KVR Audio

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:13 pm

Shy wrote:whyterabbyt: refer to my previous post. You're not making sense.

Which bit of "you have provided no proof of the existence of 'smart aliasing'" fails to make sense to you?

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:14 pm

Which bit? The fact that you're asking me to prove that something is smart. Smart is a subjective term the last time I checked, and you can't prove a subjective term.

Urs: interesting.

Chris Walton · Post by **Chris Walton** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Urs:

!!!1!!

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:22 pm

Shy wrote:Which bit? The fact that you're asking me to prove that something is smart.

No, the bit where Im asking you to provide an external reference, for that thing being implemented in a 'smart' or 'intelligent' manner. Whatever a metric for 'smart' might entail.
Do you understand the difference at all?

Smart is a subjective term the last time I checked, and you can't prove a subjective term.

Im not asking how 'smart' it is. Im asking for proof that it is non-naive, or non-trivial, or some other deliberate implementation which involves a deliberate decision to control the amount, type, scope range or other factor of the aliasing in any manner which is signal dependent.
Do you understand the difference between a subjective rating of 'smartness', and the objective existence of some kind of algorithm controlling parameters which affect aliasing?

vonRed · Post by **vonRed** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:23 pm

And Urs rakes in the Loki points.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:27 pm

whyterabbyt: you know I'm not a Yamaha developer, you know I have no access to their algorithms and you know (and I've even told you long ago) that what I say is subjective. So I seriously fail to understand what you want from me. No, you won't get any "proof" for anything being "smart". The best "proof" you'll ever get is from Urs's post at the buttom of the previous page. You want to be an investigator and ask Yamaha developers if they designed their synths naively? Be my guest.

Chris Walton · Post by **Chris Walton** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:29 pm

Shy wrote:The best "proof" you'll ever get is from Urs's post at the buttom of the previous page.

oh dear

jens · Post by **jens** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:29 pm

Shy wrote:The best "proof" you'll ever get is from Urs's post at the buttom of the previous page.

well, if that's indeed true then we can clearly settle the argument once and for all...

pj geerlings · Post by **pj geerlings** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:31 pm

I can't remember if I posted in this thread or not
I won't wade through 16 pages and I'm too lazy to use the search feature ATM

I really dig Urs' post -- the man is a genius

Seriously!!

Oh - before I forget: fixed point rocks ...

jens · Post by **jens** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:33 pm

pj geerlings wrote:I can't remember if I posted in this thread or not

no, you didn't...

Hovmod · Post by **Hovmod** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:33 pm

Urs wrote:... Intel has recently improved register aliasing - it's now called pointer aliasing

Pointer Aliasing.
AFAIK, Reaper leads the development of processor specific pointer aliasing bias.

pj geerlings · Post by **pj geerlings** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:34 pm

jens wrote:
pj geerlings wrote:I can't remember if I posted in this thread or not

no, you didn't...

Thanks for clearing that up

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:37 pm

Shy wrote:whyterabbyt: you know I'm not a Yamaha developer,

I'd gathered that, yes.

you know I have no access to their algorithms

and that.

and you know (and I've even told you long ago) that what I say is subjective.

Well, actually what you told me, and quite recently, was that something was smart, but that since 'smart' is a subjective term, then I cant disprove what you said.
Except Im happy to accept any definition of smart for which there's an external reference.
You know, something like the reference to key-scaling of operators Ive referred to twice.

So I seriously fail to understand what you want from me.

I asked you for proof of your claim. Is that still so hard to understand?

No, you won't get any "proof" for anything being "smart".

That was self-evident from very early on.

The best "proof" you'll ever get is from Urs's post at the buttom of the previous page.

Of course.

You want to be an investigator and ask Yamaha developers if they designed their synths naively? Be my guest.

Nah, I'll just accept that I was right in my suspicion that you dont have a clue what you're talking about, and leave it at that.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:37 pm

Shy, please take my apologies, my post is all made up garbage. It's supposed to express my view on 17 pages of utter bs.

I think everybody should take a break. Maybe Yamahas indeed sound better in certain ways, but that has probably nothing to do with the synthesis itself. It's rather related to the choice of converters, equalizers etc. And maybe some algorithm works better in fixed point than in floating point. However, there's no use to make up a paradigm from any of this. It may change with the next demo you download, which coincidentally has a nice sounding implementation of an algorithm - but in the "wrong" technology.

Peace,

Urs

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:39 pm

BTW Im passing familiar with pointer aliasing, but can someone explain pointer jitter? Is it harmonic or enharmonic?

Integer is King? - the challenge