[RockStar2005]

So, this is kind of interesting, there seems to be some sort of oversampling that happens with LDAC?

I am using GPM to stream a 320kbps MP3, so I definitely don't need the 990kbps provided by LDAC, but take a look at this:

32 bit/96 KHz is listed there.

Either way, AptX HD using AAC is going to give you pretty good audio already (since AptX HD can max out at over 500kbps) - the problem with AptX is that you don't really know exactly what you're getting with it, as it can be implemented with a few different codecs from what I understand.

I've done a lot of digging in to LDAC lately. Early Sony marketing material had described LDAC as a lossless codec for 24/96 audio. Lossless compression of 24/96 at 990kbps would be a pretty major achievement, since FLAC is ~4,600kbps for 24/96 audio. But I found someone who had pressed them on this, eventually speaking to an actual engineer who indicated that it is NOT lossless. Either way, it should be completely transparent at 990kbps unless it's a terrible codec - that is more than enough for 16/44.1 lossless.

These are just some random musings about LDAC I've had since the discussion about it in here

Interesting info reginalb!

 

[danadam]

since FLAC is ~4,600kbps for 24/96 audio

That's for uncompressed audio. FLAC should be smaller, though admittedly nowhere near 990 kbps.

 

[reginalb]

That's for uncompressed audio. FLAC should be smaller, though admittedly nowhere near 990 kbps.

I just played an album and that's what it was at. I don't think that's the uncompressed WAV, because for lossy I know it's not.

 

[danadam]

96'000 (samples per second) * 24 (bits per sample) * 2 (channels) = 4'608'000 bits per second = 4'608 kbps

My 24/96 flacs show between 2'000 and 3'000 kbps.

 

[Wilson]

So, this is kind of interesting, there seems to be some sort of oversampling that happens with LDAC?


I've done a lot of digging in to LDAC lately. Early Sony marketing material had described LDAC as a lossless codec for 24/96 audio. Lossless compression of 24/96 at 990kbps would be a pretty major achievement, since FLAC is ~4,600kbps for 24/96 audio. But I found someone who had pressed them on this, eventually speaking to an actual engineer who indicated that it is NOT lossless. Either way, it should be completely transparent at 990kbps unless it's a terrible codec - that is more than enough for 16/44.1 lossless.

These are just some random musings about LDAC I've had since the discussion about it in here

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/soundimage/sony-ldac-8212-questions-and-answers-437885

They danced around the straight-forward answer. I work in the sound/voice digital signal processing field, and I believe that LDAC isn't lossless. Their marketing and engineering probably had a disjoint somewhere, leading to some awkward situations.

Cheers,
W.

 

[RockStar2005]

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/soundimage/sony-ldac-8212-questions-and-answers-437885

They danced around the straight-forward answer. I work in the sound/voice digital signal processing field, and I believe that LDAC isn't lossless. Their marketing and engineering probably had a disjoint somewhere, leading to some awkward situations.

Cheers,
W.

It might as well BE lossless though at 990 kbps though, right? I dunno. lol

 

[Wilson]

At work, I am on a project designing a new Bluetooth "hearable/headset/audio" IC and the design covers dual mode (Bluetooth classic and the new BLE spec).

The new Bluetooth 5.0 bandwidth has increased to 2 Mbps, but the new audio protocol standard that the committee working on has not been finalized and announced. Perhaps the Sony LDAC is counting on the new future audio protocol to allow for more bandwidth to meet their claims.

 

[Whitigir]

Is aptX Hd lossless then

 

[Wilson]

Is aptX Hd lossless then

AptX HD is a lossy codec for sure. If I recall correctly it is an ADPCM scheme.

 

[RockStar2005]

At work, I am on a project designing a new Bluetooth "hearable/headset/audio" IC and the design covers dual mode (Bluetooth classic and the new BLE spec).

The new Bluetooth 5.0 bandwidth has increased to 2 Mbps, but the new audio protocol standard that the committee working on has not been finalized and announced. Perhaps the Sony LDAC is counting on the new future audio protocol to allow for more bandwidth to meet their claims.

So you're saying BT 5.0 still doesn't have enough bandwidth to make LDAC lossless?

 

[Wilson]

So you're saying BT 5.0 still doesn't have enough bandwidth to make LDAC lossless?

There will be a new audio specification in the future, but it has not been announced at this time. Therefore using the A2DP the available bandwidth for audio is still limited and same as before. Some articles explained the details on these APTX and LDAC marketing claims better, and they are lossy ...
http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/aptx-hd---lossless-or-lossy-442124
http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/what-is-aptx-hd---a-new-boost-for-bluetooth-414111

For my own music listening, I want my music to be always at the highest possible quality and therefore I avoid wireless links. I can live with the wires. There are many elements in wireless links that could cause imperfections, packet loss due to some wireless interference would be one and lossy compression/decompression to get around the bandwidth or protocol limitations being another. With the new 2-ear wireless pods you need synchronization mechanisms between the left and right devices and their digital clocks on the two can never be identical, ... etc.

 

[RockStar2005]

There will be a new audio specification in the future, but it has not been announced at this time. Therefore using the A2DP the available bandwidth for audio is still limited and same as before. Some articles explained the details on these APTX and LDAC marketing claims better, and they are lossy ...
http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/aptx-hd---lossless-or-lossy-442124
http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/what-is-aptx-hd---a-new-boost-for-bluetooth-414111

For my own music listening, I want my music to be always at the highest possible quality and therefore I avoid wireless links. I can live with the wires. There are many elements in wireless links that could cause imperfections, packet loss would be one and lossy compression/decompression to get around the bandwidth or protocol limitations being another. With the new 2-ear wireless pods you need synchronization mechanisms between the left and right devices and their digital clocks on the two can never be identical, ... etc.

I C. Interesting. Is there a specific number of kbps that differentiates lossy from lossless? I always thought it was around 1000, but not sure at all really.

I prefer wired over wireless sound, but WHEN the day comes where human beings can no longer tell the difference (and I KNOW it's coming soon! lol), I will most definitely be on board to buy a wireless headphone. My concern is how they maintain TOP sound quality w/o a DAC involved. I guess then the ADC would have to be made incredible? This Audio-Technica headphone gives me hope though b/c it doesn't use a DAC and still sounds incredible per many reviews I've read on it.

I have all my music put to 256-512 kbps AAC b/c I have come to the conclusion after much research and my own experiences doing blind ABX tests that people cannot statistically tell the difference b/t 256 kbps and FLAC/ALAC. Even ppl on here who I respect feel the same way. Yes it's lossy, but I don't care so long as I cannot tell the difference no matter how hard I try. And I have very good hearing too (also been tested). I used to only play and store my music in FLAC/ALAC, but if it takes up so much more space (and more battery power to play those bigger files), then why do it, is the conclusion I reached. I buy Hi-Res files all the time, but to me AS LONG AS I'm not downsampling them to mp3-level, they will sound the same. The only reason they sound better in FLAC/ALAC is because in order to get access to those versions of albums with superior-sounding masters, you HAVE to buy Hi-Res. But that doesn't mean it has to stay at that resolution to sound as good. Some ppl will argue that, and that's fine. But I stand by my beliefs.

 

[aertus]

the LDAC might not be loseless but it has the highest bitrate out of all others. sony cold potentially surpass those audio technica if they release their own version with similar technology. Anyways, i think its cheaper to just get AKG and a decent amp than buying those audio technica.


also new sony flagship leaks show Sony had a last minute change in their design. People say it might be they changed their mind about removing the headphone jack and so they added it back.

 

[RockStar2005]

the LDAC might not be loseless but it has the highest bitrate out of all others. sony cold potentially surpass those audio technica if they release their own version with similar technology. Anyways, i think its cheaper to just get AKG and a decent amp than buying those audio technica.


also new sony flagship leaks show Sony had a last minute change in their design. People say it might be they changed their mind about removing the headphone jack and so they added it back.

Can't argue with the AKG + amp (or amp/DAC) suggestion! Or Sennheiser. lol AKG K550 MK III (or MK I or II) or the Sennheiser HD1 Over-Ear (which I currently use) are both great options to consider.