[angelom]

My understanding is that lossless is ONLY beginning at 1,411kbps (and above, of course). LDAC's maximum bitrate is 990kbps and that is STILL a lossy format which is 'only' 2/3 the bitrate of real lossless. BUT, like I saying already, there is too much exaggeration and BS when speaking of differences in bitrates ---that are genuinely audible for the human ear--- and between lossy and lossless formats.

 

[KinGensai]

My understanding is that lossless is ONLY beginning at 1,411kbps (and above, of course). LDAC's maximum bitrate is 990kbps and that is STILL a lossy format which is 'only' 2/3 the bitrate of real lossless. BUT, like I saying already, there is too much exaggeration and BS when speaking of differences in bitrates ---that are genuinely audible for the human ear--- and between lossy and lossless formats.

TL;DR from the blog post: lossy files are ok on any codex (except maybe SBC if you are extremely sensitive to IMD) because the brick wall filter hits above 17kHz, lossless files have audible loss on any codec but LDAC 990k/909k because FR above 14kHz gets brick wall filtered. In effect, LDAC high quality is indistinguishable from lossless, AptX HD is close with lossy files.

 

[Davesrose]

My understanding is that lossless is ONLY beginning at 1,411kbps (and above, of course). LDAC's maximum bitrate is 990kbps and that is STILL a lossy format which is 'only' 2/3 the bitrate of real lossless. BUT, like I saying already, there is too much exaggeration and BS when speaking of differences in bitrates ---that are genuinely audible for the human ear--- and between lossy and lossless formats.

That’s uncompressed CD. So it’s very conceivable that a lossless format at 990kbps would replicate identical metrics (for 16/44.1).

 

[angelom]

TL;DR from the blog post: lossy files are ok on any codex (except maybe SBC if you are extremely sensitive to IMD) because the brick wall filter hits above 17kHz, lossless files have audible loss on any codec but LDAC 990k/909k because FR above 14kHz gets brick wall filtered. In effect, LDAC high quality is indistinguishable from lossless, AptX HD is close with lossy files.

That’s uncompressed CD. So it’s very conceivable that a lossless format at 990kbps would replicate identical metrics (for 16/44.1).

They key part of my previous post is this: "there is too much exaggeration and BS when speaking of differences in bitrates ---that are genuinely audible for the human ear--- and between lossy and lossless formats."

 

[Davesrose]

They key part of my previous post is this: "there is too much exaggeration and BS when speaking of differences in bitrates ---that are genuinely audible for the human ear--- and between lossy and lossless formats."

Your claim was that 1,411kbps was the minimum rate for lossless, when that’s the rate for uncompressed. Think the actual numbers should be correct if we’re going to claim 990kbps is BS for lossless encoding.

 

[KinGensai]

They key part of my previous post is this: "there is too much exaggeration and BS when speaking of differences in bitrates ---that are genuinely audible for the human ear--- and between lossy and lossless formats."

14kHz brick wall filters are audible if you aren't hearing impaired. I hear up to 16kHz reliably. Older folks might not be able to hear that of course. 17kHz is arguably irrelevant, although some musicians I've known were able to hear up to 18kHz reliably, they were outliers.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

Try paying attention to the attack and decay of the transients and see if you can hear the same thing.

Made a comparison between Sony WF-1000XM5 (LDAC) and Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro (SSC). I listened to them on my Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra via Roon (Qobuz). The phone was lying on the table nearby. The noise reduction and equalizer are disabled on the headphones. Below settings:

Sony WF-1000XM5 (LDAC) | Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro (SSC)

For me there is a clearly audible difference in sound.
The Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro has overall better detail and resolution, as well as depth and bass development compared to the Sony WF-1000XM5. At the same time, on the Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro the presentation itself is a little harsh on some tracks, but the sound is very decent.

 

[KinGensai]

Made a comparison between Sony WF-1000XM5 (LDAC) and Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro (SSC). I listened to them on my Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra via Roon (Qobuz). The phone was lying on the table nearby. The noise reduction and equalizer are disabled on the headphones. Below settings:

Sony WF-1000XM5 (LDAC) | Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro (SSC)

For me there is a clearly audible difference in sound.
The Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro has overall better detail and resolution, as well as depth and bass development compared to the Sony WF-1000XM5. At the same time, on the Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro the presentation itself is a little harsh on some tracks, but the sound is very decent.

How much of that difference is from the codec vs the IEM? Gotta use the same IEM, I was switching between two codecs with the same HP.

 

[Davesrose]

How much of that difference is from the codec vs the IEM? Gotta use the same IEM, I was switching between two codecs with the same HP.

Was thinking the same thing....plus the Sony and Samsung could have their own EQ settings.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

Gotta use the same IEM, I was switching between two codecs with the same HP.

That's right!
It is not possible to verify this. Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro does not support LDAC, and Sony WF-1000XM5 does not support SSC.

 

[angelom]

Your claim was that 1,411kbps was the minimum rate for lossless, when that’s the rate for uncompressed. Think the actual numbers should be correct if we’re going to claim 990kbps is BS for lossless encoding.

My BS comment isn't about if LDAC is lossless or not -- LDAC is not. My BS comment, like in previous post some days ago, is about claims of genuinely hearing differences (for human ears) when speaking about bitrates, codecs, lossy vs lossless.

14kHz brick wall filters are audible if you aren't hearing impaired. I hear up to 16kHz reliably. Older folks might not be able to hear that of course. 17kHz is arguably irrelevant, although some musicians I've known were able to hear up to 18kHz reliably, they were outliers.

OK, this is fair comment, but I still want seeing more corroboration of this (more than one source) but, more importantly, I want seeing if this results are real in a genuine blind test. I'm still 99.9999% sure the very majority of people --even people with good ears-- will not hearing a difference, or only (maybe) very, VERY few people hearing a difference that is so, SO small that in actuality is very irrelevant.

How much of that difference is from the codec vs the IEM? Gotta use the same IEM, I was switching between two codecs with the same HP.

Yes, this is elementary and obligatory for a true A/B test, and similarly important, when comparing 2 different headphones (with same codec, DAP, amp, cable, etc), is volume matching.

 

[Davesrose]

My BS comment isn't about if LDAC is lossless or not -- LDAC is not.

If LDAC 990kbps meets every metric of an uncompressed 16/44.1 file/stream, then it is lossless.

 

[KinGensai]

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,124080.0.html

http://soundexpert.org/articles/-/blogs/audio-quality-of-bluetooth-aptx

From what I'm seeing and my own ABX test, sufficiently high bitrate levels are indistinguishable from one another (192k AAC, 320k+ SBC, 352k AptX), with degrading performance as bitrate diminishes. On paper AptX HD and LDAC 990k posts the cleanest output and numbers for lossy and lossless respectively, but in practice there's no difference I or the majority of people can hear as long as quality is prioritized. SBC degrades the fastest as bitrate diminishes and AAC is the most data efficient.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

Ok

 

[Dalmonegrig]

On paper AptX HD and LDAC 990k posts the cleanest output and numbers for lossy and lossless respectively, but in practice there's no difference I or the majority of people can hear as long as quality is prioritized. SBC degrades the fastest as bitrate diminishes and AAC is the most data efficient.

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.

What do we have in the bottom line? Correct me if there is any inaccuracy.
In theory
LDAC 990kbps - better audio quality (lossless audio can be obtained), "lossless high resolution".
AptX HD, AAC - excellent sound quality, but lossy "high resolution".
UAT, SSC are dark horses capable of overtaking the three favorites in the race (LDAC, AptX HD, AAC).
On practice
Everyone decides for himself whether he hears the difference or not.