It also adds no value and promotes vendor lock-in. Which is why it should, and probably will, fade into obscurity.
You’re right that it’s a small island. An island better served by downloads of LPCM / FLAC. The question is will anyone make it available.
Last edited:
I disagree. If we invented it we could change it, but we can't. If something is true in maths then we cannot make it false, and vice versa.NATDBERG said:
No. We do not obtain maths from the universe; we discover it by exploring maths using our brains. We then discover that this new maths we have found is useful for describing the universe.
Nyquist does not tell you how to perform sampling; it simply assumes that sampling has occured.
How we write down maths is invented by us. The maths itself is not. The number 2 has the properties of 2 however we write it: 10 (binary), 2 (decimal) and ii (roman) are all the same number. The number itself has an existence and properties quite separate from our representations of it. It would still exist even if we had never discovered it.
They did hope that the CD industry would start making MQA CDs - another attempt to sell you the same music again and a claim of better quality with new hardware, so more CD player sales.
Too late for this now
I thought they always targeted streaming? Otherwise they wouldn’t need a lossy codec.
Wrong on so many levels.. I can see how you can see it that way but still philosophically wrong.. Without human thiking, it wouldn't exist. It wouldn't exist in the universe. Things would behave the same way as ever but there would be no mathematics and no numbers and no logic. There may be a zebra standing next to a zebra but the concept of their being "two" in any form as we conceptualise it is a product of the human mind. When animals count, I very much doubt they have a concept of the number, only a sense of tracking the zebra next to a zebra and a visual/mvement sense of a zebra next to a zebra, or a nut next to a nut. Why is quantum mechanics so "illogical" and weird? It's not, but humans have created their logic on the basis of normalised experiences of things at our energy level, all our thinking is based on it and practically speaking, we can't really think outside of it (at the fringes of conceptual science, people are able to metaphorise the seemingly illogical with mathematical logic and then get a sense of understanding via that mathematical construct from our human experience.. and pretty much they are the geniuses of the world
) ..
But I can see we will go around in circles trying to discuss it.
I'm listening to some music so don't want to interrupt it with this video, but here's something that might discuss it further (and may agree with you or may agree with me or may go down the middle..).
Does Math Objectively Exist, or Is It a Human Creation? A New PBS Video Explores a Timeless Question | Open Culture
Last edited:
EDIT - forget that video, it was just a mindless thing but at least did give links to something more interesting: Only a preface to a book but a taster of the discussion: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/FM.PDF Especially read the part under the subtitle: "The Romance of Mathematics"
Lakoff & Núñez's examination of the origins of maths seem more akin to my instinct toward the subject.
The differences between believing maths is out there being discovered and maths being concpetualied to then be applied to the outside world as a tool/technique, can lead to different beliefs about the nature of theorems such as Nyquist. Believing maths is discovered and uncovered would lead someone to an idea that it is a unique truth about sampling and that no other exist. Beleiving the maths behind Nyquist are human-invented and applied techniques/tools can allow you to believe there are other conceptual tools and techniques that can get you to the same place, but with different characteristics and implications of the maths and which allow different logic to be applied later. Much like finding an alternative solution. You see that in science history all the time, a eureka moment where someone rejects one established mathematical method beacuse it leads to a dead end and instead comes up with a new technique that allows more to be built upon it, and with it a freeing up of the mind to think more is possible than previously thought.
Lakoff & Núñez's examination of the origins of maths seem more akin to my instinct toward the subject.
The differences between believing maths is out there being discovered and maths being concpetualied to then be applied to the outside world as a tool/technique, can lead to different beliefs about the nature of theorems such as Nyquist. Believing maths is discovered and uncovered would lead someone to an idea that it is a unique truth about sampling and that no other exist. Beleiving the maths behind Nyquist are human-invented and applied techniques/tools can allow you to believe there are other conceptual tools and techniques that can get you to the same place, but with different characteristics and implications of the maths and which allow different logic to be applied later. Much like finding an alternative solution. You see that in science history all the time, a eureka moment where someone rejects one established mathematical method beacuse it leads to a dead end and instead comes up with a new technique that allows more to be built upon it, and with it a freeing up of the mind to think more is possible than previously thought.
Last edited:
The lossy compressed high frequency content is hidden in several of the CDDA LSBs, allowing the undecoded audio to be still Red Book.
It is the old quart into a pint pot.
The snag is that the undecoded audio has a greatly reduced potential dynamic range, due to smaller available bit depth, so there is a temptation to level compress it
<soapbox>
That is IMO partly incorrect. Math is true and consistent according to the set of assumptions we (mean Bertrand Russell and others) put at the foundation. These axioms are defined according to our human intuition, and are not absolute truths.
The best example I have is the axiom of choice. Including this axiom, or any of its equivalents (most notable the Well Ordering theorem, which says that every set can be well ordered, or Tarski's theorem, which says that for any infinite set A a bijection mapping A to AxA exists, the assumption that every vector space has a basis, etc...) in the ZF set of axioms (what is called ZFC) leads to great simplification of our mathematical development; otherwise, a math without AoC (pure ZF axiomatic) is possible, valid and consistent, only that it took about 20 years to develop an arithmetic which would calculate a + b where a and b are integers. That's because it is very hard for us humans to accept that given an infinite set of objects we cannot (and should not) pick one without first defining a rule for picking. We just grab an arbitrary number out of the infinity of integers and run with it, then extrapolate the results to all integers. Otherwise said, giving up almost any theorem starting with "Let "a" be a member of the "A" set" is very difficult to accept to our intuition.
Then one guy named Goedel proved that AoC is strictly independent on the rest of the ZF framework, so including AoC to get ZFC would not destroy the ZF consistence.
We cannot assume that all civilizations in the universe are using the same set of axioms to formalize mathematics; in fact, those LGMs in the Vega star system could have a math that would be absolutely incomprehensible for us; what will be the same would be the result of a phenomenological analysis, each using it's own mathematical tools. Generalized relativity, disregarding the math support, should lead to the same physical interpretation of a particular solution of the Einstein field equation (whatever that looks in the Vega LGM view): for the case of a homogeneous and isotropic non rotating mass with spherical symmetry, in the absence of any external fields, it's an object (that we call a "black hole"), with a radius and event horizon.
Therefore, IMO, the math fundamentals are strictly invented, while everything coming up from these fundamentals is strictly discovered.
</soapbox>
P.S. I'll hold my opinions regarding the MQA, since I'd rather follow the forum rules and avoid ranting about pseudo scientific BS. I believe in Nyquist, enough said.
Last edited:
With all due respect, this is BS. You don't seem to make a distinction between the Nyquist theorem and the Nyquist theorem proof. While the proof could be developed in an infinite way of mathematical tools, the Nyquist theorem itself is independent on the method of proof. It will always say that in order to uniquely reconstruct the original from a sampled signal, it is enough to sample at twice the maximum frequency in the signal spectra. Otherwise said, the Nyquist theorem implications exists disregarding our knowledge about and our ability to prove it. It was valid before Whittaker–Nyquist–Kotelnikov–Shannon. One could use the sampling theorem and get good practical results by pure chance or intuition, without having a clue that this theorem exists.
Yes, so let us get back to Nyquist.NATDBERG said:
No. Someone starting from either point of view should arrive at the conclusion that Nyquist describes sampling. Other theories may describe something else. Nothing like finding an alternative solution. However, there can sometimes be alternative formulations of exactly the same theory. For example, Lagrangian mechanics is exactly the same physics as classic Newtonian mechanics but sometimes it can be easier to use; often it is harder to use. Someone might come up with an alternative formulation of Nyquist, but it would give exactly the same results.
Two snags with that:syn08 said:
1. The fundamentals mostly came after what is now erected on them - we were doing maths quite happily for thousands of years before modern mathematicians installed the foundations.
2. Our 'intuition' seemed to lead us to maths which is useful to describe the universe.
Both of these tell me that our maths is true in an absolute sense. That does not preclude the possibility of someone inventing some other maths with other assumptions, which will probably then turn out to be useless for understanding the universe; whether this 'new maths' will eventually be found to be internally inconsistent is unclear to me.
Anyway, I am still not a fan of MQA. The Jim Lesurf link I gave earlier in this thread tells me all I need to know about it.
Last edited:
1. The arithmetic fundamentals were set to match the existing body of knowledge, much the same way the geometry fundamentals were originally set by Euclid to match the common knowledge and intuition. Which doesn't mean a different set doesn't exist, which would allow to re-formulate fundamental results. Which doesn't mean that Nyquist theorem is less valid, only that the proof could be completely different.
2. True, though this doesn't mean an alternative formalism doesn't (or cannot) exist. There were attempts to re-formulate QM by giving up the fundamental property that each vector space (even infinite dimensional) has a basis (which in turn means not accepting the Zorn's Lemma, equivalent to AoC), and the QM fundamental results were shown to converge, but the effort was absolutely horrendous and eventually everybody gave up.
Have to remember too that sampling is an abstract human construct. Signals are an abstraction too. Sure, electric fields collapsing into magnetic fields into electric fields along a conductor.. is real and the charge carring is real but its representation in one-dimension is an abstraction. It's a human construct, a conceptual representation of the "signal" by a vector value of an aspect of that phenomena. Sampling theory is about reconstructing the abstract mathematical conceptualisation of a "signal" using the same tools - maths - that we first conceptually represented the real physical world by.
We then apply that concept to the real world and it works because our initial concepts were good enough. Maths merely manipulated the human concepts we constructed for ourselves.
It is the appropriate conceptualisation of the real world into abstract forms that we can then manipulate with logic / maths that is the real "discovery". Discovery not of how the universe works, but discovery of the concepts that work with our human-centric tools.
"sampling" as a thing that really could recreate what is happening in the actual physical world would be the data behind a full-blown physics emulation.
We then apply that concept to the real world and it works because our initial concepts were good enough. Maths merely manipulated the human concepts we constructed for ourselves.
It is the appropriate conceptualisation of the real world into abstract forms that we can then manipulate with logic / maths that is the real "discovery". Discovery not of how the universe works, but discovery of the concepts that work with our human-centric tools.
"sampling" as a thing that really could recreate what is happening in the actual physical world would be the data behind a full-blown physics emulation.
It's sort of ironic, MQA is nothing but maths and has virtually nothing to do with Nyquist or sampling. The lowest order bits in a hi-rez audio stream are essentially noise so you reorganize them as data that perceptually still is noise. This uses the same principles as high order QUAM (noise is the highest entropy signal) that is used in ADSL, etc.
In essence it is based on perceptual issues, there is no "beating" Nyquist or transmission of real information with lower than theoretical bits.
It's not only about the noise. I think almost all human can't hear any difference between CD and MQA in the regular domestic room with rather high reverberation time and with highish background noise. I can hear the difference only in acoustically very well controlled super quiet room, because the difference is mostly spatial. Headphones?, yes you will hear the difference.
Last edited:
And you are sure it's not the "mastering"?
Are the tools (MQA coder...) to conduct a true comparison really available in public?
//
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.