Showing 1 of 35 conversations about:
View Full Discussion
Probably because iPhones represent only around 18% of the smartphone market, though I have read it may be a bit more (lots of inconsistencies in the numbers... it could be more like 2:1 Android to iOS). Most of the forthcoming crop of Android devices will also likely be able to decode the aptX codec, but will certainly not be able to decode the AAC codec. The aptX codec is also capable of delivering a higher maximum bit-rate than the AAC codec.
While android outsells ios about 4 or 5 to -1 worldwide, that's not the case in the US where they are approximately even; there are tons of iphones here. It's also extremely difficult right now to get clear information about bt codecs and transports and actual comparisons of audio quality (the transfer rates provided by OCBob look accurate to my understanding, and I certainly expect aptx HD and LDAC to be able to carry essentially lossless audio and thus sound substantially better than aac, but I have not actually tried them, and sound quality involves more than transfer rates, though transfer rates enable more data and thus, potentially much higher audio quality). I wonder if there is a licensing or cost issue that prevented Koss from implementing AAC? In any event, it's sharply disappointing that apple has historically limited its devices to using aac (they actually disable/disallow other options). It's also disappointing that Koss has not implemented BT5 with native atpx-HD and LDAC. All android devices running android 8 or above already support bt5 and aptx-hd and LDAC (that is why I switched to an android phone). It's 2018, for goodness sake - why is it so bloody hard to get even reasonably priced bt headphones that support higher quality audio technology that has been available for several years now?
Where does it says No AAC codec? If true, it's a deal killer, and shame on MD for not including this in their description...
It has got nothing to do iPhone's market share.
In order to support AAC, the Bluetooth chip manufacturer has to pay royalties to a patent group for using the codec. It is around $0.20 or so. Then, the chip manufacturer adds his profits for just including a codec.
Finally, we the consumers pay $20 or more for one extra codec.
OMG any audiophile forum is full of fake news. People rarely try to investigate. :-(
I am well aware of the history of Koss and the embezzlement event. My comment was mainly that supporting bluetooth codecs are not done by end manufacturers but is done by the chip maker. And there are 3 companies to deal with. Qualcomm for aptX, a separate patent body for AAC, Sony for LDAC.
By the way, Android supports MP3, AAC and LDAC(from Oreo) over Bluetooth while aptX support is device specific.
My LG G6 supports atpX, and it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the wired and wireless Porta Pros. I'd say the wired lean towards more bass/less highs and the wireless has better highs/slightly less bass, but I don't have a lot of hours on the wireless set and PPs tend to mellow a bit as they break in. I could also tell the difference when used with my phone vs. my non-atpX laptop. These also sounded pretty shakey right out of the box, but are coming around nicely. I read that Macbooks and iMacs support atpX, but if you used these with an iPhone you'd merely be using SBC. I can understand why some iPhone users are upset, but I'd also argue that the average Android and iPhone users don't care all that much (based on the plethora of terrible sounding Bluetooth headsets I've auditioned that other users seem to love). The Massdrop Audiophile Community member is certainly not the average user.
It appears that one of the lawyers in Koss case was none other than Stormy Daniel's lawyer, Michael J. Avenatti. Small world.