Richard Dale

"...available in 352.8kHz/24bit high resolution (perfect for MQA-enabled audio players)" - that is simply misleading and incorrect. A con. You don't get that resolution from a CD or a recording made at 16/48 originally.

I agree that account is entirely factually correct. A programming project described as a 'porting exercise ' certainly doesn't mean that the work was trivial and the creation of Darwin from Mach 3.0 and FreeBSD, and implementing IOKit was not a trivial piece of work at all. All I am saying is that Darwin was developed from the BSD 4.3/Mach 2.5 OS base that was in NeXTStep. My point that the Mach-O multi-archecture binaries originated in OpenStep in 1995, 25 years ago and it is a very mature technology with respect to releasing an ARM version of macOS. Having said all that I suspect that what developers upload to the Mac App Store probably won't be a multi-architecture binary, as I think would extend their Bitcode LLVM intermediate code bitstream based release format for the App Store to include multiple architectures (if it doesn't already). Either way Apple are very good at this sort of thing and have a long history at being successful at it.

'Help create Mac OS X' has a different meaning to 'Help develop Mac OS X' which is the more accurate description of their work IMHO. I'm sorry to be pedantic.

I don't agree these guys 'created OS X' (the OS part that is) because Next did. Changing from BSD 4.3 and Mach 2.5 in NeXTStep, to FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 as we have in Mac OS X and macOS was more of a porting exercise rather than creating the BSD/Mach combination from scratch.

No, NeXTSTEP was based on a Mach micro-kernel combined with BSD, as is macOS today. The Darwin layer of macOS and iOS is very much a direct descendent of NeXTStep (or whatever the actual OS was called at the time). I think you're right that OpenStep referred more the the development environment that the underlying OS.

NeXTSTEP has had multi-architecture binaries since about 1995 when they switched to naming it OpenStep, and its descendent now called macOS (a common theme in those naming transitions is odd capitalization I suppose). Because Apple already deliver iOS on ARM as well as macOS on Intel, they already have complete compatibility at the lower Mach-O/otook/XCode level. The only difference between macOS and iOS is at the the library/foundation level - the underlying OS doesn't differ much. I can't see Apple switching from Intel to exclustively ARM for macOS anytime soon as their ARM chips might compete well with a laptop type of Intel CPU, but not something like a XEON that they use in their iMac Pro.

I like Snake Farm's version:

I think how the theory is expressed can affect how 'simple' or 'elegant' a theory appears to be. For instance when Maxwell formulated his equations using 'quarternions' they were very difficult to understand and not obviously a giant step forward that we know them to be today. It wasn't until Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's equations in terms of complex numbers and vectors and greatly simplified them, that they became widely understood and their full power could be realised. Maybe it is the notations that prevail tend to be the simplest because they allow a theory to have maximum leverage.

I don't think subjectivism is a belief system, it is about subjective experiences. I have no 'belief in tube amplifiers' for instance, but I just find I like the sound of them. In 1977 there was article comparing amplifiers in HiFi Pleasure where a tatty Radform STA25 was voted the best sounding out of a range of expensive modern amplifiers. The guy who provided the Radford worked for Audio T and was a friend of friend of mine. I met Alan after he modified my friend's Radford STA15 power amp and associated preamp. He had all these apparently wacky ideas such as the power supplies being the most important part of an amplifier (tube or solid state), which is now pretty mainstream in high amp designs AFAIK. But the proof was in the pudding and my friends STA15 sounded amazing. After that I got hold of a tatty pair of Quad IIs and compared them with my huge flashy looking Rotel RX-602 receiver which I thought was the bees knees up to the point. Much to my surprise the Quad destroyed my Rotel receiver even with my relatively inefficient KEF 104Ab speaker I had at the time. EDIT: Just found this link about the HiFi For Pleasure blind test: http://boneshifi.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-radford-sta-series-of-amplifiers.html

Maybe! But if the ideas of subjectivism were random and unrelated to some underlying reality I would have expected the ideas to have changed in some way over time. I think Douglas Self poo pooed the idea that capacitors could sound different in the 30 year old paper, but I did find this recent talk he gave apparently about cost effective ways to avoid sonic degradation by capacitors: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19535

I think it is amazing how well subjectivism has stood up all these years.

Maybe ! I couldn't help finding your comment 'you only need to open your eyes' at odds with defending blind tests.

Surely you mean 'only willing to close their eyes'?

You may have spotted the nature of the troll.

Being pedantic it is actually 0 to 65,535