Does the Surface Pro support APT-X Bluetooth?

Anonymous
2013-09-25T11:55:59+00:00

I'm looking at some bluetooth speakers, and I know that APT-X codec gives better sound quality.

Would this work with the Pro? Or would I need different drivers?

Thanks

Surface | Surface Headphones | Setup and pairing | Windows

Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.

0 comments
Answer accepted by question author
Anonymous
2013-12-04T11:05:21+00:00

Hmm my last reply vanished. 

Aptx is Bluetooth but Bluetooth 1.-4. is not itself aptx.

Aptx is made by csr.

See which tablets contain aptx:http://www.csr.com/technology-solutions/av/audio-products-powered-by-csr-aptx/tablet

Well spotted when it came to the other answer you Got.

Enjoy your hifi!!

Was this answer helpful?

10+ people found this answer helpful.
0 comments
Answer accepted by question author
Anonymous
2013-09-26T21:22:40+00:00

Greetings Dasauto,

The Surface Pro does support Bluetooth 4.0.

Was this answer helpful?

3 people found this answer helpful.
0 comments

12 additional answers

Sort by: Most helpful
Most helpful Newest Oldest
  1. Anonymous
    2014-08-18T06:32:21+00:00

    I've found that the apt-x list is not complete--it doesn't have the Samsung Galaxy Tab4 devices, yet the box I have clearly has the apt-x logo on it. And their site says the Moto G phone has it, yet I dare you to find any mention of apt-x on the Motorola site for the MotoG (maybe they don't think anyone cares, see below).

    Of course one of the problems with apt-x is that there's no way to know if it is actually operating or not. They really need to fix this.

    Or, better, Google needs to come up with a free quality codec and make it a new standard for Bluetooth music. There are public domain codecs they could use that rival apt-x.

    Of course that wouldn't help with Microsoft products. Maybe Microsoft could do this instead.

    Or apt-x could, you know, actually get their act together:

    1. Get ported on more devices than the small handful out there now. Are they charging too much for licensing? The problem is that if it isn't widely used, no one knows about it, no one will ask for it, and no company will pay for a license. Thus they end up making less money by charging more, and could make more money by charging less.
    2. Have a way to tell if it is actually on (such as a notification icon). This is another reason why no one knows about it or, like the poster, even knows if their devices are using it. Again, a company can't make any money if they are invisible. Does my device have apt-x? If it does, is it actually being used? 

    This was never an issue with Dolby back in the cassette tape day. You always knew when it was on. (And it was on every device). apt-x could learn a lot from the history of Dolby.

    1. Keep their website up to date.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  2. Anonymous
    2014-07-23T16:42:48+00:00

    I'd like to know this too. Unfortunately, we have to assume it doesn't support the APT-X codec until someone can prove otherwise. The workaround I've considered is to buy a USB Bluetooth dongle that does support APT-X, and just leave that plugged into the surface. One that supports APT-X is http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JAZGSXY/. It's relatively small, but still not ideal.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  3. Anonymous
    2013-12-04T12:38:39+00:00

    I actuallly think it is a physical transmitter that has to be put in the product and that cost extra for all companies making tablets. So maybe that's why:)

    I am also for a lookout for a tablet myself for Hifi use. That's why I found the link I gave you. Don't trust anybody but csr on this:)

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments