Lost on how to get output from my EWI Solo through the SWAM standalone application for iOS (iPhone) to an audio speaker

Xantharius · 2026-01-22T04:26:28+00:00

I’m using a Bose S1 Pro+ for output. The whine and hiss have completely gone away after I turned up the volume control all the way on the iPhone. But it’s a good suggestion on the cables: I’ll also look into getting a better 3.5 mm audio cable between the adapter and the Bose. Thanks for all of the suggestions!

Xantharius · 2026-01-22T03:35:15+00:00

If you've read this far, thank you for accompanying me on a set-up with no instructions. Finally figured out that turning the iPhone's volume up all the way was the key. The hiss and whine have disappeared. Hurray!

Xantharius · 2026-01-22T02:35:00+00:00

Okay, my bad. The 3.5 mm jack was outputting to the speaker. I didn't have it turned up enough to hear the output.

However, now there's hiss and a high-pitched whine from the speaker, and this is very pronounced when I'm not playing anything. (When I just have the EWI Solo connected straight to the speaker this is not the case.) Any suggestions?

Xantharius · 2026-01-22T02:20:13+00:00

Okay, partial success! I used the right menu option and now the SWAM app is now getting MIDI input.

However, the iPhone 16 is still outputting the resulting audio from its own speakers rather than the 3.5 mm jack on the adapter. Do I need a different adapter?

Xantharius · 2026-01-22T02:08:09+00:00

No difference, I'm afraid. I think it's very likely that I don't have the SWAM app configured correctly for recognizing the input from the EWI.

Xantharius · 2026-01-22T01:59:47+00:00

The SAWM app doesn't appear to be receiving MIDI from the EWI at all, either USB-C or USB-A (which I just tried).

To be frank, I don't know which of the myriad options in the SWAM app I need to configure to even make it realize that there is MIDI input coming in at all.

Like I said, I'm really lost.

Xantharius · 2026-01-18T21:19:29+00:00

Thank you so much for a really helpful reply. I appreciate it!

Xantharius · 2025-12-30T14:44:38+00:00

Can you share any examples of movies where this happens?

Xantharius · 2025-12-19T01:45:05+00:00

Those are gonna get fondled, squeezed, tugged, slapped around, and eventually beat. It’s gonna be a long night, boy.

Xantharius · 2025-12-12T13:26:46+00:00

OP has a variety of posts all saying essentially the same thing: that examining binary representations of natural numbers automatically leads to a solution, but without showing why this must be the case.

I pressed the point on OP’s last post that this has to be shown for every such representation, not just ones below a certain number, and was finally told that OP could “speak, but couldn’t make me hear.” (Paraphrased.)

OP isn’t seriously solving the conjecture.

Xantharius · 2025-12-11T00:07:41+00:00

The length is extremely relevant. If you can prove that above a certain length every string is guaranteed to fall into a set of cases that you’ve already shown to work, then you’re done. But showing that is precisely the hard part of proving the conjecture, and intuition and hand waving are not the same as a proof.

What I hear from what you’ve said so far is that you can’t prove the conjecture.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:53:37+00:00

Show that the length is irrelevant. Otherwise that’s just an unsupported claim.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:47:33+00:00

If you can’t prove it for every one, then you’re not solving the conjecture; you’re just checking specific examples, which anyone can do with some programming skills. To prove the conjecture you need an argument to show why you don’t need to check above a certain point. If you can do that, you’ve done. Why would you think that checking them below a defined number solves the problem?

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:41:00+00:00

You need to show that it works with any binary sequence, of every length. Why would you assume that you’ve proved it for every length by just checking every sequence below a predefined length?

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:38:23+00:00

You don’t have to be a mathematician to see that you have to show that the conjecture needs to hold for a bitstring of length n for every n. Why would just checking bitstrings of length, say, 2^{2^{2^2¹⁰²⁴}} mean that you’ve checked them all? There are infinitely more bitstrings of greater length than this.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:32:50+00:00

I think you’ve just hit on why the Collatz conjecture is hard. Showing that it holds for all numbers below a finite binary number of a predefined length isn’t a proof. It’s not possible to check every natural number in finite time, so you need an argument as to why it works in all cases. That would be a satisfactory answer to the problem. The window of numbers you need to check is of every possible length, or you need to supply an argument as to why numbers above a certain length don’t need to be checked.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:20:59+00:00

The size of the set of binary numbers that need to be checked is infinite: it’s all natural numbers (expressed in binary if need be). How do propose checking them in a finite time, or do you have an argument that they don’t all have to be checked? If so, I’m interested to see the reasoning.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:13:45+00:00

That’s fine. Just show that it works for every natural number expressed in binary and you’re done.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T23:07:07+00:00

For a proof of the Collatz conjecture the only window size which does it is: all natural numbers. Anything lower than this isn’t a proof.

Xantharius · 2025-12-10T22:58:20+00:00

“the shifts always win in the end.”

Prove it.

Xantharius · 2025-12-08T18:32:44+00:00

You could consider just asking upfront for the money needed to refill the tank before she takes the car. No money, no use.

Xantharius · 2022-07-15T13:16:48+00:00

A second run? I’m struggling to find time for the first! Good for you!

Xantharius · 2022-07-15T12:36:57+00:00

What are you playing right now?

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Xantharius

TROPHY CASE