Friday, September 3rd 2021

Qualcomm Adds Bluetooth Lossless Audio Technology to Snapdragon Sound

Press Release by
AleksandarK
 Discuss (60 Comments)
Qualcomm Technologies International, Ltd. today continued to demonstrate its vision and leadership in the wireless audio space with the introduction of Qualcomm aptX Lossless audio technology to its already extensive audio portfolio. aptX Lossless is a new capability of the proven aptX Adaptive technology and a new feature of Snapdragon Sound Technology that is designed to deliver CD quality 16-bit 44.1kHz lossless audio quality over Bluetooth wireless technology. Qualcomm Technologies has taken a systems level approach and optimized a number of core wireless connectivity and audio technologies, including aptX Adaptive, which work together to auto detect and scale-up and are designed to deliver CD lossless audio when a user is listening to a lossless music file and the RF conditions are suitable.

"At Qualcomm Technologies we're excited about the future of sound, and we're continually looking for ways to help our customers deliver new and exciting listening experiences. Lossless audio means mathematically bit-for-bit exact, with no loss of the audio file and up to now the necessary bit rate to deliver this over Bluetooth has not been available. With many leading music streaming services now offering extensive lossless music libraries, and consumer demand for lossless audio growing, we're pleased to announce this new support for CD lossless audio streaming for Bluetooth earbuds and headsets which we plan to make available to customers later this year," said James Chapman, vice president and general manager, Qualcomm Technologies International, Ltd.
To help deliver CD lossless audio quality reliably over Bluetooth wireless technology, aptX Adaptive works in conjunction with Qualcomm Bluetooth High Speed Link technology to help deliver the required sustainable data throughput. Designed to work seamlessly together, these technologies deliver rates beyond 1Mbit/s yet smoothly scale down to 140kbits/s in congested RF environments to minimize any audio dropouts or glitches for a consistent and reliable listening experience.

"Sound quality is the most critical purchase driver across all audio devices according to our 2021 State of Sound survey, which also shows increasing demand for higher quality streaming audio. Over half of respondents are seeking either lossless or high-resolution audio quality, and a massive 64% saying that lossless audio quality is likely to influence their decision to purchase wireless earbuds," Chapman continued. "Currently lossless audio is only supported on client devices such as phones, PCs and tablets. By supporting lossless audio on next-gen earbuds and headphones, we're providing our customers another way to deliver sound the way the artist intended, as well as a significant opportunity to differentiate and be among the first to develop products with this feature."

aptX Lossless features & specifications:
  • Supports 44.1kHz, 16-bit CD lossless audio quality
  • Designed to scale-up to CD lossless audio based on Bluetooth link quality
  • User can select between CD lossless audio 44.1kHz and 24-bit 96kHz lossy
  • Auto-detects to enable CD lossless audio when the source is lossless audio
  • Mathematically bit-for-bit exact
  • Bit-rate - ~1Mbps
For more information and to learn more about our aptX Lossless audio technology, visit here. The technology is expected to be available in late calendar 2021. For the full Qualcomm State of Sound survey visit here. For a whitepaper explaining more of the technology behind Lossless and High Resolution Audio, visit here.

Related News

Add your own comment

60 Comments on Qualcomm Adds Bluetooth Lossless Audio Technology to Snapdragon Sound

#51
R-T-B
stimpy88#Facepalm
Explain? I'm not including analog intentionally, as it always loses data to noise in transmission.

I admitedly am not on the cutting edge with audio tech though.
Posted on Reply
#52
Tartaros
Prima.VeraTrust me, there is a clear difference between 16bit/44kHz and 24bit/96kHz. I'm talking from experience. There are a lot of music samples out there.
BUT, unless you have decent, quality speakers, with very high range, you are correct, you won't distinguish a thing.
Which for bt audio is really out of scope, not only for bandwith reasons but for usage, outdoors. Even for people who drive their massive enegry sucking earphones through massive DACs in their phones in the street, all the noise and the nature of 2 insulated cans on your ears just ruin it, not matter how much they defend that.
AquinusI do have some 96Khz/24-bit content and the fidelity is fantastic, but in reality, if it were sampled down, I would probably not notice a difference. The real difference is that it's 5.1 (6 channel,) and lossless, which makes for a great sounding track.
The only true reason above 16/44 music shines is in surround in specific room setups. After years of watching people ardently defending than anything below 24/96 is shit I concluded what most people does is justifying to themselves their purchases. I tried several times doing different 24/96 vs 16/44 sound tests with different albums over the years and yes, you might find some differences, but not the life changing ones audiophiles claim and that goes out of the window when you start doing other activities while listening to music, which is what we all do.
Posted on Reply
#53
Dredi
Tartarosyou might find some differences
Differences in mastering, to be exact. ..or in how your DAC/rest of the digital signal pipeline handles mixed bit depths and/or sampling frequencies.
Posted on Reply
#54
Tartaros
DrediDifferences in mastering, to be exact. ..or in how your DAC/rest of the digital signal pipeline handles mixed bit depths and/or sampling frequencies.
Yeah, although it's very hard to notice and depends on the (high end) setup, use and the person listening, as I said I really have to concentrate on it to find differences with my setup and I mostly listen to music while doing other things so my attention to that fine detail is out of the window. My point is CD quality or equivalent lossless is pretty much the top for 99% for all uses and critizing bt codecs for not going beyond 16/44 is quite pointless given the use bt audio usually has. And no one who can appreciate 24/96 is going to try anyway. Aiming for full CD quality without reducing bitrate and using the less power as possible is more than enough for now.
Posted on Reply
#55
Dredi
Tartarosit's very hard to notice
Truly. If it was possible to notice, we’d have at least one person able to discern the difference in a A/B blind test. I’ve yet to see anyone succeed.

If you do heavy post processing (room correction etc.) it might in theory make sense to go higher, but even then you’d need to listen at absurd volumes to hear the quantization noise.
Posted on Reply
#56
Tardian
DrediTruly. If it was possible to notice, we’d have at least one person able to discern the difference in a A/B blind test. I’ve yet to see anyone succeed.

If you do heavy post processing (room correction etc.) it might in theory make sense to go higher, but even then you’d need to listen at absurd volumes to hear the quantization noise.
I am about to turn 60. In my 20s I discoed like the wasn't going to be a tomorrow. I however have never used earphones on any regular basis except for telephony and at low volume. I can hear a difference in the test for the results to be statistically significant. My 22-year-old son also has perfect hearing and prefers really good headphones. He can also hear the difference to get it right more times than not. This is not even on audiophile speakers or at high volume. I would argue that some have better hearing than others. This variance is known to happen in visual perception. If you disagree I challenge you to name the extensive auditory study that proves your point.
Posted on Reply
#57
Dredi
TardianI am about to turn 60. In my 20s I discoed like the wasn't going to be a tomorrow. I however have never used earphones on any regular basis except for telephony and at low volume. I can hear a difference in the test for the results to be statistically significant. My 22-year-old son also has perfect hearing and prefers really good headphones. He can also hear the difference to get it right more times than not. This is not even on audiophile speakers or at high volume. I would argue that some have better hearing than others. This variance is known to happen in visual perception. If you disagree I challenge you to name the extensive auditory study that proves your point.
That test is for discerning 8 bit from 16 bits, which is definitely audible. In order to benefit from 24bit music, you’d need to pass the blind test for noise at -96dB, as otherwise you can’t hear the quantization noise which is the only reason one could go for higher bit depth content.
Here you can test if you can hear noise at a meager -78dB. Don’t kill your ears.
www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_dynamic.php?dyna=78

If you claim to be able to pass it, please capture your try on video using a mobile phone. :)
After that we can try to find/make a test for the -96 dB noise floor, which is essentially beyond the human capabilities even in extremely good listening conditions.

As for your request on a study of the matter in question, this is a classic: drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

While the human ear can in theory hear a range of 0-120dB, and cd audio has a quantization noise floor of ’just’ -96db, you can only hear the ’extra’ quantization noise if your environment has a noise floor below that -96db limit. In a typical home environment the noise floor is around 30dB, which means that you’d need to set peaks to around 130dB to even in theory be able to hear the quantization noise, and music at 130dB is very unhealthy, causing immediate pain and possibly loss of hearing.

The only thing 24bit audio does is it lowers the quantization noise floor to -144dB, nothing more and nothing less. To be able to percieve the difference, you’d risk losing your hearing.
Posted on Reply
#58
Prima.Vera
DrediTrust me, you can’t. Prove me wrong by posting any well made test where the result is as you claim it to be. You simply stating that you can hear a difference means very little.

In the test, the lower bitrate audio clip needs to be produced directly from the high bitrate clip using best practices for downsampling, and the test needs to be a double blind one. Dac used needs to be run at the same bitrate for both clips, with the lower bitrate clip upsampled using best practices on the source device. Otherwise the DAC may be the piece in the signal chain that produces differing outputs.

In many cases music files released at higher bitrates are also mastered differently to any lower bitrate version of the same piece, which explains most of the people who claim to hear the difference.
By any change, do you have a sound card capable to provide at least a sample rate of 24 bit, 96 kHz ? You need this in Windows if you want to listen to very high quality sound files:
Posted on Reply
#59
Dredi
Prima.VeraBy any change, do you have a sound card capable to provide at least a sample rate of 24 bit, 96 kHz ? You need this in Windows if you want to listen to very high quality sound files:
I do. What does that have to do with physics? No way in hell am I going to listen music at peaks set to 130dB (assuming 30dB noise floor). And since my volume is set to lower than that, moving up from 16bit does _absolutely nothing_. Just link a study on the matter where the opposite is true, if you still think that there is any meaning in 24bit audio for _consumption_.
Posted on Reply
#60
Tardian
DrediI do. What does that have to do with physics? No way in hell am I going to listen music at peaks set to 130dB (assuming 30dB noise floor). And since my volume is set to lower than that, moving up from 16bit does _absolutely nothing_. Just link a study on the matter where the opposite is true, if you still think that there is any meaning in 24bit audio for _consumption_.
I've been busy on other matters, I will be responding to your challenge but not today.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 15th, 2025 22:19 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts