In Reply to: RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). posted by fmak on April 14, 2014 at 22:10:25:
You have incorrectly ascribed the problem. The problem isn't laziness or ignorance, it is the hyper-astronomical number of system configurations most of which can never be expected to work well, let alone be tested.
It will never be possible to take a general purpose computer system where hardware and software components are designed loosely for minimum cost and maximum flexibility and produce a high quality real-time system. Such a system has to be purpose built from scratch and must be designed and configured under strict hardware and software version control. This is not how PCs are designed, built, sold, configured and used. This is precisely why I have repeatedly said that until the rest of the audio system is made sufficiently immune to all noise or jitter coming from the computer there will never be a completely satisfactory solution to computer audio playback. If you don't like this situation and can't find a suitable DAC, reclockers, power line filters, etc... then you shouldn't be using a computer, you should be using a purpose built transport.
There have been many mishaps with scientific software. People have been killed. There are whole forums on the risks of using computers.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Tony Lauck 22:48:12 04/14/14 (29)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Bob_C 17:26:23 04/15/14 (9)
- "then you shouldn't be using a computer, you should be using a purpose built transport." - fmak 05:57:23 04/16/14 (6)
- RE: "then you shouldn't be using a computer, you should be using a purpose built transport." - Bob_C 09:01:20 04/16/14 (5)
- No - fmak 09:14:12 04/16/14 (4)
- RE: No - Bob_C 10:11:57 04/16/14 (3)
- RE: No-Versions - fmak 06:00:46 04/17/14 (2)
- RE: No-Versions - Bob_C 16:50:44 04/17/14 (0)
- RE: No-Versions - Bob_C 08:54:20 04/17/14 (0)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Tony Lauck 18:23:18 04/15/14 (1)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Bob_C 18:36:28 04/15/14 (0)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Bob_C 12:21:37 04/15/14 (2)
- Question for Bob - fmak 23:39:04 04/15/14 (1)
- RE: Question for Bob - Bob_C 00:23:57 04/16/14 (0)
- Nice post Tony. nt - Goober58 10:58:12 04/15/14 (0)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - AbeCollins 09:02:40 04/15/14 (1)
- Abe, see above and take the week off... - Chris Garrett 12:18:01 04/15/14 (0)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Sprezza Tura 08:33:09 04/15/14 (0)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - fmak 04:45:19 04/15/14 (11)
- RE: Revisiting buffer sizes (somewhat technical). - Goober58 10:47:51 04/15/14 (10)
- ideal settings - fmak 11:00:26 04/15/14 (9)
- "ideal" settings? Come on give me a break - Goober58 11:05:01 04/15/14 (8)
- Since every audio player - fmak 11:31:05 04/15/14 (7)
- That's why final/ideal settings are up to the end user not the programmer - Goober58 11:52:55 04/15/14 (6)
- That's why final/ideal settings are up to the end user not the programmer - fmak 23:43:06 04/15/14 (5)
- Please keep focus on what we are discussing - Goober58 00:12:40 04/16/14 (4)
- focus on what you are asserting and not what I said - fmak 02:19:13 04/16/14 (3)
- Engineering tools and doctors equipment are calibrated on a regular. - Goober58 11:12:38 04/16/14 (2)
- I thought you wanted to stay focussed - fmak 11:15:38 04/16/14 (1)
- If you are an engineer you wouldn't be disagreeing with me. - Goober58 11:22:19 04/16/14 (0)