Jump to content

Is Your Vanquish, Equinox And GPX 6000 Wireless Audio Already Obsolete?


Recommended Posts

Came across an interesting article regarding Qualcomm's latest incarnation of it APTX BT audio codec called "APTX Adaptive".  The technology from a purely technical standpoint is simply amazing.  Instead of fixed bitrate modes (e.g., APTX - Classic, APTX-HD, APTX-LL), APTX-Adaptive evaluates and scales the best bit rate based on the situation and adjusts on the fly, including incorporating low latency by default.  Cool right?  However, diving into the specifics, it appears there may be a few gotchas.  Notably, the low latency capabilities of APTX adaptive are not quite as good as APTX-LL  and backwards compatibility - from the article:

Regarding low latency:

"[APTX  Adaptive's] Algorithm latency is also down to less than 2ms at 48kHz, with a system round trip falling somewhere between 50 and 80ms depending on the implementation. This isn’t quite as fast as Low Latency’s sub 40ms speed but should be virtually imperceivable. Other codecs can reach over 200ms latency, and even the old aptX clocked in at around 150ms."

Regarding backwards compatibility:

"Speaking of latency, aptX Low Latency is being retired after the launch of Adaptive, which has some implications for backward compatibility. When connecting to Low Latency devices, Adaptive will default back to aptX Classic. In other instances, aptX Adaptive simply matches the capabilities and bitrate of the Classic or HD-capable device, so product transition should be seamless."

What does all this mean for ML detectors and the folks who own them?

Well there are gaps in the article's explanation of APTX Adaptive's implementation, but the key takeaway is the statement that APTX-LL is being retired.  What this practically means is that 3rd party headphone companies will gradually shift to implementing APTX Adaptive and releasing phones with that tech while phones with APTX-LL will be harder to come by as the APTX-LL phones are retired from manufacturers' product lines.  3rd party APTX-LL compatible headsets are already a relatively rare breed. This will just eventually exacerbate that situation.

All the existing APTX-LL compatible gear will still continue to work with both APTX-LL and APTX Adaptive phones, but at some point, the APTX-LL phones will wear out, break or get lost and getting a 3rd party, direct APTX-LL replacent will be hard if your favorite phones are no longer manufactured.  ML will support breakage of their ML branded APTX-LL under warranty and I suspect, ML will continue to stock their marked up phones for post warranty purchase, for the foreseeable future to support their active detector product lines using APTX-LL wireless.

It appears APTX Adaptive phones should work with the  ML APTX LL detectors, the big question mark is whether their latency will default to APTX Classic birate AND latency at 150 ms (compared to APTX-LL's 40 ms latency) is not entirely clear in the article [this would be noticeable and bad] or will simply use APTX Adaptive's 50-80 ms latency and APTX Classic's birate which would be OK, but not quite as good as APTX-LL.  What is also not clear is whether full APTX Adaptive backwards compatibility requires the new Qualcomm chip on the transmitter (in this case the detector) which would be a non-starter for ML, a firmware upgrade to the existing BT chip in the detector, or nothing at all needs to be done.  I suspect the latter, but I am just guessing.

Overall, this is the flip side of hitching your wagon to a pseudo industry standard compatible technology where you have less control over future obsolescence (but a better and more economical selection of third party hardware) vs. using your own, less universally compatible proprietary hardware/software.  ML makes their proprietary solutions such as Wi Stream wireless audio even more cumbersome by not providing universal compatibility across their own detector lines.  Manufacturer-specific proprietary tech is one thing,  making it detector specific is a whole other level of suck.  I was encouraged to see ML going solely with APTX-LL wireless audio on the GPX 6000. 

I just hope ML they did their homework and asked some pointed questions of Qualcomm before Adaptive was announce and before committing to APTX-LL for the GPX 6000 regarding future backward compatibility as Qualcomm evolved the APTX tech and got the right answers that put the questions I posed above to bed as non-issues... We'll see.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


49 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

However, diving into the specifics, it appears there may be a few gotchas.  Notably, the low latency capabilities of APTX adaptive are not quite as good as APTX-LL.  (emphasis mine)

 

49 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Well there are gaps in the article's explanation of APTX Adaptive's implementation, but the key takeaway is the statement that APTX-LL is being retired.  What this practically means is that 3rd party headphone companies will gradually shift to implementing APTX Adaptive and releasing phones with that tech while phones with APTX-LL will be harder to come by as the APTX-LL phones are retired from manufacturers' product lines.  3rd party APTX-LL compatible headsets are already a relatively rare breed.  (emphasis mine)

Nice writeup, Chase, and thanks for sythesizing (translating?) for people like me who aren't as tech saavy and/or up on the latest ideas/products.  I've quoted a couple (IMO) key points and highlighted the most relevant.

Regarding latency of current detectors (this isn't just limited to Minelab products, but Garrett for sure, and I assume XP and others), APTX-LL was never as fast as those (I think the proprietaries are in the high teens of milliseconds).  To make matters worse, some advertising promised or deceptively hinted APTX-LL when the products didn't meet that spec!  There has been debate (which I doubt will ever be resolved) as to whether detectorists can tell the difference between latencies of 40 ms and 18 ms.  I happen to fall on the side of 'yes', but a well thought ought and conducted experiment would need to be executed to find out the real answer and I have no interest in going to that much trouble.  Still, technology in general tends toward faster,better,cheaper so it rubs me a bit the wrong way that there is the faster method isn't being exploited in most of the real world.

And this is where the reasons my second quote & emphasis becomes clear.  The 'public' didn't buy into APTX-LL because listening to music (what 99.99% of Bluetooth users do?) isn't affected by latency.  We detectorists are a mosquito compared to that elephant.

I seem to be in the minority of preferring the detector manufacturers' proprietary methods.  I use the WM08 exclusively on my ML Equinox 800 and I use the stand-alone (proprietary) Garrett Z-Lynk transmitter+receiver for all my other detectors.  As long as detectors include an industry standard external jack (1/4" or 3.5 mm) and as long as high quality 'wired' headphones and earbuds are still available, I'll be fine.  Would I prefer fewer wires?  As long as they have the extra-low latency (Garrett's Z-Lynk system is the poster child) then that would be even better than my current setup, but I don't mind the hybrid (old fashioned headphones with cord connected to a receiver that fits in my pocket).  The main thing is I'm not tethered to the detector.  Being tethered to something in my pocket by a cord from my head to that pocket isn't a big inconvience for me.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now I'm really glad I held on to the WM-08 wireless audio modiule that came with my Nox 800. I never thought I'd need it, but perhaps I will at some point.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

We detectorists are a mosquito compared to that elephant.

True - detectorists do not drive the industry's push for low latency, high fidelity audio capability.  But low latency, high fidelity audio is also desired by gamers and those who consume video content, including music video content, so there is a driving force out there, just still outnumbered by those who consume audio only and couldn't care less about latency.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Qualcomm is just trying to keep in the game, keep in mind their adaptive chipset was released in 2018 and wasn't implemented in Minelab detectors.

The real way it is heading will be Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio, Qualcomm was always a bit obscure which is why it was difficult to get Bluetooth aptX low latency gear, it's just not a common chipset.  Bluetooth 5.2 will end up being in every new Bluetooth product so it will become commonplace, it obviously won't be backwards compatible with Qualcomm's low latency codec, made by a different group, metal detector manufacturers started using aptX LL as it was the best available at the time.  I guess to use Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio Minelab would have had to delay the GPX 6000 release, or it would just be too difficult if they'd already had the PCB ready 12 months ago with aptX LL incorporated into it, and placed their order for a big bunch of rebranded LL headphones.

Some reading on Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio.

https://audioxpress.com/news/bluetooth-le-audio-and-lc3-market-overview-technology-trends-and-forecast-from-sar-insight-consulting

Note that it's 5ms latency on Bluetooth 5.2, and Qualcomm's aptX LL averages around 40ms and Qualcomm adaptive averages slower than aptX LL.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another case of corporate greed. Like most things today, "this new flim-flam technology is greater than all prior flim-flams"

Just a bunch of greedy rascals trying to fill their pockets yet again by forcing people to migrate to the "latest technology". No let's be honest, it's a greedy arse company that continues to lie in order for more profits.

It's a rampant thing, and people keep playing along so companies continue to get by with it. It ranges from even the most smallest items (a simple style of pants you actually enjoyed but are now "discontinued" and replaced by a pair of sucky quality replacements that don't fit anywhere like the old ones did) to everything else.

Yep, sick of greedy companies.  Items end up being "discontinued", "retired", and "End of Life" all for the sake of selling a newer model that really is not worth the price. Just junk with more flashy lights and more little colors or some other nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

Qualcomm is just trying to keep in the game, keep in mind their adaptive chipset was released in 2018 and wasn't implemented in Minelab detectors.

The real way it is heading will be Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio, Qualcomm was always a bit obscure which is why it was difficult to get Bluetooth aptX low latency gear, it's just not a common chipset.  Bluetooth 5.2 will end up being in every new Bluetooth product so it will become commonplace, it obviously won't be backwards compatible with Qualcomm's low latency codec, made by a different group, metal detector manufacturers started using aptX LL as it was the best available at the time.  I guess to use Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio Minelab would have had to delay the GPX 6000 release, or it would just be too difficult if they'd already had the PCB ready 12 months ago with aptX LL incorporated into it, and placed their order for a big bunch of rebranded LL headphones.

Some reading on Bluetooth 5.2 with LE Audio.

https://audioxpress.com/news/bluetooth-le-audio-and-lc3-market-overview-technology-trends-and-forecast-from-sar-insight-consulting

Note that it's 5ms latency on Bluetooth 5.2, and Qualcomm's aptX LL averages around 40ms and Qualcomm adaptive averages slower than aptX LL.

 

 

Simon, you say Qualcomm is just trying to stay relevant and I say the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BT SIG) that oversees the continued development Bluetooth spec is finally becoming relevant as they get rid of their moldy, laggy SBC codec.

Here is more recent article based on the actually released Bluetooth 5.2 LE standard (which was not finalized at the time the audioexpress article above was written over a year ago).  The key is not so much the Bluetooth 5.2 LE standard itself but the replacement of the bluettooth standard (and laggy) SBC codec with a BTSIG sponsored replacement codec called LC3.  The LC3 codec provides a huge latency benefit over even APTX LL as Simon pointed out above.  You can see the anticipated LC3 audio latency compared to the various APTX codecs and SBC in a chart within this July 2021 article :

https://soundsightheadphones.com/wireless/bluetooth-5-0-codecs-and-other-bluetooth-formats/

The upshot, as Simon pointed out, is that a more widely adopted industry standard is coming that promises to bring low latency as a standard to all BT compliant devices, including detectors that choose to implement the standard hardware and software...someday.  Well, at least that's progress.

But the point of my post is that Qualcomm is eating its own young and the fact that APTX Adaptive is obsoleting APTX LL and its SoC (system on a chip) chipset rather than letting it co-exist among APTX-HD and APTX Classic chips and codecs will much more quickly hasten the the demise of already hard to find 3rd APTX-LL hardware than Bluetooth 5.2 LE/LC3 which is just now starting to roll out.

Anyway, looks like Minelab got caught in between Qualcomm APTX rollouts and the BT SIG rollout of BT 5.2 LE/LC3 - unfortunate timing since the hardware is now cast in stone.  I wonder if future ML releases will abandon APTX LL for LC3 or abandon BT altogether?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobNC said:

Yet another case of corporate greed. Like most things today, "this new flim-flam technology is greater than all prior flim-flams"

Just a bunch of greedy rascals trying to fill their pockets yet again by forcing people to migrate to the "latest technology". No let's be honest, it's a greedy arse company that continues to lie in order for more profits.

It's a rampant thing, and people keep playing along so companies continue to get by with it. It ranges from even the most smallest items (a simple style of pants you actually enjoyed but are now "discontinued" and replaced by a pair of sucky quality replacements that don't fit anywhere like the old ones did) to everything else.

Yep, sick of greedy companies.  Items end up being "discontinued", "retired", and "End of Life" all for the sake of selling a newer model that really is not worth the price. Just junk with more flashy lights and more little colors or some other nonsense.

This one is more of an annoyance as far as I am concerned because the tech involved is pretty cheap, but I understand where you are coming from because what you state is true for a lot of other tech and unnecessary obsolescence, especially when it comes to the mobile device industry.  In this case, I can't fault Qualcomm for trying to push the technology to bring better performance (that's what we expect the detector manufacturers to do), but forced obsolescence for the express purpose to drive sales is inherently evil.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

I seem to be in the minority of preferring the detector manufacturers' proprietary methods.  I use the WM08 exclusively on my ML Equinox 800 and I use the stand-alone (proprietary) Garrett Z-Lynk transmitter+receiver for all my other detectors.  As long as detectors include an industry standard external jack (1/4" or 3.5 mm) and as long as high quality 'wired' headphones and earbuds are still available, I'll be fine.  Would I prefer fewer wires?  As long as they have the extra-low latency (Garrett's Z-Lynk system is the poster child) then that would be even better than my current setup, but I don't mind the hybrid (old fashioned headphones with cord connected to a receiver that fits in my pocket).  The main thing is I'm not tethered to the detector.  Being tethered to something in my pocket by a cord from my head to that pocket isn't a big inconvience for me.

Thought you might be interested in this excerpt from some of the articles I was researching as went down this BT rabbit hole:

"Audio Latency
Audio latency is the rate of delay and synchronization of sound with its source, which is found in anything from games to videos. Latency is often measured using milliseconds because time spans longer than that often indicate bigger issues in the system.

Audio delay starts becoming apparent (and distracting) at over 40 milliseconds. However, people with more sensitive ears can sometimes notice latency rates as little as 15 milliseconds.

aptX Low Latency is Qualcomm’s latest variation of aptX, which stands for audio processing technology. However, while Qualcomm’s other codecs use technology they developed, aptX Low Latency actually utilizes the latest Bluetooth technology to connect your device with the speaker.

Qualcomm advertises that aptX Low Latency tops out at around 40 milliseconds. However, you should note that the universally accepted rate for latency depends on the type of sound you’re listening to.

For instance, latency as high as 100 milliseconds is acceptable for gaming and listening to concerts and loud music. But when it comes to more precise areas, such as direct speech, the optimal is 20 milliseconds to 40 milliseconds."

So, Chuck, how does it feel to have "more sensitive ears"? 

https://www.makeuseof.com/bluetooth-5-vs-aptx-low-latency/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of other markets in the Low latency game, TV viewing and video games. The desire to use handheld consoles and not be tethered to a television have helped the market. I've been hoping the bone conduction companies would see these uses as well as our own for safety concerns, i.e. situational awareness.

Guess I better grab more backups... 😀

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...