• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Darko hates LDAC

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I know.. I should just refrain from reading this garbage, but it happens to the best of us.

https://darko.audio/2020/11/no-bluetooth-cannot-deliver-hi-res-audio/

While I get that some phones have issues maintaining the 990kbps bitrate, he goes on and on about his scoffing that it pales in comparison to his fancy hi rez placebo files. If I used LDAC locked to 990kbps on my d50s vs playing natively through tidal, I wouldn't be able to tell. Hell, I can't even tell the 320kbit and flac apart. I thought that I heard a bit more air on the flac files, but its probably just me running a non blind test. What do you guys think?
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
I know that you are correct. About 6 years back I hosted a head-fi meet. I ran a properly controlled, multiple trial blind listening test that used a Flac master of a very dynamic recording (relatively so even though I am sure it is brickwalled) - One Trick Pony from the Holly Cole album Romantically Hopeless and the 320 CBR mp3 ripped from it using the lame encoder built into JRiver Media Center. Six young head-fi members participated as subjects with two of them before beginning claiming they had already tested at home themselves and they were very confident that they could tell the formats apart and would find the Flac to sound better.

Each subject was presented with 6 pairings, the order of file format presented was randomized and unknown to the subjects. When it was all said and done not one of the participants did better than 60%, most around 50% detection which means they were simply guessing.
 
Last edited:

Beershaun

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
1,864
Likes
1,910
Thats not how I read it. I read it as he is calling out that the marketing is confusing and misleading to call something hi-res bluetooth streaming because it's further confusing consumers about what they are buying. Especially consumers who happen to care about whether they are getting a lossless transmission of their file or not.

He even says at the end that if we can't really hear the difference anyway why try to confuse people by saying this technology is something something it's not.

In his reviews he usually calls out to not prioritize on file formats and hi res to much in purchasing decision making because things like Spotify and AAC sound pretty good and the vast catalog of music is in cd format at best.
 
OP
fieldcar

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Thats not how I read it. I read it as he is calling out that the marketing is confusing and misleading to call something hi-res bluetooth streaming because it's further confusing consumers about what they are buying. Especially consumers who happen to care about whether they are getting a lossless transmission of their file or not.

He even says at the end that if we can't really hear the difference anyway why try to confuse people by saying this technology is something something it's not.

In his reviews he usually calls out to not prioritize on file formats and hi res to much in purchasing decision making because things like Spotify and AAC sound pretty good and the vast catalog of music is in cd format at best.
That's a fair assessment. I know he is talking mostly about marketing, but he's still just an audio snob in my book who can't bear the sound anything but the highest quality DSD's.

Darko said:
Bluetooth cannot take CD-quality audio from phone to headphone (or streamer) without loss. Hi-res audio? A Bluetooth pipe dream!

This is what caught my eye though. Yes, its a lossy format, but it's a very high bitrate codec. LDAC at 16bit/44.1KHz and 24bit/96KHz can compete with CD quality audio as long as it is locked to 990kbps. Also, I'm a firm believer in the shannon-nyquist theorem, and think that 16bit/44.1KHz (EDIT: for music playback, not recording/mastering) is technical perfection, and anything higher is a waste of space. So there's that.
 
Last edited:
OP
fieldcar

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I know that you are correct. About 6 years back I hosted a head-fi meet. I ran a properly controlled, multiple trial blind listening test that used a Flac master of a very dynamic recording (relatively so even though I am sure it is brickwalled) - One Trick Pony from the Holly Cole album Romantically helpless and the 320 CBR mp3 ripped from it using the lame encoder built into JRiver Media Center. Six young head-fi members participated as subjects with two of them before beginning claiming they had already tested at home themselves and they were very confident that they could tell the formats apart and would find the Flac to sound better.

Each subject was presented with 6 pairings, the order of file format presented was randomized and unknown to the subjects. When it was all said and done not one of the participants did better than 60%, most around 50% detection which means they were simply guessing.

The only thing I potentially/maybe perceived was a longer decay of high frequency echoes/ambiance in lossless recordings versus the 320 MP3. With the 320 Mp3, I just felt like it was ever so slightly quicker/shorter echo/reverb decay, but at no point did I think that one sounded better or worse. I also realized that I wasn't enjoying the music at this point. I also was only able to tell them apart when they were played about 2-3 seconds apart in my DAW software. Confirming that theory that auditory memory is only a few seconds long. As for hi-rez placebo, I mean audio, I can't tell a difference whatsoever. I'd rather worry about speakers, room EQ, and treatments or getting better headphones at this point. Maybe one of those hypex amps to pair with my X3700H. Hmmm... now there's a dilemma.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
The only thing I potentially/maybe perceived was a longer decay of high frequency echoes/ambiance in lossless recordings versus the 320 MP3. With the 320 Mp3, I just felt like it was ever so slightly quicker/shorter echo/reverb decay, but at no point did I think that one sounded better or worse. I also realized that I wasn't enjoying the music at this point. I also was only able to tell them apart when they were played about 2-3 seconds apart in my DAW software. Confirming that theory that auditory memory is only a few seconds long. As for hi-rez placebo, I mean audio, I can't tell a difference whatsoever. I'd rather worry about speakers, room EQ, and treatments or getting better headphones at this point. Maybe one of those hypex amps to pair with my X3700H. Hmmm... now there's a dilemma.

Does any of what you are referring to involve blind tests? Because if it doesn't, it doesn't mean a whole lot. There's endless examples of folks claiming they hear all sorts of little "tells" but those always seem to disappear when the comparison is made without the knowledge of what file is being listened to at any given moment. The fact of the matter is that most people can barely even distinguish standard old SBC bluetooth from lossless...never-mind high res bluetooth.
 

Old Listener

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
499
Likes
556
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Darko is arguing about the ownership of the phrase "hi-res". However much the audiophile community believes that it is the arbiter of the meaning of the phrase, others may choose to use the words as they choose. Examples of some usages:

MQA - higher than 16/44. lossless except when it isn't.

streaming music services: lossless at 16/44 or sometimes at higher sample rates and/or bit depths.

consumer electronics devices: new and improved. Better than our previous models.
 
Last edited:

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
I know it isn't what they are doing, but if they have 990 kbps, that would be enough to send 44/16 FLAC. The device at the other end would need some processing power to play it, but that would be lossless. It would be enough for 48/16 FLAC even.

That's far too content dependent to work.

I just did some quick math on my own library and only 57% of my FLAC files are 990kbps or less with some higher than CD res included.

Limiting it CD res only still gives only 64% at 990kbps or less.

I even have one 16/44 FLAC which is 1318 kbps.
 

Hayabusa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
787
Likes
519
Location
Abu Dhabi
The frustrating thing with bluetooth audio is that you have no way of telling which codec is being used for the connection being made.
At least I could not find a way to find that. Anyone else knows how?
 
OP
fieldcar

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Does any of what you are referring to involve blind tests? Because if it doesn't, it doesn't mean a whole lot. There's endless examples of folks claiming they hear all sorts of little "tells" but those always seem to disappear when the comparison is made without the knowledge of what file is being listened to at any given moment. The fact of the matter is that most people can barely even distinguish standard old SBC bluetooth from lossless...never-mind high res bluetooth.
That's why I said "potentially/maybe" in my other post.

I saw an article written a while back that subtracted (inverted) the lossless from the lossy file, and the software spat out a differential file. The differential file sounded like treble only room ambiance or fuzz at approximately a 50-80dB delta between the source material and the differential track after transients. To be fair, this is teetering on the edge of audibility and I may just be hearing the Lame encoder's generated dithering noise and potential phase changes. The most I did near 'blind' is to keep the names off of the tracks in the playlist and solo audition between the identical looking tracks. I was mainly doing this testing to see if I really wanted to archive my cd's in FLAC or just a really well encoded Lame MP3. I really should do some ABX testing with some music of my own choosing now that you mention it. Though, I can barely tell the difference between 128Kbps in some online tests. SBC on the other hand, I hear distortion on certain tracks. Usually piano tracks or something with a pure tone. I especially hear it with a frequency sweep (try that out. It's kind of nuts. Even APTX does it to a lesser degree).

Thanks for challenging me on this. I should be a bit more meticulous on an "audio science" forum.
 
OP
fieldcar

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
The frustrating thing with bluetooth audio is that you have no way of telling which codec is being used for the connection being made.
At least I could not find a way to find that. Anyone else knows how?

I despise the way android manages it. I wish I could have LDAC @ 16-bit/44.1 & 990Kbps saved for a specific device.

 

Morla

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
325
Likes
302
Location
Europe/Germany
Probably darko approved disc enhancer. Nonsense was strong in the past, too.
 

Attachments

  • ihyo3qisqjx51.jpg
    ihyo3qisqjx51.jpg
    171 KB · Views: 679

Blorg

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
462
Likes
699
The frustrating thing with bluetooth audio is that you have no way of telling which codec is being used for the connection being made.
At least I could not find a way to find that. Anyone else knows how?

On Android it is usually listed on the Bluetooth device screen for a connected device, it will tell you the codec.

Screenshot_2021-04-26-12-45-26-705_com.android.settings.jpg
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
With Android I always enable Developer Options and then you can go there and see what connection type has been established between the devices. And yes as shown above you need to enable use enable optional codecs. Even so, there may be times when there are incompatibilities. I had a phone that could connect AptX with various devices, but it could not do so with I think my original FiiO Q5 no matter what it connected with AAC. It didn't matter anyway as AAC is an excellent codec from what I have heard through listening and from reading technical discussions of the format.
 

Beershaun

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
1,864
Likes
1,910
With Android I always enable Developer Options and then you can go there and see what connection type has been established between the devices. And yes as shown above you need to enable use enable optional codecs. Even so, there may be times when there are incompatibilities. I had a phone that could connect AptX with various devices, but it could not do so with I think my original FiiO Q5 no matter what it connected with AAC. It didn't matter anyway as AAC is an excellent codec from what I have heard through listening and from reading technical discussions of the format.
Amir has tested AAC vs sbc and aptx and aac has the best SINAD performance. I would like to see how LDAC and aptx-hd perform to see if they are better.
 
Top Bottom