Confirming this Ultra developer flub

[Dude]

It should just say .

Well, they do know. It is 16 or 24.

 

[Dude]

OrView attachment 35318...

Scottish hamburgers look terrible. Where’s the beef?!

 

[hoohoohoo]

Well, they do know. It is 16 or 24.

Schrödinger's bitstream

 

[harkpabst]

Learning to live means learning to compromise. Thus, 20 bit is the only reasonable answer.

Alternatively there could be a configurable option in the WHA where you could pick any value from 7 bit to 33 bit.

 

[Dude]

Learning to live means learning to compromise. Thus, 20 bit is the only reasonable answer.

Alternatively there could be a configurable option in the WHA where you could pick any value from 7 bit to 33 bit.

But 20 would be inaccurate too. 16/24 is the only correct information to display.

 

[Dude]

Schrödinger's bitstream

Actually, since some streamers (Tidal, Spotify) sometimes/oftentimes do not send lossless (as tested by various sources) despite saying they do (irrespective of network congestion), this is not far from the actual truth.

 

[EddNog]

Schrodinger's bit depth.

-Ed

 

[dtc]

It should be reported correctly or not reported. Maybe ** or ?? or XX or something like that should be used if the bitrate is not known.

Can you image reporting 44.1 KHz for all sample rates?

 

[r5yk5]

I tried this out earlier. Fired up my lms which just plays music from my iBroadcast library. The WHA said everything was 16\48 yet my amp (Arcam) knew the correct bit depths and sample rates. Why is my ultra not confident about what it's playing? Or is my amp just guessing? If so, it's damn good at it. It was right every time.

 

[harkpabst]

But 20 would be inaccurate too. 16/24 is the only correct information to display.

Why?
16/24 = 2/3 = 0.6666666666666666666⁶

How is this accurate?

 

[Dude]

Why?
16/24 = 2/3 = 0.6666666666666666666⁶

How is this accurate?

“/“ = “or”, not math.
It could display “16 or 24 bit” or; “up to 24 bit” or “- bit” (as in, unknown).