Integer is King? - the challenge

[pj geerlings]

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

It kind'a wiggles
just right

[Shy]

whyterabbyt: the only proof you asked me for is for something being smart. I guess I'm supposed to understand you want me to go and ask Yamaha developers "hey, tell me, did you shoot in the dark and come up with some fm synth design that's so good sounding with its great aliasing? Or did you do it intelligently?". Now I know, that would be a very sensible question. It's obvious you enjoy ridiculing me because you didn't hear anything you liked, so I hope that makes you feel better about yourself now. Maybe I could ask you something like "prove to me, are you smart?", to be at the same sensibility level.

[nollock]

......

LMAO!

[Shy]

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.

That's the thing, I'm not claiming I know anything about how they achieve their sound, but I can claim they do it in a smart way, because to me it sounds better than the much worse quality that I know would be possible. That, to me, is smart. Some people seem to have a really hard time accepting that.

[whyterabbyt]

whyterabbyt: the only proof you asked me for is for something being smart.

Yup. You claimed it, I asked for a reference to it. Is that hard to follow?

I guess I'm supposed to understand you want me to go and ask Yamaha developers "hey, tell me, did you shoot in the dark and come up with some fm synth design that's so good sounding with its great aliasing? Or did you do it intelligently?".

Understand what you want. If what you meant was 'I think its smart', then say so. Dont f**k about like an ignorant tool doing everything you can to avoid admitting you dont actually know one way or the other, and all yu were doing was making assumptions based on a subjective opinion of your own. Especially when you've made the same claim in more than one thread.

Now I know, that would be a very sensible question.

It's obvious you enjoy ridiculing me because you didn't hear anything you liked, so I hope that makes you feel better about yourself now.

Actually Im enjoying ridiculing you for entirely different reasons.

Maybe I could ask you something like "prove to me, are you smart?", to be at the same sensibility level.

You could. By your current debating standards, proof would entail a claim that I am clearly smart because I can sing in tune.

[Shy]

OK whyterabbyt, I don't even have to ask if you're smart or not, I know you are. Only smart people ask people to prove that something is smart.

[whyterabbyt]

That's the thing, I'm not claiming I know anything about how they achieve their sound, but I can claim they do it in a smart way, because to me it sounds better than the much worse quality that I know would be possible. That, to me, is smart. Some people seem to have a really hard time accepting that.

So if something is better than it possibly could be, then it must be the result of someone making it 'smart'

Oh, well then.

[Shy]

No, if it's much better than it possibly could be. Now ask me to prove it.

[whyterabbyt]

OK whyterabbyt, I don't even have to ask if you're smart or not, I know you are. Only smart people ask people to prove that something is smart.

how smart are people who make claim that things are smart just because they subjectively rate those things better than they possibly could be?

[Shy]

Very smart. Maybe even smarter than people who ask how smart they are.

[whyterabbyt]

No, if it's much better than it possibly could be. Now ask me to prove it.

'much', 'better', 'possibly' and 'could' are all subjective. hence you make no sense.

[whyterabbyt]

Very smart. Maybe even smarter than people who ask how smart they are.

empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

[Shy]

empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

OK.

[Shy]

No, if it's much better than it possibly could be. Now ask me to prove it.

'much', 'better', 'possibly' and 'could' are all subjective. hence you make no sense.

I see. People who have opinions don't make sense.
But you like asking proofs for subjective things, so go ahead.

[nollock]

That's the thing, I'm not claiming I know anything about how they achieve their sound, but I can claim they do it in a smart way, because to me it sounds better than the much worse quality that I know would be possible. That, to me, is smart. Some people seem to have a really hard time accepting that.

The problem is that you *did* claim that they did somthing *specific* regarding aliasing. You made a specific claim with no evidence to back.

That's why you have been mocked.

If you had just said Yamaha had really good sounding FM synths then you'd have been left alone i guess.

To reuse a previous metaphor, you've walked into a physics lab and proclaimed that the Yamaha Telifunken X-Ray doohicky works so much better than the others because they used a special flux capacitor in it.

When in fact you have no idea whatsover what is inside it. Never mind knowing what a flux capacitor is. And the profs are laughing at you not because the Yamaha Teli.. is crap but because they know it doesnt have a flux capacitor in it.

Savy?