[zolkis]

Did you really figure out those claims or are they just “impressions” from sighted testing?

Er... did you really read what I wrote? I am not sure I get the intended meaning of the question. Define your difference between "figuring out" and "impressions"?
(I mentioned several months of ownership for the IO-12 - in addition, I have several years of ownership of the other mentioned headphones, except for the IO-6).
Yes I wrote about what I figured out (from data, experience, listening and measurements), and everyone on this forum has been sharing opinions, that are closer to "impressions" than to peer-reviewable hard scientific facts (which are not a thing in such forums), so I don't get this zeal for a meticulous differentiation.

Measurements are just a comparison tool for myself, with no universal correctness claims, but they match very well with Tyll Hertsens' measurements for a lot of known headphones. My quick measurements of the stock Dali IO-12 are here (in its thread), and similarly, the measurements of the rest of the headphones is in their threads, respectively.
Except for the IO-6, which I didn't measure, just listened / compared with the IO-12 for about 2 hours. There was such a big difference between the IO-6 and the IO-12 drivers (listened to both drivers via both ear pads, i.e. 4 ways), that I gave up on the IO-6, it was a no-brainer. With that, the IO-6 is still one of the better (even, among the best, by my preferences) ANC BT headphones, though. The IO-12 is just a different new class of its own (for me). Yet I am pretty sure it can be bettered, and it's pity it doesn't support LDAC, though. But for about the same price as the ML5909, it's far better to my ears and preferences (no bass boomers, but extension close to e-stats and mag-stats).

Returning to the topic, I think there is a lot of reason in Dali's focus on magnetic circuits (as it has been with Fostex THxx drivers, then followed by many). I don't consider the IO-12 driver as good as the biocellulose drivers from Fostex / Denon / lots of Chinese manufacturers, let alone close to e-stats, but the total package of driver, housing / acoustic loading, ear pads, DSP etc. are an example for an extremely successful system optimization IMHO.

Maybe it's worth waiting, someone will surely better the IO-12 sooner or later (I know the T+A ST is considered already better by some, so YMMV).

 

[Dalmonegrig]

So if you reach the threshold of transparency, sound quality is the same to human ears, even if the file has higher fidelity.

Are the criteria and indicators of the transparency threshold known?

 

[bigshot]

Are the criteria and indicators of the transparency threshold known?

When you can’t tell the difference between the compressed file and the original lossless in an ABX test any more, you’ve reached the threshold of transparency. For AAC ( the codec I use, it’s between 192 and 256.

Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison with multiple trials averaged or it doesn’t count. Anything less is a sighted impression and can be skewed by bias and perceptual error.

Equipment measurements are just half the story. You need to know as much about your ears’ specs as your equipment and codecs.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

For AAC ( the codec I use, it’s between 192 and 256.

192kbps and 256kbps?

Equipment measurements are just half the story. You need to know as much about your ears’ specs as your equipment and codecs.

You’re right, but I have a desire to deal with LDAC and its lossless audio transmission first.

 

[bigshot]

192kbps and 256kbps?

Yes

You’re right, but I have a desire to deal with LDAC and its lossless audio transmission first.

If it makes you sleep better at night, that’s fine. But you don’t have to.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

If it makes you sleep better at night, that’s fine. But you don’t have to.

That’s true. I really woke up in the middle of the night and thought about it.

 

[angelom]

However, in active mode (hifi setting), I find the IO-12 drivers very good, currently the best in wireless headphones (IMHO), and that includes the T+A ST, ML 5909 etc. - YMMV (some or many people still prefer the T+A ST, which is fine and legit, just not for me).

Maybe it's worth waiting, someone will surely better the IO-12 sooner or later (I know the T+A ST is considered already better by some, so YMMV).

From the posts in head-fi (from both dedicated threads that I following and participating in from the beginning) plus one video in YouTube, I think at this moment, of the still few people that actually trying both the Solitaire T (ST) and iO-12, more people preferring the Dalis sound. This is my prediction (that more people will preferring the iO-12's sound than the ST's) from the beginning. But, as you know, my opinion of the ST is very high and possibly in the very same level sonically as the iO-12.

 

[bigshot]

Rah-rah! Go team!

 

[Dalmonegrig]

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

The visualization option to meet these conditions is presented below.

Constructive criticism is welcome.

 

[angelom]

The visualization option to meet these conditions is presented below.

Constructive criticism is welcome.

The headphone in the right side of that photo is the (excellent) Mark Levinson No. 5909, a headphone that Dr. Sean Olive helping developing, and a headphone with the same price as the iO-12, and a headphone that never receiving the attention is deserving.

If you have a (more or less) obsession with how incredibly unique and ultra fantastic is LDAC, maybe is a good idea that you selling your iO-12 and buying the ML 5909 that you can finding very more cheap now (the 5909 is the only top of line ANC/BT headphone that having LDAC).

This way maybe you will sleeping very more better than before!

 

[Dalmonegrig]

If you have a (more or less) obsession with how incredibly unique and ultra fantastic is LDAC, maybe is a good idea that you selling your iO-12 and buying the ML 5909 that you can finding very more cheap now (the 5909 is the only top of line ANC/BT headphone that having LDAC).

Yes, it really is. Before the discussion in this topic, I did not know that at this point in time on Bluetooth it is possible to transmit sound without loss. I don’t hide it, I like it. I don’t want to lose anything in the sound transmission.

At the same time, I learned that there is transparency threshold that is likely to have a meaningful impact on my auditory perception. This is likely to affect the fact that I like the sound of DALI IO-12 (and you know this), although they do not support LDAC.

And you are again right, I thought about Mark Levinson No. 5909, but I am not sure that I will sell DALI IO-12?!

This way maybe you will sleeping very more better than before!

I am touched by your concern. Good sleep is really important for my health. I think it was a temporary setback and today everything will be fine. Thank you!

 

[angelom]

Yes, it really is. Before the discussion in this topic, I did not know that at this point in time on Bluetooth it is possible to transmit sound without loss. I don’t hide it, I like it. I don’t want to lose anything in the sound transmission.

At the same time, I learned that there is transparency threshold that is likely to have a meaningful impact on my auditory perception. This is likely to affect the fact that I like the sound of DALI IO-12 (and you know this), although they do not support LDAC.

And you are again right, I thought about Mark Levinson No. 5909, but I am not sure that I will sell DALI IO-12?!

I understand (better than you probably imagining) that you want having the best possible (mathematically) perfect sound, and this is one aspect that is often making many people spending (a lot) more money many times (because measurements 'apparently' looking better and, of course, all those reviews 'corroborating' this measurements) --- by the way, for me LDAC is still, strictly, lossy and not genuinely lossless. BUT, the sad (or happy, really!) reality is that SOOO many of this very minor measurements improvements are NOT really perceived by the human ear, or, in the best case, are completely irrelevant...even for people with supposedly golden ears. Many years ago I travelling a very similar path...until I deciding starting doing serious, genuine NOT biased tests...and I'm someone that apparently having very decent discerning ears.

I am touched by your concern. Good sleep is really important for my health. I think it was a temporary setback and today everything will be fine. Thank you!

 

[bigshot]

I usually don’t want to spend money on sound I can’t hear.

 

[KinGensai]

Er... did you really read what I wrote? I am not sure I get the intended meaning of the question. Define your difference between "figuring out" and "impressions"?
(I mentioned several months of ownership for the IO-12 - in addition, I have several years of ownership of the other mentioned headphones, except for the IO-6).
Yes I wrote about what I figured out (from data, experience, listening and measurements), and everyone on this forum has been sharing opinions, that are closer to "impressions" than to peer-reviewable hard scientific facts (which are not a thing in such forums), so I don't get this zeal for a meticulous differentiation.

Measurements are just a comparison tool for myself, with no universal correctness claims, but they match very well with Tyll Hertsens' measurements for a lot of known headphones. My quick measurements of the stock Dali IO-12 are here (in its thread), and similarly, the measurements of the rest of the headphones is in their threads, respectively.
Except for the IO-6, which I didn't measure, just listened / compared with the IO-12 for about 2 hours. There was such a big difference between the IO-6 and the IO-12 drivers (listened to both drivers via both ear pads, i.e. 4 ways), that I gave up on the IO-6, it was a no-brainer. With that, the IO-6 is still one of the better (even, among the best, by my preferences) ANC BT headphones, though. The IO-12 is just a different new class of its own (for me). Yet I am pretty sure it can be bettered, and it's pity it doesn't support LDAC, though. But for about the same price as the ML5909, it's far better to my ears and preferences (no bass boomers, but extension close to e-stats and mag-stats).

Returning to the topic, I think there is a lot of reason in Dali's focus on magnetic circuits (as it has been with Fostex THxx drivers, then followed by many). I don't consider the IO-12 driver as good as the biocellulose drivers from Fostex / Denon / lots of Chinese manufacturers, let alone close to e-stats, but the total package of driver, housing / acoustic loading, ear pads, DSP etc. are an example for an extremely successful system optimization IMHO.

Maybe it's worth waiting, someone will surely better the IO-12 sooner or later (I know the T+A ST is considered already better by some, so YMMV).

Do you happen to measure some other characteristics besides THD and FR? I'm curious about how this HP performs with a 300Hz square wave, a Dirac impulse, and 88 tone IMD test. Obviously they do not measure up to E-stats with such a high comparative THD, but maybe the secret sauce in the HP manifests elsewhere.

 

[gregorio]

But it does seem from links that there are some measurements where lossy 24/96 can exceed 16/44.1 (and hence can start being considered "hi-res" even when lossy).

Yes, there are some measurements where it could exceed 16/44, HF obvious and probably a lower noise floor both of which are inaudible f course but within the audible range (above the audible noise floor and below HF thresholds) there will be some freqs removed with the lossy 24/96, as defined by auditory masking within the perceptual model. This too will be inaudible of course but technically I don’t see how we can honestly describe that as “hi-res”, although of course marketers do!

The codecs are not reproducing the entire range evenly up to 20k or to the nyquist frequency of 44.1k or 96k, and the graphs indicate a brick wall starting at 14k to 15k and sharply decreasing after that, which looks like a brick wall filter to me.

Sure but extremely few adults can hear even a pure test tone at say 18kHz and even those who can, require high playback levels. With music we obviously don’t have just a pure test tone at 18kHz, we have a lot of other freqs which are likely to mask that HF content and if that’s not enough, the HF content is pretty much always significantly lower in level than far lower frequency content, so to achieve high playback levels of that 18kHz content would require dangerously high playback levels of the lower freq content.

Theoretically, the sound quality cannot be excellent if there are losses.
AptX HD, AAC - good sound quality, but with losses, will be more accurate.

But we need to define “more accurate” in order to appreciate the consequences. Technically lossless will be more accurate, in fact it should be absolutely identical. Lossy obviously looses some data and is not identical, however, it’s not just random data that’s lost, it’s data specifically chosen for removal because it is inaudible, IE. Frequencies above the range of adult hearing and “masked” frequencies. So with the higher data rates, as far as audible fidelity is concerned, lossless is not “more accurate” it’s the same accuracy.

Is this possible (theoretically and practically)?

Yes, both theoretically and practically. The perceptual models (used to remove inaudible freqs/data) have improved significantly over the decades since lossy codecs were first introduced, through a continuous process of updates and controlled ABX testing for audible differences until no one could hear any differences.

G