[Andrew_WOT]

Professional IEM, what is that, we are casual music listener aficionados, not sound engineers.
ThieAudio Monarch MK2/3, Dunu SA6 (I/II), any of those just run circles around Shure.
Take a look at any IEM rating list, like the one from Crinnacle.
See how close to the bottom you can find your Shure SE846.
My last reply on IEM topic, this is just wrong thread for this, not sure why you keep coming back with zero interest in TWS, except stirring some crap up.

 

[Vamp898]

Oh if only it was a simple as that… whilst LDAC as an encoder is open source, the decoder remains closed source… which needs to be paid for and you need to send for compliance testing. If you send it for testing you are telling Sony beforehand what you are going to ship. Maybe you don’t want that?

Finally, Sony may only support a few chipsets so it maybe that someone will need to port the code to your chipset. This may be expensive or just something you don’t want Sony to know about.

Personally, I wish everyone just moved to LC3… but we don’t seem to be there quite yet.

Sony never copied anything from other companies in the earphone world, the opposite.

There is not one single technology in an Sony IEM that you find in other other IEM. They design, develop and manifacture their own BA drivers (and they are the only company doing so), and of course DD and they R&D and invented all the materials they use in their drivers too.

If there is ony thing you don't have to be afraid of, its Sony stealing your technology.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

It isn't period so moving the goalposts saying "practically" does not change that and it is getting old TBH.

A Flac CD rip is about 1000-1300Kb in most cases.

I didn't move anything, just quoted what is published on wiki and in that research paper.
Max CD bitrate is 1411.2kbps, and FLAC adds a good deal of compression to it.
So it's most likely only some extreme dynamic range material that can exceed 990/909 kbps limitation.

 

[Vamp898]

Professional IEM, what is that, we are casual music listener aficionados, not sound engineers.
ThieAudio Monarch MK2/3, Dunu SA6 (I/II), any of those just run circles around Shure.
Take at any IEM rating list, like the one from Crinnacle.
See how close to the bottom you can find your Shure SE846.
My last reply on IEM topic, this is just wrong thread for this, not sure why you keep coming back with zero interest in TWS, except stirring some crap up.

I owned the Monarch 2, it was garbage. Half of my music library was unlistanable because lots of female voices turned into pure pain. You know what people said to me "Don't listen to pop music, its an High End In-Ear".

What a crap... don't listen to genre X. That is something very audiophile. If an earphone doesn't perform well with one genre, it doesn't perform well.

You really think an IEM that causes pain while listening to some genre is better than an IEM that sounds equally well with every?

Because of the Ranking from Crinacle? Who literally says "I am just one person with my personal opinion, all i say is in regard to my personal taste"

Crinacle measured the Monarch Mk2

Just look at the measurement from Crinacle itself (the drop in the treble close to 9kHz is an measuring artefact from the coupler, the sound actually doesn't drop)

Recessed upper bass and lower mid-range and pushed upper mids and treble (what is causing the painful female vocals). Typical Chinese tuning.

It just sounds off and wrong. Yes, Crinacle likes this sound, he openly says that. Because this tuning makes everything sound clear and detailed. Most people from Asia (especially China), except Japan, like this tuning because this sounds to what they are used to. But it is still wrong, objectivly.

When you record an guitar and listen to it with the SE846, it sounds correct and right. Do the same with with the Monarch Mk2, it sounds off and wrong.

Its his personal preference and there is nothing wrong about it. If you like this personal preference, buy the Monarch 2 and enjoy the pain with female focals. Everyones kink to his own.

Professional IEM are objectively good. They are what the people used who made the music, the rereference. People sit with these in the studio and say "Yes, it should sound exactly like that".

And they are the reason for audiphile in-ear in the first place. Audiophiles back then were music lovers who wanted the sound quality the professinals have in the studio and that is the reason why they bought Stage IEM. That is the reason why the Westone 4 existed, why Chinese Makers all use Kowles and Sonion drivers. Chinese IEM are nothing more than Stage Monitors tuned to the taste of Chinese people. And because they are much cheaper than professional IEM, people started to buy these. Thats the whole story. To Monarch II is not any better than the SE846, why should it. ThieAudio buys the drivers from the same place, why should they perform any different. They just tune it to the Chinese market and because the chinese like this overly bright and clear sound, a lot of audiphiles like this too.

Yes i completely accept and agree that an prfessional IEM is not to everyones taste, that is why i clearly stated "Objectively perfect". the Monarch II is objectively wrong. It recesses the lower mids and pushes the upper mids. The measurement from Crinacle himself shows, its wrong and off. Crinacle, one single person with his personal subjective taste, prefers this, yes. Nothing more, nothing less. Crinacles ranking is, as he says, an reflection of his opinion.

 

[Vamp898]

It isn't period so moving the goalposts saying "practically" does not change that and it is getting old TBH.

A Flac CD rip is about 1000-1300Kb in most cases.

That is with very low compression. Maybe people used this in the past, but pretty much all rippers are set to higher compression these days.

My FLAC are around 650-900kbps. Only my Hi-Res Audio FLAC go beyond 1000

 

[Andrew_WOT]

@Vamp898, congratulations, you were just awarded Ignored promotion!

 

[helmutcheese]

Flac claims it is lossless, let forget Flac and rip the CD as it so a WAV file, still 990k is not enough hence aptX Lossless does about 1200/1300Kb max that we know of as they also said it can do 48khz and all that is in ideal conditions (falls back to Adaptive if not met),

 

[Vamp898]

@Vamp898, congratulations, you were just awarded Ignored promotion!

That comes with absolutely no surprise. I mean seriously, what did you plan to reply in the first place?

You lack knowledge or first hand experience whatsoever. You have no idea if the Monarch II is better than the SE846 or not. You heard neither the first, nor the latter, nor do you own any reference that would tell you how things are supposed to sound, nor are you an musician.

You just don't know anything that was relevant to my initial post, and yet you replied. How did you plan to get out of that anyway? Don't talk down on people with more knowledge, that will always result in blaming yourself.

When you want to convince me that you're right, tell me why you think you are right and don't just say "I am right because look what others think and say". If you would have pointed me to objective measurements, then that is something different. But a rating list based on the personal opinion of one single person who is not an musician. That is just not enough. And if this is all you have, you lost before starting.

 

[Vamp898]

Flac claims it is lossless, let forget Flac and rip the CD as it so a WAV file, still 990k is not enough hence aptX Lossless does about 1200/1300Kb max that we know of as they also said it can do 48khz and all that is in ideal conditions (falls back to Adaptive if not met),

WAV is uncompressed. If you don't compress, you need more bitrate, yes, but why would you not compress? Why waste data and bitrate?

44.1kHz*16bit*2 Channels = 1,411,200 or 1411kbps
48kHz*16bit*2 Channels = 1,536,000 or 1536kbps

But you also have overhead. The Bluetooth Connection is not just only music data, its other data in addition.

But That is why humans invented lossless compression. So you can do the exact same with less bitrate. That is exactly what FLAC and LDAC do, lossless compression. The exact same way ZIP works (Not the exact same way, but the same concept).

Not sure why aptX needs more bit-rate, i assume they have weaker compression. Maybe so more chips can support it? Not sure though. Pretty much every chip can encode LDAC without issues, but maybe earphones can't. Some earphones use really weak chips that just can't decode LDAC, but they could use aptX lossless. I thnk thats the main reason, lower requirement.

But you have to keep in mind that an bluetooth connection always adds noise, no matter what you do. There is an limit how noise free an bluetooth connection can be and this also depends from chip to chip and so on.

So even if it would not be lossless, you would never be able to tell the difference as the noise eats the dynamic. So lossless audio is a pretty useless technology in the bluetooth audio world.

 

[Bhelpoori]

Sony never copied anything from other companies in the earphone world, the opposite.

There is not one single technology in an Sony IEM that you find in other other IEM. They design, develop and manifacture their own BA drivers (and they are the only company doing so), and of course DD and they R&D and invented all the materials they use in their drivers too.

If there is ony thing you don't have to be afraid of, its Sony stealing your technology.

I didn’t mean my post to imply anything with respect to Intellectual Property.

Let‘s try to clarify here. Samsung and Sony compete in many areas outside headphones. Perhaps Samsung would not like to give Sony advance notice of a future product for marketing reasons?

 

[Vamp898]

I didn’t mean my post to imply anything with respect to Intellectual Property.

Let‘s try to clarify here. Samsung and Sony compete in many areas outside headphones. Perhaps Samsung would not like to give Sony advance notice of a future product for marketing reasons?

I am not 100% sure how the certifying process works. As far as i know, when you use an chip that is LDAC capable, there is nothing more to do.

Its the same with the Hi-Res Audio Logo. When you use an driver in your earphone that has an Hi-Res audio capable driver (for example the Knowles SWFK-31736), you have to do nothing to get the Hi-Res Audio label.

So these certification systems are very weak and simple and as long you pay, they don't really look that close.

The FiiO FA9 for example has an Hi-Res Audio Logo even though the JAS never had this earphone in their own hands. Using an SWFK-31736 as an super tweeter was enough to give it the logo as this driver can produce 40kHz.

And everything you need for Hi-Res Audio Wireless is to use an certified codec, nothing more.

So i am pretty sure, that Sony never gets to see any LDAC certified earphone. As long you use an LDAC capable chip, you're pretty much done. Go to checkout and pay.

There are LDAC certified earhooks and bluetooth cable that were, 100% sure, never send to Sony, so if this works, i am pretty sure that Samsung can certify an TWS without sending the TWS in.

And as all Bluetooth capable devices have to be registert in an public database anyway, Sony would already know about the product, no matter if its LDAC capable or not.

 

[Bhelpoori]

I am not 100% sure how the certifying process works. As far as i know, when you use an chip that is LDAC capable, there is nothing more to do.

Its the same with the Hi-Res Audio Logo. When you use an driver in your earphone that has an Hi-Res audio capable driver (for example the Knowles SWFK-31736), you have to do nothing to get the Hi-Res Audio label.

So these certification systems are very weak and simple and as long you pay, they don't really look that close.

The FiiO FA9 for example has an Hi-Res Audio Logo even though the JAS never had this earphone in their own hands. Using an SWFK-31736 as an super tweeter was enough to give it the logo as this driver can produce 40kHz.

And everything you need for Hi-Res Audio Wireless is to use an certified codec, nothing more.

So i am pretty sure, that Sony never gets to see any LDAC certified earphone. As long you use an LDAC capable chip, you're pretty much done. Go to checkout and pay.

There are LDAC certified earhooks and bluetooth cable that were, 100% sure, never send to Sony, so if this works, i am pretty sure that Samsung can certify an TWS without sending the TWS in.

And as all Bluetooth capable devices have to be registert in an public database anyway, Sony would already know about the product, no matter if its LDAC capable or not.

https://www.sony.net/Products/LDAC/

scroll to the bottom….you’ll see the steps.

“So these certification systems are very weak and simple and as long you pay, they don't really look that close.”

I engineer stuff (not headphones or audio equipment today, I stress) and you are right that some certs are easy to get and others aren’t. I don’t think you can expect that because one is easy, all are easy…

As long you use an LDAC capable chip, you're pretty much done. Go to checkout and pay.

I really wish engineering of this stuff was that simple. It isn’t. And there are so many different TWS chipsets/firmware providers out there these days too…

“And as all Bluetooth capable devices have to be registert in a public database anyway, Sony would already know about the product, no matter if its LDAC capable or not.”

For the radio that is true, but functionality can be hidden. A new codec would come into the functionality category I believe.

 

[SynaestheticA]

But you have to keep in mind that an bluetooth connection always adds noise

Yes that's why we buy them. To listen to that noise.

I just call it music though.

 

[cresny]

Oh if only it was a simple as that… whilst LDAC as an encoder is open source, the decoder remains closed source… which needs to be paid for and you need to send for compliance testing. If you send it for testing you are telling Sony beforehand what you are going to ship. Maybe you don’t want that?

Finally, Sony may only support a few chipsets so it maybe that someone will need to port the code to your chipset. This may be expensive or just something you don’t want Sony to know about.

Personally, I wish everyone just moved to LC3… but we don’t seem to be there quite yet.

Afaik, LC3 is a more efficient codec meant to replace the likes of SBC and maybe AptX, but not LDAC or LHDC?

Anyway, I just realized that I never actually compared LDAC and AptX. I certainly noticed the difference LDAC made on my Technics AZ-60, Hauwei FBP2 and Soundcore L3P, but all those are AAC->LDAC, not AptX->LDAC. I guess I'll get the Denons and tough it out

 

[james444]

Just look at the measurement from Crinacle itself (the drop in the treble close to 9kHz is an measuring artefact from the coupler, the sound actually doesn't drop)

First of all, if this drop were a measuring artifact from the coupler, you'd sure as hell see the same drop in the other IEM's frequency response too.

Second, here are a three other measurements from different couplers. The Shure SE846 drops like a stone past ~10kHz on all of them:

That being said, please stop dumping your superficial knowledge about wired IEM measurements in the true wireless thread. TIA.