Thursday, May 8th 2025

Bluetooth SIG Announces Bluetooth 6.1 with Improved Power Efficiency and Security

Press Release by
TheLostSwede
 Discuss (12 Comments)
The Bluetooth Core Specification recently moved to a bi-annual release schedule. This shift enables more frequent and consistent delivery of completed features, fostering faster innovation and continuous improvements across the Bluetooth ecosystem. Developers and manufacturers now have quicker access to the latest Bluetooth advancements, powering wireless innovation and enhancing overall market responsiveness.

"Moving to a bi-annual release cycle for the Bluetooth Core Specification represents a pivotal step forward for the entire Bluetooth technology ecosystem," said Alain Michaud, chair of the Bluetooth SIG Board of Directors. "This new cadence will ensure that incremental improvements and features can reach developers and manufacturers faster, fueling innovation and helping them meet the evolving needs of the market with greater agility."
The first release under the new bi-annual release schedule, Bluetooth Core 6.1, published on 6 May 2025. This release introduces Bluetooth Randomized RPA (resolvable private address) Updates, a feature designed to enhance privacy and power efficiency in Bluetooth devices.

Key benefits of Bluetooth Randomized RPA Updates:
  • Increased device privacy: Randomizing the timing of address changes makes it much more difficult for third parties to track or correlate device activity over time
  • Improved power efficiency: The Bluetooth Randomized RPA Updates feature offloads the address change operation to the Controller, helping conserve battery life
Accompanying the release of Bluetooth Core 6.1 is a new feature description appendix added to the communications guide for supported Bluetooth functionality. This appendix provides clear, high-level descriptions of Bluetooth features, profiles, and applications, ensuring accurate and consistent public messaging. It supports unified communication across the industry, helping member companies clearly convey Bluetooth functionality.

Reminder: Bluetooth SIG members should avoid referencing the Bluetooth Core Specification version against which a product was qualified (e.g., Bluetooth Core 6.1) when describing Bluetooth functionality. Instead, members should focus on clearly communicating the specific Bluetooth capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth features) supported, especially those most relevant to your target customers, in product packaging, documentation, and marketing materials.
Source: Bluetooth SIG

Related News

Add your own comment

12 Comments on Bluetooth SIG Announces Bluetooth 6.1 with Improved Power Efficiency and Security

#1
bonehead123
members should focus on clearly communicating the specific Bluetooth capabilities
Whaaaaaaat.....clear communications......why on earth would they wanna do that, hahaha :D j/k

But seriously, up till now, BT has thankfully avoided the clusterflook that is USB, with its multiple gens + multiple versions +.x.xx.xxxx etc etc, so lets hope that continues....
Posted on Reply
#2
Mr. Perfect
I understand that marketing features will be better understood by non-technical consumers, but hopefully they still reference version numbers for the geeks and admins out there.
Posted on Reply
#3
Wirko
bonehead123flook that is USB
Ah! USB (the data transfer part) has at least been simplified to 5/10/20/40 Gbit etc. by now. A finite number of options. But USB PD (and power over Ethernet, lest we forget) are getting more interesting by the day.
Posted on Reply
#4
bonehead123
WirkoAh! USB (the data transfer part) has at least been simplified to 5/10/20/40 Gbit etc. by now. A finite number of options. But USB PD (and power over Ethernet, lest we forget) are getting more interesting by the day.
I was really referring to the 3.xx, Gen xx.xxx.xxx etc, but I get your point :)
Posted on Reply
#5
Rightness_1
CD's stream audio at about 176KB/s for uncompressed 16Bit 44.1KHz 2ch audio, yet even this can be a struggle for Bluetooth at times, and is why we don't have lossless audio higher than the 16Bit CD standard, despite our devices supporting much higher standards. So why in this day and age can we not have at least 1.2MB/s (uncompressed 24-bit/192kHz 2ch) so that all audio formats can be played losslessly over a 2-4 metre distance? Why is this so hard to do in 2025? I just don't get it.
Posted on Reply
#6
slyphnier
Rightness_1CD's stream audio at about 176KB/s for uncompressed 16Bit 44.1KHz 2ch audio, yet even this can be a struggle for Bluetooth at times, and is why we don't have lossless audio higher than the 16Bit CD standard, despite our devices supporting much higher standards. So why in this day and age can we not have at least 1.2MB/s (uncompressed 24-bit/192kHz 2ch) so that all audio formats can be played losslessly over a 2-4 metre distance? Why is this so hard to do in 2025? I just don't get it.
most likely related to energy-efficiency and reliability, for bluetooth almost every new version always mention about improved-power-efficiency

with wifi, we can easily transfer 100MB/s++, bluetooth if not power-capped (spec-wise) i think can do same thing
Posted on Reply
#7
Rightness_1
slyphniermost likely related to energy-efficiency and reliability, for bluetooth almost every new version always mention about improved-power-efficiency

with wifi, we can easily transfer 100MB/s++, bluetooth if not power-capped (spec-wise) i think can do same thing
Yeah, I just find it odd that they cannot transmit a local, low-power signal to a device with a high sensitivity receiver that can hit a tiny 1.2MBs? It's nothing in this day and age. Maybe the 2.4GHz is the issue, but if we are talking about such a low bitrate, then they should figure out a lower frequency signal to use over a 5-10 metre range, so it goes through bodies and furniture better than 2.4GHz thus also reducing the power output needed.

A 1.2GHz standard would be ideal for this task, as we do not need raw gigabit style throughput like WiFi, and would allow them to reduce power requirements, and make the signal more robust. I just don't understand why the Bluetooth SIG does not push for this going forward. I mean, Bluetooth has barely improved in throughput for the last 15 years. It's obvious that basing it on 2.4GHz was a huge mistake.
Posted on Reply
#8
Sam32
Rightness_1Yeah, I just find it odd that they cannot transmit a local, low-power signal to a device with a high sensitivity receiver that can hit a tiny 1.2MBs? It's nothing in this day and age. Maybe the 2.4GHz is the issue, but if we are talking about such a low bitrate, then they should figure out a lower frequency signal to use over a 5-10 metre range, so it goes through bodies and furniture better than 2.4GHz thus also reducing the power output needed.

A 1.2GHz standard would be ideal for this task, as we do not need raw gigabit style throughput like WiFi, and would allow them to reduce power requirements, and make the signal more robust. I just don't understand why the Bluetooth SIG does not push for this going forward. I mean, Bluetooth has barely improved in throughput for the last 15 years. It's obvious that basing it on 2.4GHz was a huge mistake.
2.4GHz band is unlicensed worldwide, 1.2GHz requires a license in most countries.
Posted on Reply
#9
Wirko
Sam322.4GHz band is unlicensed worldwide, 1.2GHz requires a license in most countries.
Also the antennas in the smallest devices are already much smaller than the wavelength, and if they become relatively even smaller (as the wavelength increases), their efficiency goes down.
Posted on Reply
#10
Rightness_1
Sam322.4GHz band is unlicensed worldwide, 1.2GHz requires a license in most countries.
That's a shame. Maybe one day governments will open this up, as it would be perfect for short-range applications that still require a little more bandwidth.
Posted on Reply
#11
Wirko
But is 2.4 GHz really a poor choice? Wi-fi transmission across a single room is always excellent, so I'd expect the same from BT (lower power and lower bandwidth is understood). That's *if* there's no interference.

Some adaptive data buffering could also be implemented (if not done already), so if there have to be audio dropouts, there are as few as possible in a given situation.
Posted on Reply
#12
Rightness_1
WirkoBut is 2.4 GHz really a poor choice? Wi-fi transmission across a single room is always excellent, so I'd expect the same from BT (lower power and lower bandwidth is understood). That's *if* there's no interference.

Some adaptive data buffering could also be implemented (if not done already), so if there have to be audio dropouts, there are as few as possible in a given situation.
The lower the frequency, the more stable and penetrative the signal, and lower the power needed to transmit it. Perfect for low-power near-field devices such as wireless headphones... The tiny bandwidth of Bluetooth is why we don't have hi-res lossless audio in such devices.

But yes, a few megabytes of buffer, would always be a smart idea with a streaming device. 4MB would be enough to store 3 seconds of uncompressed 192/24 bit audio or 5 seconds of the same audio, losslessly compressed.

I'm sure that if you limited the bandwidth to say 800KBs, it would be more than enough when using lossless encoding.

Anyway, I'm only dreaming about what could be!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 12th, 2025 09:20 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts