Many lossless codecs are lossy codecs + residual encoders. For example FLAC has predictor(lossy codec) + residual.
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
819 points (99.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
20138 readers
1569 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
It's loss-less, not loss-none
Dang it, was going to make this same joke lol
It's a good joke
Could also stand for Lazy DumbAss Cat if the pic is any relation
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!
load more comments
(12 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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(6 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.
That's assuming raw PCM data, no compression (lossy or lossless) whatsoever.
LDAC can do lossless redbook audio (16 bit 44.1 KHz) at 990kbps. All other modes are lossy.
It's probably doing something much like FLAC- lossy encoder + residual corrections to ensure you get the original waveform back out, but with less bandwidth than raw PCM.
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
(4 replies)
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Does this meme format / cat have a name? I was trying to find the raw version the other day and could not.
view more: next ›