Jump to content

Talk:AptX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two Questions

[edit]

Are AptX devices backwards compatible with traditional bluetooth?

All other things being equal, are there any fidelity improvements by upgrading to an AptX link? 98.21.53.85 (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum, and you might be better discussing this at HydrogenAudio. Most bluetooth A2DP sources will run at high enough bitrates to be transparent nowadays using SBC, so you can't improve upon transparent fidelity except by having fewer problem samples or a more bit-error-resilient encoding.Dynamicimanyd (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AptX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lossless Compression

[edit]

The protocol implemented by AptX devices is designed to reduce bandwith (hence compression). Can this compression be called lossless (like e.g. APE or FLAC)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:C013:B600:F10E:46F:C08:FBDF (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these devices implement aptX Lossless and do indeed encode lossless (and not "near lossless"), I'd suppose so. -- Evilninja (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The normal aptX is not Lossless, but is very close for most musical content. The 0-5.5KHz band gets compressed from 16bit to 8bit, 5.5KHz-11KHz band gets compressed form 16bit to 4bit, 11KHz-16.5KHz band gets compressed from 16bit to 2bit, and 16.5KHz-22KHz band gets compressed from 16bit to 2bit also. ADPCM is used for compression and given that bit allocation mirrors actual signal variance in the bands (it does), the compression will be very close to lossless, or even lossless for content with less transients. 8bit ADPCM for the main 0-5.5KHz band is plenty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvioster (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AptX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions that are available for low latency SBC should be referenced.

[edit]

The line under AptX LL: 'Solutions are available that use standard SBC encoding/decoding that achieve end-to-end latency of less than 40 ms.' but doesn't actually cite anything for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.161.141 (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AptX Lossless?

[edit]

This page should get updated with info about AptX Lossless that was announced last year. 216.181.180.140 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AptX&oldid=1205023536"