possibly a stupid question - do i need source files at a bitrate equal to/greater than LDAC's 990kbps to obtain any benefit of LDAC? like, there's no point using spotify extreme quality or the like?
Radsone EarStudio ES100
- Thread starter m4rkw
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2016
- Posts
- 1,440
- Likes
- 759
spotify extreme is 320kb/s mp3. no oproblems there
kolbo
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Posts
- 71
- Likes
- 33
Anyone got the updated iOS app yet? It does not yet seem to be updated in the US app store.
For Italian people out there, now you can buy EarStudio directly from Amazon Italy. Just ordered one, high hopes here
It's Vorbis, but even with MP3 it's very transparent at 320kbit. And anyway doesn't matter - no connection of music bitrate vs Bluetooth.
maybe you could expand on this a bit. wouldnt the bitrate of the source file dictate whether (and to what extent) it is being compressed by the applicable codec?
my original point/question was essentially that. if i'm using files that, say, AAC can support...then I assume there is no benefit to using a codec capable of carrying more kbps in respect of those same files.
1. Doesn't matter what was the audio file codec - it will be uncompressed before it will be compressed for BT transmission. Under no circumstance, it will be otherwise.
2. Bitrate is not a definition of quality. The same codec with different settings can make 30% different bitrate for comparable quality. Codec to codec its 2-4 times difference - AAC 250 kbit is better quality than APTX 500 kbit.
3. I assume you mixed up compression bitrate and sampling rate - one is how many bits per second are used for compressed data, another - how many samples of signal per second is taken. They have nothing in common
PiSkyHiFi
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Posts
- 273
- Likes
- 153
We've been through all of this before and I believe the math leads to different conclusions, look back through the thread if you like.
waynes world
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Posts
- 11,996
- Likes
- 5,371
Apparently I am now listening to Radiohead from my S7 through the ES100 using the LDAC codec.
@wslee I have said it before, but I'll say it again....
You and
ROCK!
Thank you very much.
PiSkyHiFi
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Posts
- 273
- Likes
- 153
They are both lossy, but very slightly differently - it's guaranteed you will lose a little bit of quality when combining lossy codecs each time, but many say this doesn't impact overall sound quality.
It might be best to simply use the highest rate possible, since the available jumps are larger than 30%, this overcomes any possible codec efficiency difference (352Kbps to 576Kbps to 990 Kbps), especially since the higher codecs reproduce into 24 bits, they are generally a good choice for any possible source.
If however, you experience quality loss and/or signal drop, then factor that into the codec choice too.
I don't have any solid reproducible evidence to go against the claims of each respective codec. Research them.
It's still possible that there is a bug in aptx codec in es100. I don't have same issue on any other receiver. Transmitter doesn't change behaviour. I gave up with this subject before since AAC works great, but now I see that LDAC is not clicking at all at exact same settings. I can instantly switch between 2 codecs and this math overflow clicking noise is there on aptx only. I have same thing with 2 es100, so it's not a hardware defect either.
Aptx is still what I have to use to connect to windows laptop, since no AAC/LDAC is there... On mosquito test its extreme, but any source with frequencies above 16khz and I can hear those clicks like RF interference.
So, I don't know maybe it's worth looking into that?
Aptx is still what I have to use to connect to windows laptop, since no AAC/LDAC is there... On mosquito test its extreme, but any source with frequencies above 16khz and I can hear those clicks like RF interference.
So, I don't know maybe it's worth looking into that?
waynes world
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Posts
- 11,996
- Likes
- 5,371
I don't know. But I assume that not wasting bandwidth for things nobody can hear (>20khz) means adding more bandwidth for valuable data that I can hear. I also not feeling necessary to rely on Android 44.1->96 khz conversion. Aliasing is inevitable there (and I passed blind test on simple converters) and I don't think that stock android likes to waste precious battery on fancy conversion algorithms. I don't care if YouTube is converted from 48 to 44 - I'm not there for a audiophile reasons. But I do care about music fidelity and since adaptive is falling down to 330kbit quite often, I assume it makes sense to give some extra bits for it to be at MP3 192 level at least.
I like that LDAC is 24 bit - that allows me to use some DSP like truefi on the phone. Few extra bits can help here as well.
I don't have time now for noise level testing. But anyone here can do it with rmaa.
Edit: just found that s8+ is 48khz....
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.levien.audiobuffersize&hl=en
Last edited:
Lunar Eclipse
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
- Posts
- 304
- Likes
- 799
@wslee You and Radsone are truly an example for others to follow. May all your kittens have mittens, good sir!
I checked, there is apparently reasonable conversion before bt transmission so 44.1/48 doesn't matter much - aliasing is quite low and mostly at 48->44.1. But saving bandwidth is useful.
330kbit mode of LDAC is horrible - it has a lot of harmonics (more than aptx, but no clicks) at the top and cuts above 17khz everything. 660 is ok, 990 is too unstable. Adaptive is ok while it's not falling to 330.
330kbit mode of LDAC is horrible - it has a lot of harmonics (more than aptx, but no clicks) at the top and cuts above 17khz everything. 660 is ok, 990 is too unstable. Adaptive is ok while it's not falling to 330.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
