even more rarely, both) that actually sound acceptable. Yes I know it isn't common but it is what we should be striving for. At the very least I'd like to hear about the sound characteristics... meager as they might be. (To be honest he really should have done "under $100" (Under $50 is usually trash) But even plain old SBC can sound BALANCED (If not terribly detailed) and thats the kind of info I want. When comparing cheap earbuds I want to hear about the EXCEPTIONS. The ones that punch above their weight class in sound quality for the money. I mean... That's kinda why Im bothering to watch reviews. At least let me know what the CREAM of the CRAP is. Otherwise, why talk about any of them if they aren't even usable?

 

Like any completely new market segment I expect we will see commoditization over time. Like when regular wireless bluetooth headphones came out they were VERY expensive. Now they are pretty reasonable except the best noise cancelling models for the most part. I expect to see the same happen to true wireless over time. By this time next year I expect to see a $50 true wireless set that meets or exceeds this year's $100 sets.

 

Creative's new true wireless are supposed to be at least acceptable at $70.

 

But hell even linus' (now ancient) reviews of wired headphones and IEM's never talked in much detail about bass or imaging or really anything but "Sounds ok to my top-40 ears" <shrug>

 

(So why even bother reviewing it?)

 

As a side note I've read some stuff lately indicating that future theoretical versions of Bluetooth itself may have features/bandwidth that may allow for higher bitrate audio while ditching all the aptx/aac/ldac stuff.

 

Ditto about the non-removable phone batteries. That's total BS. 

 

About the headphone jacks... To tell you the truth Im not as bothered by that as my android phone DAC/Amp is probably never going to live up to an external one anyway. At least with good wireless headphones there's usually enough battery and dac/amp circuitry inside to get loud. Even the quad-dac phones Ive heard dont get loud enough. If I want to drive more than 32ohm cans with my phone I use my Topping NX4 type-C DAC/Amp using OTG. My phone CAN drive up to roughly 80ohms but not very well.

 

If they DID decide to make my phone 8mm thicker just to add more battery and a really good  powerful dac/amp I would be pleased as punch and buy it in an instant... But they wont.

 

So I am hoping that wireless audio tech continues to improve and get cheaper over time. I foresee a day... Probably in 5-8  years when its gotten at least close enough to wired that most (even really picky people) won't care.

[dantesan]

Its expensive... But this exists if you are interested.

 

https://drop.com/buy/topping-dx3-version-2-dac-amp

 

And yes Im really annoyed at the lack of current windows support of aptX HD and AptX but... That's a whole other ball o' wax.

[mariushm]

Wake me up when you complain about lack of support for some OPEN SOURCE and FREE audio format.

AptX is proprietary and owned by Qualcomm ... why would everyone support it and pay licensing costs to qualcomm

 

At least LDAC is supposed to be supported from Android 8 and you have source code for decoding LDAC encoded streams if you want to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDAC_(codec)

 

[dantesan]

This is why Im really hoping for (as I mentioned earlier) that the base bluetooth audio spec gets updated. (An "SBC 2" basically) Ive read some stuff indicating it might happen next year.

 

Im not really that happy about Qualcomm's stranglehold but... Right now it seems the only psuedo-standard we had that isnt locked to a particular product line. (LDAC can be licensed but so far very few companies have wanted to pay for licensing on the device/headphone end.)

 

UAT, the new asian standard codec proposed by Hiby audio is superior to LDAC but has range issues with the current BT spec. I dont know if it requires a license to use in headphones like LDAC does.

 

(LDAC does require paying royalties to manufacture compatible headphones.) So, its not a cure-all.