Qualcomm S5 Sound Platform can play CD-quality lossless audio wirelessly
Click here to post a comment for Qualcomm S5 Sound Platform can play CD-quality lossless audio wirelessly on our message forum
rl66
Better...
But who still listen at this poor quality?
Wire still have great days ahead...
Richard Nutman
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html
Eh? 16bit 44.1khz is poor quality? You know humans can't tell any difference between standard CD quality and hires formats?
tunejunky
Richard Nutman
The article is wrong? It was just presenting the outcome of a very controlled test. It can't be wrong. How you interpret the data is up to you, but the results are pretty clear.
16bit has more than enough dynamic range for human hearing.
https://www.soundguys.com/audio-bit-depth-explained-23706/
"The dynamic nature of the ear and listening material makes it hard to give a precise number, but the real dynamic range of your hearing is likely in the region of 70dB in an average environment, down to just 40dB in very loud environments. A bit depth of just 12 bits would probably have most people covered, so 16-bit CDs give us plenty of headroom."
"On balance, 16 bits (96dB of dynamic range or 120dB with dithering applied) accommodates a wide range of audio types, as well as the limits of human hearing and typical listening environments. The perceptual increases in 24-bit quality are highly debatable if not simply a placebo, as I hope I’ve demonstrated."
Show me some double blind tests that prove people can hear improvements.
tunejunky
Richard Nutman
https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/
Yes we know 16 bit has less dynamic range than 24bit. The point is you wont hear any difference because 16bit is already more than enough.
I suggest you read, and do the example down the bottom for yourself.
Venix
Meanwhile I am sitting here with my Bluetooth taotronics bh21 and I am like .... These sound awesome! But I said a lot of times I am a sound pleb 😛. At least is cheap to be a happy sound pleb !
tunejunky
fyi
AGAIN, WRONG
you are not understanding the usage of dynamic range.
for example - an audio cassette (20Hz - 17kHz) has audibility. audibility IS NOT EQUAL to suitability or capability.
these folks @ "soundguys" are idiots and NOT sound guys. I am a sound guy.
they are telling you "good enough" when "good enough" was never the question.
you said no-one can tell the difference between 16/44 and higher res. you are categorically wrong.
Richard Nutman
tunejunky
let's get a few facts under our belts shall we?
the Decibel dB, in this case spl (sound pressure level) is the unit of measurement used. in human hearing 3dB doubles the sound intensity while 6dB is the level of perception required to feel twice as loud.
the cd has up to 96dB of dynamic range which is better than the past. a 24/196 system has a dynamic range of 144dB
AND AGAIN, 6dB are perceived as twice as loud.
the ONLY metric where people can say 16/44 is "good enough" is when they don't care in the first place.
for those who do care there is no going back.
cheap people can make excuses (i.e drive space or expense) but do not come around with rationalizations.
schmidtbag
While I agree with @Richard Nutman that 16 bit 44.1KHz is not at all poor quality (as far as human hearing capabilities are concerned), a trained ear in specific kinds of recordings with a highly optimized system can hear the difference, but that's like having a professional wine taster identify the ingredients and how long the fermentation was in a blind test - sure, the difference is noticed, but that doesn't mean the difference is desirable or even matters at all. Not all subtle differences are noteworthy.
As far as I'm concerned, a higher bit depth and sample rate really only matters (or in fact, is necessary) when recording or editing audio. For anything else, going higher is pointless, even where the differences can be noticed by untrained ears. I don't care who I offend when I say this: a consumer spending 200%+ more for the <1% of times where you actually can tell the difference is burnt money. This is exacerbated when you consider that such differences practically never matter to published content. So what if a pin drop in the background got picked up, or that a dog whistle can be heard without aliasing or distortion? I don't think it's worth bragging when your sound system can play a frequency range triple what you can hear (especially if there are poor mids) or when you have to crank up the volume so high to hear the subtle differences that the experience is annoying.
I want to hear what I was meant to hear. If I need to spend $700+ just so I can hear a specific instrument, that is poor sound design. If I can hear the cameraman breathing, that's detracting from my experience. Anything that can't be heard by a 16-bit 44.1KHz system but should be audible is either a niche case or a poorly engineered track.
I don't see any problem in going 24-bit 96KHz, because nowadays, you don't need high-end hardware to do that, so if the quality can be improved with little to no sacrifices then I'm all for it. But for someone to stick their nose up at CD quality for a wireless interface is just elitism as far as I'm concerned.
EDIT:
For what it's worth, I have a 24-bit 96KHz 5.1 channel system. I don't regret getting it but I wouldn't make the same purchase twice.
Richard Nutman
For recording @schmidtbag, yes 24bit makes a lot of sense I agree.
More bits have nothing to do with loudness. A 1 bit file can be as loud as a 24bit file. The difference is the noise floor. With 96db of range, the noise floor is already below human hearing.
You certainly aren't going to notice it with wireless earbuds or wireless headphones regarding this news announcement that's for sure.
tunejunky
Richard Nutman
Yes you can tell them apart because the mastering engineer made the 24bit track sound different deliberately. Perhaps reduced the amount of dynamic compression in the track, to make it sound more like music did in the olden days.
That is a very real difference, but it's nothing to do with increased bit-depth.
Your anecdotes are meaningless. Perhaps the DAC copy was just slightly louder. That's a great trick to convince people music sounds better. Show me a double blind study that proves it.
schmidtbag
tunejunky
tunejunky
Richard Nutman
tunejunky
the arguments people have been making are fallacious.
this is exactly like saying an i-3 can do the same work as an i-9, which it can - to an extent.
but the people who actually use the computer for more than web browsing and online shopping know there's a huge difference in capability.
tunejunky