It's loss-less, not loss-none
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
829 points (99.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
20188 readers
1617 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dang it, was going to make this same joke lol
It's a good joke
As unfortunate as the naming misdirection is, I have to say: LDAC sounds significantly better (to me) than other Bluetooth codecs I have tried. It also works on Linux and android with no issues whatsoever. Open source is good.
I use it with a pair of Sony XM5's, which can also be used in wired mode, so you kind of get the best of both worlds.
at high signal strength LDAC should default to 990kbps.. which is kind of ridiculous since it's so high it's higher than some lossless codecs, like uncompressed 16-bit 48kHz. (which is higher than standard CD quality)
Uncompressed 16 bit 48KHz stereo is 1536 kbps, which is just slightly higher than what bluetooth 5 is capable of.
Oh I forgot about stereo, ha.
The bitrate is manually enforceable on Linux, too
*specifically using PipeWire
Pipewire or the pulseaduo Bluetooth codec add-on. The pipewire implementation seems to be mimicking the old pulseaudio plugin.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Many lossless codecs are lossy codecs + residual encoders. For example FLAC has predictor(lossy codec) + residual.
Could also stand for Lazy DumbAss Cat if the pic is any relation
Does this meme format / cat have a name? I was trying to find the raw version the other day and could not.
“Cat looks inside”
> knowyourmeme link
> look inside
> cat
Thanks!
Ignorant of the subject matter, but I ripped a bunch of CDs to FLAC some time ago. Would that not work for this purpose?
The Sound Guys do a good job of breaking down LDAC, however the main point of criticism I have about the article is that they say that LDAC isn't great because most smartphones don't auto-choose the highest 990 bitrate. That doesn't seem like an LDAC problem, that seems like a phone problem. My phone is admittedly a Sony, but it always chooses the highest bitrate first. There's even a setting to force it to use 990.
The other criticism I have is that the sound guys kind of overlook the fact that, when your phone is in your pocket, it's close enough to the headphones that you'll almost always get the 990 bitrate. And the sound quality at 990 is fantastic. I cannot tell a difference between it and a wired connection for CD-quality FLACs. Even the 660 stepdown bitrate of the LDAC codec is really good.
Ldac is a Bluetooth thingy, so my understanding is that flacs will be re-encoded on the fly when you play 'em on bt headphones with ldac.
Bluetooth has fairly low bitrate which also helps save power. The throughput will also vary with signal quality. It needs to somehow adjust to worse conditions, otherwise it will just keep cutting out. Streaming CD quality FLAC could probably be done over Bluetooth 5 2M PHY, but 2Mbps is just the physical layer. There's also some overhead. Perhaps just enough would be left, but the bitrate will also vary with the content. Not everything can be compressed much, while some audio can be compressed quite a bit.
Probably would work, but the reliability is also a question.
Anyway, just guessing. Perhaps the 3Mbps EDR could be used just fine.
Oh, Bluetooth 3.0 + HS could do 24Mbps. Sort of. It used WiFi to do that.
load more comments
(17 replies)
My favorite is most people are listening to already lossy compressed music that gets decoded and then recompressed in another lossy manner… I miss my cable sometimes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›