It's loss-less, not loss-none
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
826 points (99.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
20176 readers
757 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
We really need someone other than Qualcomm & Apple to come up with lossless Bluetooth audio codecs.
TBF the whole Bluetooth audio situation is a complete mess
Opus! It's a merge of a codec designed for speech (from Skype!) with one designed for high quality audio by Xiph (same people who made OGG/Vorbis).
Although it needs some more work on latency, it prefers to work on bigger frames but default than Bluetooth packets likes, but I've seen there's work on standardizing a version that fits Bluetooth. Google even has it implemented now on Pixel devices.
Fully free codec!
opus isn’t lossless
Nobody needs lossless over Bluetooth
Edit: plenty of downvotes by people who have never listened to ABX tests with high quality lossy compare versus lossless
At high bitrate lossy you literally can't distinguish it. There's math to prove it;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
At 44 kHz 16 bit with over 192 Kbps with good encoders your ear literally can't physically discern the difference
The minute lossless becomes available wirelessly I’ll ditch my ridiculous headphone cable.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Bluetooth as a whole is kind of a mess if we’re being honest.
That's what happens when you have a 25 year old protocol and try to maintain backwards compatibility through all of the versions.
The world of audio would be more of a mess if Bluetooth was developed scrapped and replaced according to what seems to be your recommendations. I'm glad they did it the way they did.
It's not time for change. Just alternatives for snobs.
Can we name a more poorly implemented protocol? Probably. One used as much as Bluetooth? Probably not.
NAT
SMTP?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wait, did Apple implement its own codec? I thought even the Airpods Max used AAC, which is lossy.
As for Qualcomm, only aptX Lossless is lossless and I'm not aware of many products supporting it (most supports aptX HD at most)
Yeah, the problem (imo) isn't lossy v lossless. It's that the supported codecs are part of the Bluetooth standard and they were developed in like the 90s.
There are far better codecs out there and we can't use them without incompatible extensions on Bluetooth.
There's a push for Opus now, it's the perfect codec for Bluetooth because it's a singular codec that fits the whole spectrum from low bandwidth speech to high quality audio, and it's fully free
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Many lossless codecs are lossy codecs + residual encoders. For example FLAC has predictor(lossy codec) + residual.
Ah, misleading use of terminology that indicates one thing, but will win in court even if it actually means, or can later be said to mean, another.
I hope those involved in helping companies win these lawsuits choke on bones from food sold as boneless. Because that won a court case after "boneless" was redefined as a cooking method.
I don't want them to choke to death. Just a little lesson, you know?
I vote they choke indefinitely. But not to death; I want them to die of old age, spending decade upon decade choking endlessly.
I work in pro AV and so many companies do this. Wow, you say LOSSLESS video on a valens chip? Oh, you've never actually done a side-by-side conparison, have you..
Extron differentiates between lossless and "visually lossless" which I appreciate.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I remember when unlimited minutes plans for cell phones meant 300 minutes.
Or when Comcast had unlimited downloads which was capped at 2 TB.
These shitty companies know exactly what they are doing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
"On 17 September 2019, the Japan Audio Society (JAS) certified LDAC with their Hi-Res Audio Wireless certification."
Something something oxymoron. Bluetooth is trash, its why I still use wired whenever I can.
load more comments
(2 replies)
To my knowledge it's lossless in CD quality only, in high-res modes it becomes lossy
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›