Dali's Soft Magnetic Composite Driver

[Dalmonegrig]

As long as the bandwidth is getting over 909kbps, then yes.

How to check (find out) this?

 

[Davesrose]

How to check (find out) this?

Well I'd say in theory: if you're using a newer set of BT headphones (that are using a newer BT standard) it's going to easily be that case (since you're also likely to be close to the phone to have full strength). Just googling, looks like there are apps for checking BT signal strength (so if you'd be at your phone, I guess you'd have to experiment setting distances of your headphones)

With this app, for example, I would assume you'd have that bandwidth if it's an excellent signal:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dev.egl.com.intensidadbluetooth&hl=en_US&gl=US

 

[Dalmonegrig]

There are apps for checking BT signal strength

I measured it, below are the results.

These indicators are sufficient to assume that lossless sound will be obtained?

 

[Davesrose]

I measured it, below are the results.





These indicators are sufficient to assume that lossless sound will be obtained?

Those look like very good numbers: so yes, I'd say you're getting the full 909kbps for CD quality lossless. You'll probably start seeing drops once you try putting your headphones in a case and try moving away from it. From what I could tell of your phone setting screenshots, I think your audio then drops to lossy SBC when the bandwidth goes below 909kbps. I don't know if these meters provide a TX/RX rate. Those provide the actual transmission rate and receiving rate. I'm on my Mac right now (which isn't my most current computer and doesn't have the 6Ghz band my new 6E router is capable of). But under advanced, I can see that it is showing the full Tx rate (WiFi) of 1,300Mbps with a RSSI of -37 dBm.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

Those look like very good numbers: so yes, I'd say you're getting the full 909kbps for CD quality lossless. I don't know if these meters provide a TX/RX rate. Those provide the actual transmission rate and receiving rate.

Today is a good day.
With your help, I have come a long way. In any case, this is the maximum that I managed to squeeze out of bluetooth technology with the help of LDAC.
Thank you very much for your help!

 

[Davesrose]

Today is a good day.
With your help, I have come a long way. In any case, this is the maximum that I managed to squeeze out of bluetooth technology with the help of LDAC.
Thank you very much for your help!

You’re welcome, and we both learned what is the max Android BT standard available at the moment

 

[gregorio]

[1] Since LDAC is capable of lossy 96kHz rate, I don't think it's a "deception" to say it's hi-res. [2] To make things more complicated, apparently it has a CD quality "lossless" standard that's open for developers.

1. As lossy 24/96 would technically result in lower fidelity than lossless 16/44 within the audible band, I do think it’s a “deception” to say it’s hi-res. Although the difference should be inaudible of course.
2. Ah, I didn’t know that, so I stand corrected. Although again, the difference should be inaudible.

I'm playing 24/48 FLAC through UAPP and switching between SBC and AptX, and SBC sounds far better implemented than before and in recordings I hear from that time (2019). However, there is something distinguishable between the two, and it's the dynamic range of the transient peaks in the track I'm listening to.

That maybe just a perceptual error or might be a real audible difference depending on how the SBC is implemented in that particular device. I recall quite a debate about the audible sound quality of SBC a few years ago, I think when Aptx (or Aptx HD) was released. Some reliable DBTs were carried out and no audible difference was detectable between SBC and lossless across several devices. However, it did depend on maintaining the high quality profile and recommended bitpool. I don’t remember the exact source now and a quick, cursory search didn’t reveal it, so this is anecdotal unless anyone else can find it.

These indicators are sufficient to assume that lossless sound will be obtained? … With your help, I have come a long way.

Aren’t these two assertions contradictory? Your settings and measurements indicate you’re getting lossless 16/44 (and possibly lossy 24/44) but you are having to “assume” you’re obtaining lossless because presumably you can’t hear that you are (which agrees with the fact that there should be no audible difference). So, what have you gained in terms of any audible improvement and how have you “come a long way”?

G

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio
I suppose at this point it would make the most sense to recommend against use of SBC solely for the reason of raising the quality floor IMO. After trying SBC again with more recent hardware I can accept that SBC can be arguably audibly transparent, but the lowest quality settings on SBC can still negatively impact playback, so I think arguing for using a codec that accommodates bitrates that are at transparent levels (192k AAC/320k MP3) as a minimum makes sense.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

So, what have you gained in terms of any audible improvement and how have you “come a long way”?

For me, there are no contradictions here (however, you are trying to take phrases out of context).
Firstly, I learned more useful information about bluetooth codecs. And most importantly, LDAC can be configured to transmit lossless audio. This setup is identical to a wired audio or an Audio-CD sound quality. Bravo SONY!
(At the same time, I don’t understand why SONY didn’t close the gestalt. Why didn’t SONY make an extra effort and complete LDAC in today’s conditions. So that no one has any doubts about lossless sound transmission when using LDAC.)
Secondly, I was able to configure my devices to transmit lossless sound. For me, it wasn't fast (a long way is a metaphor, don't take it literally).
Thirdly, comparing sound using bluetooth codecs SBC and LDAC (with settings for lossless audio transmission), I prefer the second (LDAC). To me, LDAC sounds better.

 

[Quazar]

A great description of the LDAC codec: https://www.soundguys.com/ldac-ultimate-bluetooth-guide-20026/

 

[Bahnhof Zoo]

There’s a real easy way to test all of this out on android devices. There are Bluetooth codec changing apps, on the android play store at least, where you can seamlessly switch the codec during a song from Ldac to aptX, etc. good luck noticing huge differences. the changes, to me at least going from aptx adaptive to sbc are so minuscule that it’s probably not worth obsessing over. AptX adaptive to aptX hd, and even regular aptX are fairly inaudible

 

[KinGensai]

There’s a real easy way to test all of this out on android devices. There are Bluetooth codec changing apps, on the android play store at least, where you can seamlessly switch the codec during a song from Ldac to aptX, etc. good luck noticing huge differences. the changes, to me at least going from aptx adaptive to sbc are so minuscule that it’s probably not worth obsessing over. AptX adaptive to aptX hd, and even regular aptX are fairly inaudible

Don't need an app for that, you can just turn on developer mode and change codecs in Dev options.

AptX adaptive to SBC makes sense because they share very similar bit rates. I'll agree now that the differences are subtle, but I can still hear something going on with the transient response in SBC vs AptX. It's like a limiter has been applied to the SBC signal because the peaks don't tense up the ear canals whereas the AptX signal does. Try paying attention to the attack and decay of the transients and see if you can hear the same thing.

 

[Bahnhof Zoo]

Don't need an app for that, you can just turn on developer mode and change codecs in Dev options.

I hear you…but it’s much easier and seamless when using the app

 

[Davesrose]

1. As lossy 24/96 would technically result in lower fidelity than lossless 16/44 within the audible band, I do think it’s a “deception” to say it’s hi-res. Although the difference should be inaudible of course.

Lossy wouldn’t be desired for re-encoding or editing vs lossless or uncompressed. But I assume, like other multimedia codecs, there could be really efficient codecs that would have advantages over it’s uncompressed alternative if space/datarate is limited. For example, movies have relied heavily on lossy compression to be able to stream or fit on an optical disc (that includes 48kHz audio getting up to 7.1 channels). Before the current craze for streaming “hi-res”, you had your DVD-A and a limited selection of movies and concerts on blu-ray that were 24/96. If I wanted to recompress one of my few BDs that had the surround 24/96 audio track, I can re-encode them in h.265 video and AAC audio. It’s amazing to me how effecient new compression algorithms are, so I can fit more 4K movies and HD TV shows on a NAS. Of course also, with music reproduction, advantages of 24/96 may be more academic theory.

When it comes to the definition of hi-res, it looks like it’s not an entire consensus. You side with the RIAA (that does say the audio must also be lossless). Other groups define it as any format that is above 16/44.1(48). So personally, I think if there are DAPs advertising hi-res playback on BT: it’s not a deception (if the stream is LDAC 24/96 990kbps). Ideally, there should be “hi-res” and “lossless hi-res” to help have that delineation.

 

[KinGensai]

https://addictedtoaudio.com.au/blog...-the-bluetooth-codecs-which-performs-the-best

Some interesting reading. From the measurements taken here, it seems LDAC produces the cleanest signal and most complete reproduction of 24/96 lossless files by not brickwalling at 14kHz to 15kHz.