|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.185.191.40
In Reply to: RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). posted by fmak on April 14, 2014 at 22:10:25
My experience in this forum has clearly shown me that there is FAR more ignorance about computer-based audio on the side of the users (proven on a daily basis, it seems). :-)
Follow Ups:
... of anything related to computer audio.
As such, it's hard to disagree with your assertion - probably first time for me.
yes, 'cause they are kept in the dark.
If you are well trained in programming, you define what you are doing at every step. The readmes in audio software is either non existent or a joke.
Well, that's certainly true. But, generally, software companies don't reveal the technical details of a program to its users (e.g. when was the last time Microsoft gave a detailed account of the way Excel works, under the hood?), because information like that is, generally, not particularly useful to software users. The problem I'm referring to is the peculiar manner in which audio software (and hardware) users ascribe all kinds of bizarre characteristics to an implementation that is generally fairly straightforward (from the programmer's perspective).
I think the best example of this was audioengineer's (or whatever his name is/was...the guy from Empirical Audio) analysis of the various versions of Otachan's Foobar2000 resampler plug-in...he described tremendous differences in the way they sounded, which turned out to be rather amusing when I managed to dig up Otachan's code changelists which often consisted of just minor UI changes (i.e. move around a button on a dialog box).
... and I assure you they make HUGE difference to the sound quality, especially if you know which ones to tweak - there's something else.
From what can be found on the web, it appears that Otachan is/was pretty much "bits is bits" kind of guy, and did not specifically test his code for sound quality. Even without looking at compiler settings, the mere fact that his code in 2006 was compiled with MS compiler tells those who understand everything they need to know.
Imagine buying a car whose manufacturer says this!!!
"Imagine buying a car whose manufacturer says this!!!"
I don't follow you. What do you have in mind that they might say?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I think the best example of this was audioengineer's (or whatever his name is/was...the guy from Empirical Audio) analysis of the various versions of Otachan's Foobar2000 resampler plug-in...he described tremendous differences in the way they sounded, which turned out to be rather amusing when I managed to dig up Otachan's code changelists which often consisted of just minor UI changes (i.e. move around a button on a dialog box)."
Your comments about these versions would have more substance if you had been able to look at the machine code generated by the compiler. The same source code will produce different object code with a different version of the compiler or different compiler settings. After going that far, it would also be necessary to verify the relative location of the object code. It could be that changing the relative location of various code would affect the cache miss rates and that could have a huge impact on system performance. This effect would be harder to measure and might require specialized equipment or software, but it would be necessary for any thorough analysis of the situation.
In short, you have provided no evidence that the two versions should sound the same. This should be contrasted with the evidence several people provided by using their ears.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
He heard it and that justifies what he said.
On the contrary, you have provided no basis for your assertion other than that he should spend perhaps a couple of days looking at computer codes. This is not 'on the side of users' or anyone else.
There is some confusion. I believe we are in agreement as to the substance, namely how the different versions compare.
I believe the different versions sound different. I believe this on the basis of the listening tests that have been reported. Of course it could be that these were mistaken and if there were evidence that the two versions had identical content (object code) then I would have withheld my opinion, as there could be other explanations for why the different versions sounded different. However, Scrith's "evidence" (nearly identical source code) is quite incomplete for the reasons I explained. If he wants to look at details of the object code and how it is laid out in memory he is free to do so, and he might learn something. But until he does, I will pay no attention to Scrith's arguments. I will go with the listening reports, which are probably correct.
What this case illustrates is just how hard it is to understand computer audio. This supports my argument that we will never get consistently good sound by tweaking software. This approach is poor systems engineering, albeit expedient in individual cases. It has been well known since I worked with hybrid (analog plus digital) computers back in 1961 that one needs to have a strict barrier between the digital and the analog worlds for best results. This is primarily a matter of hardware engineering, not software engineering.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"This supports my argument that we will never get consistently good sound by tweaking software. This approach is poor systems engineering, albeit expedient in individual cases."
Just curious, what actually is your definition of tweaking?
"Just curious, what actually is your definition of tweaking?"
Tweaking is making changes on a purely experimental basis without any substantive underlying theory. In other words, trial and error. It may involve listening, measurement or some combination thereof.
This is how I started. My uncle had a Dynaco mono block tube amplifier and it didn't sound good. We got a bunch to test equipment and noticed that the square wave response was poor. We then changed various components in the feedback path for ones with different values and observed what we saw on the scope. Eventually by trial and error we thought we had fixed the amplifier as the square wave response was now good and the distortion and power measurements were unchanged. We hooked it up to the speaker and before long we observed that the plates of the output tubes were now becoming brighter and brighter red. Fortunately, we didn't damage the tubes or burn out the speaker. Back to the drawing boards and we tried again, this time after a little investigation of why were were getting oscillations. A proper engineering approach would have included an understanding of poles and zeros and other aspects of electrical engineering. My Uncle was an artist, textile designer, and former art professor. I was a 13 year old kid. Years later I understood what had happened.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Tweaking is making changes on a purely experimental basis without any substantive underlying theory. In other words, trial and error. It may involve listening, measurement or some combination thereof."
Are you assuming one has no idea what they are doing?
Even the best designer, "tweak" their designs.
The best designers don't begin tweaking until they have reached the end of their technical understanding. The difference is that these people begin with a lot of technical understanding, something which is not so common in these quarters.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The best designers don't begin tweaking until they have reached the end of their technical understanding. The difference is that these people begin with a lot of technical understanding, something which is not so common in these quarters."
Not everyone is clueless though. :)
Some of the most famous discoveries have happened by accident.
Since this is actually still a pretty new field, experimenting is not the worst thing either. It is still a hobby, and hopefully nobody will get injured from computer tweaking.
Consistency in audio is a function of the combination of too many variables. However, I do all my evaluation listening on the same PC hardware. If you do this, you can weed out software and OSs that don't sound particularly good.
Server 2012R2 with minimal function does sound quite a lot better than other MS OSs with W8.1 x64 following. You should try it with a small ssd in your pc.
Whether the programmer or end user does the tweeking the end results depend on their skills and understanding of the system on which the software is running.
The programmer can only guess what that will be - the end user on the other hand knows exactly what it is.
"Consistency in audio is a function of the combination of too many variables. "
As far as I can tell this has been pretty much an audio truth since long before PC's ever became a part of the system.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
"In short, you have provided no evidence that the two versions should sound the same. This should be contrasted with the evidence several people provided by using their ears."
The latest JPlay is available in two versions. The only change is compilers. They do sound different.
A compiler change (and a compiler settings change, even with the same compiler, for that matter) could certainly create a significant difference with time-sensitive code, or code that requires a lot of resource (memory or drive usage, for example). Moving around the location of a few buttons (which are probably stored via 2D coordinates in a data/resource file) is something else entirely, however.
Too bad so many seem to think they are worthy as teachers...
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: