Why Nintendo Switch is the only console that officially supports Bluetooth audio?

orangpelupa

Elite Bug Hunter
Legend
Sure playstation also supports Bluetooth audio, but it is locked to the controllers. So you can't just pair Sony wireless Bluetooth headphones to ps4 / PS5. Need to plug them via cable to the controller.

Xbox on the other hand has never supported any Bluetooth audio whatsoever.

Why Nintendo Switch is the only console that officially supports Bluetooth audio?

because switch is mobile device so there are more users that already have Bluetooth audio devices?

Mobile device users already accustomed to Bluetooth audio latency compared to home console users?

Technical reasons? Licensing reasons?
 
Because BlueTooth Audio in the first half-dozen implementations have major latency issues. Maybe they finally have a revision and codec that doesn't completely suffer from those issues now.

Xbox has their own wireless protocol that doesn't suffer from the latency issues. Their own wireless headset event supports simultaneous audio from Xbox Consoles and BlueTooth Host. That has me believe they're similar to one another.

Likely, the number of support headaches that both Sony and Microsoft would have to field because of supporting specific revision and codec version where it won't work on most "BT headphones" simply isn't worth it.
 
You'd kind of expect the PS4 and PS5 to be bluetooth compatible with at least Sony's own audio devices such as the Inzone models. Considering that the DS4 and DS5(DualSense) also use bluetooth and support audio through the 3.5mm port and built-in speaker.
 
Aren't there also some downsides when sending and receiving audio over bluetooth? Such as reduced audio quality.

Which is not a problem for the Switch as there's no form of voice chat on that system.
 
The switch and PS4 (via controller audio jack) Bluetooth audio latency is fine. Still lower than HDMI with Dolby digital.

PS4 do have lower latency and lower quality than switch Bluetooth audio tho.

I have only tried wit akg n700ncm2 tho.
 
i consider anything lower or equivalent to Dolby Digital HDMI audio lag as fine.

sure people complains is all over the internet with dolby digital hdmi latency. but i assume most people are fine with that. otherwise TV companies like LG would not drop DTS, and dropping DTS would results in much bigger backlash.

EDIT:
turns out some bluetooth headphones/earphones are total trash in the latency departement

1666071387451.png

and gaming brands like razer got okay PC latency, but trashy android latency

1666071481778.png
 
Last edited:
I always have problems connecting a controller and audio via bluetooth at the same time. It ends up causing the audio to become a stuttery mess, even when using a supposedly 'good' dongle like the Asus BT400.
 
I can't recall seeing any bluetooth headphones with under 40ms latency, this is just how bluetooth operates. The bluetooth protocol is aiming above all for energy-efficiency the the greatest gain here is heavily compressing the data before it's transmitted. Audio compresses well, but not in realtime, it work's best on a large rolling buffer of several seconds of audio and that's where the latency creeps in.

There are a ton of latency-correcting protocols built into bluetooth (and audio systems in operating systems) so for example, if you switched between wired and bluetooth headphones whilst watching video in something like VLC, VLC will adjust the A/V automatically - assuming the devices/OS are all providing this information.
 
So Microsoft and Sony simply didn't want people to have inconsistent experience, while Nintendo are okay with it?

Sounds about right, given what @Caayn said about Nintendo not having Voice Chat. That's where latency becomes noticeable by the users.
 
IME audio latency is most noticeable with shooters, when shooting, rather than voice chat.

Probably because voice chat didn't have visual information. While with shooters the muzzle flash will be seen and then the audio will be heard lagging behind
 
Because BlueTooth Audio in the first half-dozen implementations have major latency issues. Maybe they finally have a revision and codec that doesn't completely suffer from those issues now.

Xbox has their own wireless protocol that doesn't suffer from the latency issues. Their own wireless headset event supports simultaneous audio from Xbox Consoles and BlueTooth Host. That has me believe they're similar to one another.

Likely, the number of support headaches that both Sony and Microsoft would have to field because of supporting specific revision and codec version where it won't work on most "BT headphones" simply isn't worth it.
Microsoft wont even certify their own surface headphones for teams via bluetooth. They only certify the headphone 2 + with the wireless connector dongle
 
IME audio latency is most noticeable with shooters, when shooting, rather than voice chat.

Probably because voice chat didn't have visual information. While with shooters the muzzle flash will be seen and then the audio will be heard lagging behind
100 ms should look off for lip-sync. But I guess game lips are wonky enough that's not an issue. For shooters or any action game, that much lag is significant. For music games it's potentially crippling I'd have thought.
 
There are a ton of latency-correcting protocols built into bluetooth (and audio systems in operating systems) so for example, if you switched between wired and bluetooth headphones whilst watching video in something like VLC, VLC will adjust the A/V automatically - assuming the devices/OS are all providing this information.

Yeah, this is the right distinction. For casually consuming content (eg watching a prerecorded video) the latency doesn't really matter, so long as it can stay very consistent. Even if the RTT latency is a whopping 1000msec, so long as the total stack is aware of the situation, it will simply delay the video output by the equivalent 1000ms and -- to your eyes and ears -- it all lines up just fine.

For having a purely audio conversation, the rule of thumb in the enterprise VoIP space is to keep round-trip latency below 50msec for a "natural" conversation. Anything more and people start to perceive the prolonged pauses where you start talking on top of eachother. The difference here is, so long as absolute latency is below 50msec, the jitter/deviation can vary pretty heavily without anyone truly noticing. Well, outside of compression artifacts where sometimes a stretching window might try to be caught up by simply concatenating the sound itself which might result in a perception of occasional choppiness (eg hey I think you broke up a tiny bit...)

For an interactive video / audio experience, you basically have to dip into the neurology of the human visual and auditory nervous and related brain systems to account for how big the lag can be -- and the individual matters highly here. Shifty gave a good example of a shooter where the muzzle flash vs the sound of the gunfire would be a good giveaway. However, every human is wired in their own way, and some people will notice it more than others.

And of course we must consider input lag in all of these equations. Imagine a scenario where your perceived inputs are asynchronous to visual and auditory cues -- even worse, if all three of these cues are perceivably out of sync from eachother. It would make the game feel disconnected at best, perhaps even antagonistic to the human player at worst.
 
When I tried the BT (on switch) I was impressed with the latency. Honestly, I was expecting something bad, but it worked really well. I tested it with a veeery old BT receiver (Sony Ericsson MW600 with BT 2.1 LOL). The first games I played were Zelda BotW, Mario Odyssey and Luigi's Mansion 3. I couldn't point out the latency, even knowing it was there.

Then I tried Cadence of Hyrule and Taiko no Tatsujin, and then I could "see" the latency, but still, I was able to play both games just fine. The only thing bad was the sound quality of my ancient BT receiver.
 
Back
Top