[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
64 bit and precision? - was Re: [sc-users] DiskIn loop trig ?
- To: sc-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: 64 bit and precision? - was Re: [sc-users] DiskIn loop trig ?
- From: blackrain <blackrain.sc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:28:08 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=7WvxBma6YnDjf+js8B44XoHQu29XgvT4vUdJT4RP6ok=; b=X0F2h4cprsyYKzpNYaQJpB/Yj1pY3PtDWSL2SPx0NmeE801KlxZ02w+Q7DIUmsUYKK cbKrBnh8hJLkkoRSHgGmoa2chf+xzyq2HYgnpplJoqiOL1mIbZR2wSEPMsJpqbabM90m g7Oot8gNhWZ34gAunGBgry6uJaJ04MgqfeLJQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ORcKwyIAukv4ZYlS1f83C/8q8cDQeoDi1DXwUC6fg7R2rS7JIRoFv0XnW3ibizQHIX wKqxwVr24MvC9KX5ZL1mhXkNYDxhbv4mM3aYynbEO1SQb5bohq2rBCxNzuAHYQYWCeQf fe4thH6I2GQXzAYz/VDmRG4pLAIDCPqvpp+98=
- List-id: SuperCollider users mailing list <sc-users.create.ucsb.edu>
- Reply-to: sc-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-sc-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Scott,
On 11/29/08, Scott Wilson <s.d.wilson.1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A while back someone did some tests of whether a full 64 bit audio chain
> would really be worth it. Those involved please chime in with details, but
> IIRC the conclusion was that for the most part audible improvements were
> only seen in cases with feedback, which makes sense. Internally, there's
> already a fair number of doubles used in UGens, where appropriate.
>
> S.
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2008, at 11:18, blackrain wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On 11/26/08, stefan kersten <sk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it would be fine as a first step to have the server run on 64
> bit.
> > > > things like this:
> > > >
> > > > { x = Sweep.ar; sin(x * 2pi * 300) * 0.1 }.play;
> > > >
> > > > would play correctly.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to reiterate: there are two unrelated issues, a 64 bit address space vs
> > > the use of double precision for accumulators, coefficients or even audio
> > > samples.
> > >
> > >
> > > <sk>
> > >
> >
> > stefan, I'm still puzzled.
> > I do undestand the difference regards today;s implementation to what a
> > 64 bit address space implies.
> > the mappings of a 64 bit float internal resolution vs 32 whatever we
> > deal with now, I dont follow tho.
> > I cant see why the approach would have to be difft. All I see is loads
> > of work porting todays UGens code to comply - Is that what you mean?
> >
> > and yeah indeed 10.4+ deals w/o a chroot with a 64 bit attempt as you
> > are saying.
> >
> > Julian, it is kinda obvious (at least as I can see) why the UGens wont do.
> > perhaps a full 64 bit branch is really in need?
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > x
> >
> >
I dont quite agree.
I do undestand the overhead issues.
I know the lang is not made to deal with this.
I can understand to a point how wider words wont render an 'instant'
change of perception to most ppl and can see why changes to sample
rate will hands down beat a fine grain resolution (again, an instant
appreciation); Yet, it is the sum of some blocks of calcs of these
words that makes things seem (sound? =) fluid or gainy.
smoother cycles, a bit less jumpy gens.
ps, flipping this to a new subject now think we should have a bit ago.
cheers,
x
_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/