[DarginMahkum]

Maybe I was being too polite by not going into very detailed technicality, but yes, 1411kbps is full uncompressed data stream.

Before I continue, so that there is no confusion, let me just go over basics of compression so that we and others do not get confused as to the topic we wish to have a good conversation over.

---

When talking about audio compression, there are two elements to differentiate: data and audio.
You can compress a data file to be smaller, and be unpacked, using a software with specific algorithms and a good processor. This is akin to a ZIP file. That is what FLAC and Apple Lossless can do. This is typically referred to as lossless audio files.
However, when these compressed data files are unpacked, they ought to perform exactly like uncompressed files such as WAV and ALAC via a DAC; the data compression itself should not affect the audio decoding on a competent modern computer system and DAC.

Audio compression is just that, compression of an audio file's data stream and data file size. Popular examples include MP3, Ogg Vorbis, and AAC. This is commonly referred to as lossy audio data.
These are smaller and can have fixed or variable audio stream bandwidth.
This is also how the vast majority of Bluetooth codecs work, and take either a lossless or lossy stream and compress both the audio and file data streams for wireless audio transmission between compatible devices.

I understand the difference between these concepts.

---

However, the question I originally asked was related to an understanding I have that may, or may not, be correct.
If the former, then this is what I was referring to in my question is that, CD quality lossless data that is decoded via a DAC may not need to operate at full 1411kbps throughout the data stream due to the nature of the lossless music. That is the max operation of the lossless CD quality format.
Therefore, would this not mean that AptX Lossless does before some compression on certain types of lossless files that operate between 1200kpbs and 1411kbps?

Or, if my above reasoning is incorrect, do all CD quality lossless audio operate at 1411kbps, which, therefore indicates that as technological brilliant AptX Lossless codec is, it actually cannot be considered true lossless as it is limited to 1200kbps?
Of course, this is still remarkable and I'm excited that the codec exists, and hope more devices can implement the codec, but I'm just questioning if there is a bit of marketing wordplay in the truth of whether the codec is really lossless or not.

---

Regardless, I'm extremely excited to see iFi Audio to integrate the codec, and sincerely hope other brands follow, as this is a giant leap for wireless audio transmission via Bluetooth!

A DAC (or let's say the part that implements the main algorithm) needs PCM data. When you want some audio data to be converted to analog, the DAC chip is informed about the format of the bitstream (e.g. 24 bits and 96 kHz data), and then the bitstream is sent to the DAC to make the conversion. That means, in case of CD bitrate which is 1411.2 kbps (which comes from 44.1 kHz * 16 bits * 2 channels). This rate is constant.

If you are sending data over a communication channel, wired or wireless, the information is first processed, and then the reverse is applied on the receiving end. In case of digital communication, the data is first cut into packets with some additional information added about the networking protocol, possibly compressed, then it goes through a coding process which helps with error correction, modulated in the analog domain, and the receiver end reverses these operations to construct the original data. What characterises a communication process as a whole is mainly the modulation and coding part, as these are the deciding factors how efficiently the communication channel bandwidth is used. For example, both 2G and 5G cellular systems use the same environment for transmitting data, but because the modulation and coding schemes are way improved in 5G, we have a much higher data throughput.

So the compression is is often part of the communication. Now, I didn't check what the BT / apt-X protocol does, what are the steps applied, the type of modulation and coding etc. - but in the end it should have a similar process as above. Maybe it optimises some steps to improve the data throughput, throw out some redundant data etc., but the original data anyway passes through a lot of processing until it reaches the DAC. Data is never sent as a pulse stream over the air and sent directly to the DAC.

In the end, if we are able to reconstruct the same bit exact data that was passed to the codec on the receiver end, it is a lossless process. In case of a lossy codec, the data passed to the codec on the sender end would go through a lossy process, which what is sent over the communication channel, and the receiver end would receive lossy data and cannot output the bit exact data that was passed to the codec on the sender end.

The marketing part is mainly more to do with is one is really able to hear the difference. For example, the 24 bit data thing is a marketing thing, as I haven't seen any device that is so distortion and noise free to output that accuracy. The first sentence "Supports new aptX Lossless – the only Bluetooth codec capable of streaming lossless CD-quality audio" is a marketing sentence, as there is also LHDC lossless. Are we able to hear the difference between LDAC/LHDC and apt-X lossless in a blind test? The answer to that would be the answer to if it is a marketing thing or not.

 

[TheOneInYellow]

A DAC (or let's say the part that implements the main algorithm) needs PCM data. When you want some audio data to be converted to analog, the DAC chip is informed about the format of the bitstream (e.g. 24 bits and 96 kHz data), and then the bitstream is sent to the DAC to make the conversion. That means, in case of CD bitrate which is 1411.2 kbps (which comes from 44.1 kHz * 16 bits * 2 channels). This rate is constant.

If you are sending data over a communication channel, wired or wireless, the information is first processed, and then the reverse is applied on the receiving end. In case of digital communication, the data is first cut into packets with some additional information added about the networking protocol, possibly compressed, then it goes through a coding process which helps with error correction, modulated in the analog domain, and the receiver end reverses these operations to construct the original data. What characterises a communication process as a whole is mainly the modulation and coding part, as these are the deciding factors how efficiently the communication channel bandwidth is used. For example, both 2G and 5G cellular systems use the same environment for transmitting data, but because the modulation and coding schemes are way improved in 5G, we have a much higher data throughput.

So the compression is is often part of the communication. Now, I didn't check what the BT / apt-X protocol does, what are the steps applied, the type of modulation and coding etc. - but in the end it should have a similar process as above. Maybe it optimises some steps to improve the data throughput, throw out some redundant data etc., but the original data anyway passes through a lot of processing until it reaches the DAC. Data is never sent as a pulse stream over the air and sent directly to the DAC.

In the end, if we are able to reconstruct the same bit exact data that was passed to the codec on the receiver end, it is a lossless process. In case of a lossy codec, the data passed to the codec on the sender end would go through a lossy process, which what is sent over the communication channel, and the receiver end would receive lossy data and cannot output the bit exact data that was passed to the codec on the sender end.

The marketing part is mainly more to do with is one is really able to hear the difference. For example, the 24 bit data thing is a marketing thing, as I haven't seen any device that is so distortion and noise free to output that accuracy. The first sentence "Supports new aptX Lossless – the only Bluetooth codec capable of streaming lossless CD-quality audio" is a marketing sentence, as there is also LHDC lossless. Are we able to hear the difference between LDAC/LHDC and apt-X lossless in a blind test? The answer to that would be the answer to if it is a marketing thing or not.

Excellent response, and much of this I was aware of but nice to refresh myself.

Absolutely agree with all points, and I did not want to detract from how incredible the new AptX Lossless codec is alongside LHDC Lossless, just wanted to be assured that the marketing is playing on words, but simultaneously is as close to true lossless as current technology allows.

Of course, I was being careful not to talk about the subjective side of the conversation (can we actually hear the difference?), but the objective side.
In my case, my reasoning to listen to music in as much lossless quality as is feasible (CD quality or higher), is to make sure that said content is not the limiting factor of music reproduction in my gear system. Despite this, there will always be a compromise. For example, this is why I enjoy using my wired (SE & balanced)/wireless hybrid T+A Solitaire T headphones, as the engineering on the voicing of the passive mode is closely replicated on the wireless electronic modes, especially Bluetooth. I will certainly not be getting full lossless Bluetooth quality at AptX HD, but the sonic quality is still sound.
I'm satisfied with this, but anything that can further eliminate such compromises and lead us further into true lossless over wireless streaming is a net positive, but not an absolute requirement as tuning and implementation can do much currently.

Thank you for the lovely discourse!

 

[BobJS]

Remember when it simply used to be called "the price?" Why was "point" needlessly added to the lexicon?

That's your beef? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bastardization of the word "literally".

 

[ClicketEKlack]

That's your beef? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bastardization of the word "literally".

Oh, that too -- I'm fully aware that I'm wasting chunks of my life nursing a litany of petty grievances. The misuse of the word 'loose' in place of 'lose' on internet forums is a particularly bitter pill.

 

[soundyseb]

Would this work well with an Apple M1 Mac mini and Tidal?

I believe it should, it has the input for it.

 

[Brown Sound]

I can't seem to find any mention of the function of the analog line-in. Is it ran through an ADC then back through the DAC on the way out of unit or is it just bypassed around the digital circuitry. As an owner of a NEO iDSD 1/PE, I was just a bit curious. I currently use mine as a main rig DAC and not a desktop DAC, so the extra juice for the headphones is a bit lost on me for now, but this analog line-in might be interesting. Thanks.

 

[CT007]

main rig DAC and not a desktop DAC

What does "main rig" mean?

 

[BS5711]

Oh, that too -- I'm fully aware that I'm wasting chunks of my life nursing a litany of petty grievances. The misuse of the word 'loose' in place of 'lose' on internet forums is a particularly bitter pill.

“Should of” is probably my favourite bastardisation of the English language.

 

[Currawong]

DAC chip name has not been provided? Only BB multibit chipset suffices?

They use the 1793 in all their DACs as far as I have seen.

 

[Vijay74]

says right before BB "Burr Brown Multibit"

Ok. Was expecting a specific alpha numeric value like ESS 9038 pro or AK4499Ex. May be BB has this type of nomenclature for its chips/chipsets.

 

[Vijay74]

They use the 1793 in all their DACs as far as I have seen.

Thanks! Saw it after posting my reply.

 

[jamesjames]

Two questions. First, is the general description at the start meant to imply that the amp section is not differential? Is it dual-mono single-ended? Second, does the USB A input handle the usual suspects in terms of PCM/DSD files?

 

[Waddiewadkins]

So are you releasing Go blu2 to extreme to a comparable Bluetooth device?
I don't think there is a phone or headphone that has this Bluetooth codec.

Go Blu 2? I was going to buy Go Blu.

 

[Somek]

Is that 5W RMS output? Since the Diablo was listed as having almost that, but it was peak, and the actual output topped out at 800mW or so, can we get clarification on this? 5W RMS in that chassis would make it get VERY hot.

I don't think they can deliver 5W RMS for both channels with this design. The size of the headamp section doesn't match it.

 

[Jazz1]

Anyone else thinking about ordering one once they become available? I am. I’d really like to compare this with my Schiit Asgard3 with TrueMultibit DAC card.