On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 08:53:05PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Thursday 13 December 2018 18:42:11 Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 04:36:59PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > What is the purpose of adding aptX codec (non HD variant)? It is not > > > better then default and mandatory SBC codec. > > > > > > > When using AptX codec one can be certain it's always 352 kbps bitrate. > > with SBC you never know what you end up using.. > > This is just because of current implementation of SBC in pulseaudio. Why > not rather invest time to properly support SBC at high quality or allow > user to set quality / show user current quality? SBC is mandatory and > supported by all devices, aptX only by some (plus codec is proprietary). > I agree that pulseaudio should be improved so that it's easy to verify the currently in use active codec settings/profile/bitrate. > Adding aptX codec just because SBC implementation in pulseaudio is not > so "nice" is not a good argument. > There are lots of physical AptX receiver/transmitter devices out there, and while they of course also support SBC, they're often marketed as "AptX" high quality devices, so users will want to use AptX codec with them. When you have both the SBC and AptX codecs available you can actually easily compare them against each other, and use whatever you prefer :) -- Pasi _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list pulseaudio-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
