drmatt wrote:
> No, but I have plenty of evidence that corporations won't touch open
> source with a bargepole.
>
Hi guys!
It's all got a bit heated on this thread & I don't want to get involved
in the vitriolic stuff.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that Logitech's decision to ditch our
drmatt wrote:
> I've usually observed that markets where there is a defacto generic
> product tend towards less variety, so I don't know what's irrational
> about that. Hipster kickstarters aside, most consumers wouldn't buy
> anything but the defacto "good enough", and those that do explore
>
drmatt wrote:
> No, but I have plenty of evidence that corporations won't touch open
> source with a bargepole.
>
Many of us already have evidence in their possession that the majority
of businesses and individuals that use cell phones already use open
source software.
Consider that 100s
pippin wrote:
> MQA certification primarily means you pay a license fee and then you can
> use the label.
Yes agree , then we migth ask how inportant they think their own spec is
.
drmatt wrote:
> Indeed. Presumably "mqa certification" just means "thou shalt implement
> a bunch of filters
arnyk wrote:
> You have evidence that the FLAC developers refused to sign contracts or
> support their product for a reasonable fee?
>
> I doubt it.
No, but I have plenty of evidence that corporations won't touch open
source with a bargepole.
Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
--
I doubt it. Markets where there is a defacto generic product tend
towards less variety. Hipster kickstarters aside, most consumers
wouldn't buy anything but the defacto "good enough", and those that do
explore further would only really buy the one with the Apple logo..
Transcoded from Matt's
drmatt wrote:
> But as you know companies will always prefer to use a format with a
> contract and support rather than one without, where they may find
> themselves with a bunch of support case and no expertise or will to fix
> it.
>
You have evidence that the FLAC developers refused to sign
drmatt wrote:
> Seriously, why do you have a problem with my nickname? Not only is it
> completely and utterly irrelevant, it's actually not even untrue.. lol
>
I'm afraid that I'm a prisoner of your earlier obfuscation and
apparently false claims on that topic. Given your history related to
arnyk wrote:
> Given "Dr Matt" (a fraudulent nickname)
Seriously, why do you have a problem with my nickname? Not only is it
completely and utterly irrelevant, it's actually not even untrue.. lol
I'm aware that small high end hifi companies undoubtedly suffer from
enhanced pressure to turn a
But as you know companies will always prefer to use a format with a
contract and support rather than one without, where they may find
themselves with a bunch of support case and no expertise or will to fix
it.
Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x
Wombat wrote:
> For Meridian it may be the needed follow-up for MLP licensing. They had
> to develop something new licensible so they create some magic around it
> to get the income they are used to.
AFAIK MLP was not appreciably better than FLAC which was as I recall in
the public domain. It
For Meridian it may be the needed follow-up for MLP licensing. They had
to develop something new licensible so they create some magic around it
to get the income they are used to.
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
drmatt wrote:
> I doubt it. 2008 was a long time ago, and nothing going on there yet...
>
> And really? Scamming the public? You really think they are sitting there
> trying to think of something that they can sell knowing full well it
> does nothing and cackling into their capes as they swoosh
drmatt wrote:
> I don't think the word "fraud" should be on anyone's lips. Misguided,
> naive, weak minded, arguable, but let's not overstate things.
I generally follow the principle "do not ascribe to malice that which
can be explained by incompetence".
But frankly I don't think Bob Stuart is
cliveb wrote:
> After everything I've seen emerge about MQA, it's becoming increasingly
> clear that it is a cynical attempt to extract more cash from punters
> through FUD.
>
> The people who have built this system almost certainly know full well
> that it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
>
cliveb wrote:
> If they were in the financial or pharmaceutical industry they'd probably
> be a in jail by now.
I doubt it. 2008 was a long time ago, and nothing going on there yet...
Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver
bdarrenyeats wrote:
>
>
> Also there are historical shenanigans with cheap and/or poor ADCs which
> have caused measurable issues in a great many recordings.
>
Attempts to measure this or validate it with DBTs have come up empty.
In general, the legacy ADCs were both very good and very
After everything I've seen emerge about MQA, it's becoming increasingly
clear that it is a cynical attempt to extract more cash from punters
through FUD.
The people who have built this system almost certainly know full well
that it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
And they also know that if
MQA certification primarily means you pay a license fee and then you can
use the label.
---
learn more about iPeng, the iPhone and iPad remote for the Squeezebox
and
Logitech UE Smart Radio as well as iPeng Party, the free Party-App,
at penguinlovesmusic.com
*New: iPeng 9, the Universal App
Numerical calculation errors are easily demonstrated as measurable in
the real world e.g. DAC on-board digital filters, SRC software. It's an
absolute myth that these calculations are generally perfect in the real
world (even though they could be, and in particular cases are perfect).
For
arnyk wrote:
> The frequency response you measure is not +/- 0.1 dB. It is +/- zero dB
> or as close to that as your numerical calculations allow.
>
Numerical calculation errors are easily measurable at 24 bits even for
the good guys (e.g. tiny Benchmark DAC1/DAC2 frequency ripples which BM
Mnyb wrote:
> It's seems that mqa can be implemented differently ( which is strange
> given what they say they ate doing ...)
> So it can be intresting to see how diffrent DAC's switch filters and
> varies other settings and implement the noise shaping dither etc ?
Indeed. Presumably "mqa
It's seems that mqa can be implemented differently ( which is strange
given what they say they ate doing ...)
So it can be intresting to see how diffrent DAC's switch filters and
varies other settings and implement the noise shaping dither etc ?
23 matches
Mail list logo
