[Michial]

That's like listening to 2 different speakers , not to mention your confirmation bias.

I left wired headphones three years ago and have been Bluetooth until a few months ago. I’ve tried the QC35, WH1000XM2, B&W and Sennheiser $400 Plus Bluetooth headphones, and found the wired Sennheiser 569,579, 598 as well as the mdr1a, m100, B&O H6 all sound superior. I’m not an audiophile, but my conclusion must be it’s more than just driver differences, but wires. Some of these headphones are a third of the price as the best Bluetooth sets out today, yet are far superior in sound to me. Sure most wont tell the difference or don’t care but I can, and these 400 dollar headphones must have their money value for something other than sound. It must be paying for noise cancellation or dsp. Not sure but my $200 wires blow them away. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[LajostheHun]

you forgot amplifiers, cup design and how that actually project sound into your ear because of your unique ear shape etc... so no your "test" at least on this forum is inadequate to put it mildly...

 

[Michial]

you forgot amplifiers, cup design and how that actually project sound into your ear because of your unique ear shape etc... so no your "test" at least on this forum is inadequate to put it mildly...

Lol. Of course it is.

 

[esprithk]

Only SONY LDAC supports True CD quality 16bits/44.1kHz in music (at receiving end, the headphone)
*yes, you are listening to lossless CD Quality by LDAC tehcnology (but you must also have a device that support LDAC transmission.

Luckily, from Android OREO (8.0), many Android devices are already built-in LDAC support, such as some Huawei smartphone and HTC U11.
To active the option to select "which codec to use" for bluetooh transmission, you must go to settings of your smart device and enable "developer's options menu" (secretly pressed certain section of the setting 10 times).

Once you enable Developers' Option Menu, you have the option select which code (usually, it is listed A2DP, aptX, LDAC)

 

[Dulalala]

Only SONY LDAC supports True CD quality 16bits/44.1kHz

LDAC is a lossy codec so I don't know what you mean by "true" CD quality. If you mean indistinguishable from CD quality, aptXHD claims to do that too.

 

[esprithk]

LDAC is a lossy codec so I don't know what you mean by "true" CD quality. If you mean indistinguishable from CD quality, aptXHD claims to do that too.

It is lossless at 16bits/44.1kHz

(It is capable to fully reconstruct the 16/44.1 data in the receiving end)

Its transmission is more than enough to cover beyond 16/44.1

However, for 24/96, it is lossy as not possible to transmit such hugh data in the current LDAC technology.

Further reading here

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/what-is-sony-ldac-and-how-does-it-do-it-408285

 

[james444]

It is lossless at 16bits/44.1kHz

(It is capable to fully reconstruct the 16/44.1 data in the receiving end)

Its transmission is more than enough to cover beyond 16/44.1

However, for 24/96, it is lossy as not possible to transmit such hugh data in the current LDAC technology.

Further reading here

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/what-is-sony-ldac-and-how-does-it-do-it-408285

I've read through it, where do they confirm that 16/44.1 is actually lossless?

 

[Dulalala]

It is lossless at 16bits/44.1kHz

(It is capable to fully reconstruct the 16/44.1 data in the receiving end)

Its transmission is more than enough to cover beyond 16/44.1

However, for 24/96, it is lossy as not possible to transmit such hugh data in the current LDAC technology.

Further reading here

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/what-is-sony-ldac-and-how-does-it-do-it-408285

From what I can tell, it's just what the marketing department said and the author of the article himself seems to have reservations on that response. Also haven't seen any other sources that verify this claim either.

The original statement seemed to imply it's part lossy part lossless, which doesn't exactly make much sense. If it's part lossy part lossless, wouldn't that just make it lossy since information is being thrown out anyways? I also don't understand how they would fit a 16/44 lossless file (equivilant to ~1400 kbps) into 990 kbps without any compression. Most lossless compression hover at around ~57% of the original file. If it truely was lossless compression it would mean that the lossless compression would be further compressed another 30-40% which seems a bit too good to be true.

 

[bigshot]

If it's lossless, it wouldn't be transcoding PCM to anything else.

 

[Roseval]

Good read: https://www.androidauthority.com/sony-ldac-codec-790690/

 

[castleofargh]

Good read: https://www.androidauthority.com/sony-ldac-codec-790690/

this graph out of context really pisses me off. this is the kind of dynamic we can achieve in an anechoic chamber with unique tones where the loudest signal is set where it starts to be painful. it's absolute BS when presented in the context of listening to music in everyday life.

about the lossless nature of 16/44 when used at max LDAC setting, the bandwidth is good enough to deal with something like most 16/44flac files at average compression level, so lossless 16/44 isn't technically out of question.

 

[james444]

this graph out of context really pisses me off. this is the kind of dynamic we can achieve in an anechoic chamber with unique tones where the loudest signal is set where it starts to be painful. it's absolute BS when presented in the context of listening to music in everyday life.

+1

about the lossless nature of 16/44 when used at max LDAC setting, the bandwidth is good enough to deal with something like most 16/44flac files at average compression level, so lossless 16/44 isn't technically out of question.

Yup, but why don't they explicitely state it then? First lossless A2DP streaming would be one hell of a selling point. My guess is because it isn't...

 

[esprithk]

+1



Yup, but why don't they explicitely state it then? First lossless A2DP streaming would be one hell of a selling point. My guess is because it isn't...

First, convert the spec to kbps


http://www.audiomountain.com/tech/audio-file-size.html

And then it is just simple math, you will find out LDAC transmission is more than enough to transmit 16bits/44.1kHz size of data
(Actually, LDAC is like breaking and compressing the data, then in the receiving side, it decompress and put the data back together as a whole)

Second, the confusion is because SONY marketing dept advertise the product in focus of 24bits/96kHz, which turns out LDAC cannot archieve full reconstruction of 24/96 file size, thus it is lossy format for 24/96.

Third, due to the fact that LDAC is stil able transmit and reconstruct data that are close to the size of 24/96, this already proof that it has no trouble to transmit and reconstruct data size of 16/44.1 (as 24/96 is a much larger size in comparison)


Anyway, I searched aptX . c o m and learn that

MDR-100ABN supports aptX as well
WH-H900N(the newer version of MDR-100ABN) supports both aptX and aptX HD, too.

So I am happy I get all supports (except Apple's W chip) from a SONY wireless headphone

 

[bigshot]

I just want audible transparency. I don't listen to numbers. I listen to music.

 

[dhavill]

I picked up the Bowers and Wilkins PX headphones a couple months ago and am really enjoying them. However — I pair them with my S7 Edge which supports aptx and isn’t able to fully leverage the PX’s aptx hd capability. Is it ludicrous for me to consider switching to the V30 or a 2018 flagship phone to take advantage of aptx hd? Has anyone actually done a side-by-side with these two codecs to objectively say there is an audible difference? Also hopefully this question is not akin to the age-old debate of headphone burn-in versus placebo.