[KinGensai]

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.

I agree, 18kHz is irrelevant for most of us who lost that hearing range long ago or even never had it. But 15k gets into the audibility range, I can still hear just under 16k. The ABX testing I did suggests the difference is pretty much imperceptible for most recordings, but some tracks with particularly high levels of energy at 13k+ (usually only happens in synthetic electronica) get impacted, which is why I made the decision to go exclusively wired years ago.

Example of a track with this kind of energy (probably partially lost in youtube resampling)

 

[Davesrose]

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!

Well the best nuanced term for a lossy file that's 24/96 would be "lossy hi-res". Pretty sure marketers wouldn't go for that So at least marketing "hi-res" (that includes lossy) and "lossless hi-res" would be a compromise. Consumers would understand lossless hi-res as being more premium, as they do now with Dolby Digital vs Dolby TrueHD.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

Hello, everyone.
Report, my sleep today was strong and healthy. So, I have everything well. Watch your health and make yourself listen to good music.
I wish Everyone good health, take care!

 

[gregorio]

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 did read what you wrote. “Figuring out” implies some sort of “figuring” or calculating of data, while “impressions” are just feelings derived from sighted listening and/or knowledge of marketing, reviews or testimonials. The first indicates the potential of a more reliable methodology and is more likely to be reliable evidence or at least the data can be shared, while the latter is more likely to be based on a methodology failure or a perceptual error induced by some sort of cognitive bias and is generally the most unreliable type of evidence.

Well the best nuanced term for a lossy file that's 24/96 would be "lossy hi-res". Pretty sure marketers wouldn't go for that So at least marketing "hi-res" (that includes lossy) and "lossless hi-res" would be a compromise.

Maybe they would but on the other hand, their marketing of hi-res seems to me to be based purely on marketing requirements rather than any logic or actual higher resolution. For example, re-recording an old analogue tape master at 24/96 (or higher) can qualify as “hi-res”, while an actual 24/96 recording which contains some 16/44 samples or channels does not.

I agree, 18kHz is irrelevant for most of us who lost that hearing range long ago or even never had it.

I was a lecturer for 6 years, we had 300 students studying various higher national diplomas (HND) or degree music/sound engineering courses. All were informally tested (in groups) for HF sensitivity every year, so in my time that was approx 1,800 students, of which roughly 85% of them were 18 - 21 years olds, the rest were mature students or 16 - 17. The average HF thresholds for the 16 - 21 year olds was just over 17kHz, the mature students (almost all early 30s to early 50s) averaged around 14-15kHz, some as low as 12kHz and some up to 16kHz. The highest threshold we ever encountered was one student who could manage 19kHz, although not 100% reliably. With commercial music recordings thresholds were much lower, usually 12-14kHz but occasionally up to as high as 16kHz for the most sensitive students with certain recordings containing exceptional amounts of HF.

Example of a track with this kind of energy (probably partially lost in youtube resampling)

YouTube typically encodes AAC 128kbps, although can use AAC 256kbps for premium members. AAC is complicated when it comes to HF content because it can employ PNS (Perceptual Noise Substitution), EG. Some amount, sometimes all, of the HF content is replaced by random noise in order to reduce bitrates. Typically that would be some amount of PNS above 20kHz but at lower rates it could be above ~15kHz. AFAIK, this occurs dynamically in the encoder but it’s all quite sophisticated and I don’t know the full details off the top of my head.

G

 

[Dalmonegrig]

The headphone in the right side of that photo is the (excellent) Mark Levinson No. 5909,.

(the 5909 is the only top of line ANC/BT headphone that having LDAC).

Mark Levinson No. 5909 has Bluetooth® 5.1
DALI iO-12 has Bluetooth® 5.2
The DALI iO-12 could improve its competitive position by adding LDAC support to the new firmware version. I don’t understand why this was not done at once during the development of DALI iO-12?

 

[angelom]

Mark Levinson No. 5909 has Bluetooth® 5.1
DALI iO-12 has Bluetooth® 5.2
The DALI iO-12 could improve its competitive position by adding LDAC support to the new firmware version. I don’t understand why this was not done at once during the development of DALI iO-12?

First, of ALL the more expensive/premium ANC/BT headphones (iO-12, Solitaire T, ML 5909, Bathys, H95 and PX8), only the ML 5909 is offering LDAC.

Secondly, I think (almost 100% sure) that adding LDAC isn't only a matter of software but is needing hardware too. So, if the hardware isn't in the headphone already, then is not possible adding LDAC via a firmware update.

 

[Bahnhof Zoo]

Adaptive is a better all around codec. LDAC is older and less nimble. Not really sure what the issue is. Not to mention, LDAC wouldn’t change anything with regard to sound on the IO-12. They would sound exactly the same.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

Not really sure what the issue is.

LDAC (16 bits / 44,1 kHz / 990kbps) can provide sound transmission without loss.

 

[angelom]

LDAC is the best BT codec for moths and bats but is not necessary for humans.

 

[Bahnhof Zoo]

LDAC (16 bits / 44,1 kHz / 990kbps) can provide sound transmission without loss.

And? My old Sony xm5 with Ldac sound like absolute crap compared to the momentum 4 or Dali IO12 with aptX adaptive.

 

[Dalmonegrig]

And? My old Sony xm5 with Ldac sound like absolute crap compared to the momentum 4 or Dali IO12 with aptX adaptive.

I suspect you have not followed the discussions of the last days. See the post below.

Sound quality is how it sounds to your ears. Sound fidelity is how accurate it is.

For you, Мomentum 4 sounds better, for me sounds better Mark Levinson No. 5909, which support LDAC. This is our auditory perception of sound individually, for you and me, and does not refer to the accuracy of sound transmission as a variable. I’m looking at the technical side of the question - accuracy of sound transmission.
LDAC (16 bits / 44,1 kHz / 990kbps) can provide sound transmission without loss.
Other bluetooth codecs, at this point in time, are technically unable to transmit sound without loss.

 

[Bahnhof Zoo]

I suspect you have not followed the discussions of the last days. See the post below.

For you, Мomentum 4 sounds better, for me sounds better Mark Levinson No. 5909, which support LDAC. This is our auditory perception of sound individually, for you and me, and does not refer to the accuracy of sound transmission as a variable. I’m looking at the technical side of the question - accuracy of sound transmission.
LDAC (16 bits / 44,1 kHz / 990kbps) can provide sound transmission without loss.
Other bluetooth codecs, at this point in time, are technically unable to transmit sound without loss.

Look I'm not going to argue with you over which codec is better. What I will say is that I appreciate your appreciation for Bluetooth. I think we can both agree that Bluetooth has come a long way over the last 10 years or so. So much so that I personally do not feel the need to purchase a wired headphone anymore. And the good news is that it's only going to get better. It's a pretty exciting time in my opinion.

 

[gregorio]

I suspect you have not followed the discussions of the last days.

I suspect he has and I don’t really see the conflict. The evidence strongly indicates even the basic SBC codec is audibly transparent/perfect, what’s important is how the codecs are implemented in the specific device, maintaining signal quality so the bitrate doesn’t step down too low and of course the acoustic performance of the HPs themselves. So it’s entirely possible that HPs using LDAC could sound noticeably worse than another HP using SBC or another lossy codec.

G

 

[Dalmonegrig]

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.

What should this indicator be (minimum number)?

 

[Dalmonegrig]

The evidence strongly indicates even the basic SBC codec is audibly transparent/perfect,.

If you think SBC is perfect for sound, why would companies spend a lot of money on developing other bluetooth codecs?

What’s important is how the codecs are implemented in the specific device, maintaining signal quality so the bitrate doesn’t step down too low and of course the acoustic performance of the HPs themselves.

Where is this border (what is this indicator)?

So it’s entirely possible that HPs using LDAC could sound noticeably worse than another HP using SBC or another lossy codec.

With a high degree of probability, the opposite situation is also possible.
For example, bluetooth headphones Mark Levinson No. 5909, which support LDAC and are considered one of the best.