svart-hvitt

This box lets you, potentially (not verified in all use cases), extract hi-res audio from HDMI, but lets you get low-res video only. Probably because HDMI is HDCP oriented, such boxes are a mess to deal with. We already have the Geerfab D Bob: https://geerfab.com/audio/ A more video oriented alternative with optical out: https://hdfury.com/product/4k-diva-18gbps/ For those who want more channels we have the Arvus: https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/arvus/arvus-h2-4d And those who have money to spend, the biggest Trinnov 32 does the job as well: https://www.trinnov.com/en/products/altitude32/#Specifications Due to HDCP it seems like most of these boxes fail in one way or the other, except maybe the Arvus.

For people who want HDMI 2.1 capabilities it’s a no go. And it doesn’t accept eARC for hi-res audio. So it seems targeted at the audioences who use HDMI for audio only/primarily. Or do you see a workaround for people who want to use HDMI 2.1 (for example Apple TV4K) and extract hi-res audio from HDMI?

It’s limited to HDMI 2.0a, so dated for current TVs/Apple TV4K? And it doesn’t accept hi-res audio if you wanted to use the eARC output on your TV? A great solution 5 years ago? Or did I miss something?

I guess for bandwidth purposes, this is really a question about eARC, not ARC. ARC cannot even transfer 16/44 or CD quality.

Does the VanityPRO accept EARC/ARC from the TV?

If the D90 applies a special filter (mqa) for material which is conventional lpcm, the design is flawed, broken. Should the panther be playing golf or be headless?

Does this mean the D90 is broken (by design) from a technical point of view?

I think they know perfectly well how this economy works. Two years ago, @John_Atkinsonwrote this: «When we launched Stereophile's website at the end of 1997, we decided that we would not reprint the magazine's most popular features, including the biannual "Recommended Components" listings and Michael Fremer's monthly "Analog Corner" column. We were concerned that doing so would cannibalize magazine sales. As it turned out, we were wrong—and so the latest "Recommended Components" is available on our free-access website day-and-date with the publication of the April and October issues in which it appears. And starting with Mikey's very first "Analog Corner," from July 1995, I have been posting his column on our AnalogPlanet.com website.» Link: https://www.stereophile.com/content/who-watches-watchers In other words, they’re not too afraid of the cannibals. They don’t treat their material as their «crown jewels».

They never tried to shut down the original picture at sbaf (smaller site) and made drama here instead. Drama is clicks.

The Stereophile editorial on MQA is already the most-read «As wee see it» column of 2021. Just one day after the article was published. It seems like all the drama was in Stereophile’s interest after all to draw readers to the website.

Rumour has it that it was Reuben Garrett Lucius Goldberg that got in all in motion for MQA. Goldberg invented lots of tech in his time, led by his vision of «getting something for nothing» (see video below). Just below is a typical Rube Goldberg machine:

This is the original BS. BS from start to end😂

Engineers are funny people. They created the turboencabulator long ago to make fun of technobabble: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator Stereophile and ASR are just jokers - Chief Fun Officers - playing their role in this 2020s version of the turboencabulator. Pictures are from Wikipedia

I think this comment by Tony L, administrator at Pinkfishmedia, is a nice way of putting it all together. MQA was never only about technical stuff, was it? Why all the drama? The following is Tony L’s words: As a somewhat disinterested onlooker who has no actual use for it I find the whole MQA thing fascinating. The reason it is so interesting is how, unlike much of audio, it actually simultaneously spans pretty much all areas of real controversy within this market. I think I'd use the following category headings: a) Political; corporate behaviour, closed-loop proprietary technology, licensing, Right To Repair, lack of test data etc. b) Technological; how does it actually work, what is the evidence, does it’s performance meet the marketing claims etc, how ‘lossless’ is it, can it ‘correct’ a full studio to end-user encoding chain etc etc? c) Subjective/objective; is it ‘transparent’ or is it ‘coloured’, can you spot it on a blind-test etc etc? It is rare to find something that is top-tier argument fodder in every single category! From my perspective a) is the area that interests me the most. I guess I’m one of Jim Austin’s ‘internet libertarians’ in this regard. I just don’t see a need for a new proprietary licensed format in a world that already has copious bandwidth, FLAC, Apple Lossless etc. If it is better subjectively and people prefer it then make it open source and more long-term sustainable and environmentally responsible by not enforcing closed-loop proprietary technology on an increasingly open and distributed music industry. PS Obviously b) and c) are both hindered by a). Link: https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/mqa-pt-ii.255443/page-44#post-4379517

If what you write here is correct, it sounds like Pulitzer material?