W
Wes
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
You do know that you are having a discussion with the Raja of this group,
don't you?
Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org/
don't you?
Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org/
Radium said:64 bit-resolution give 384 dB of dynamic range and
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible levels of loudness.
Dave Platt said:It was soon pointed out that if a system of this nature was adjusted
so that the amplitude of the least-significant bit was set just at (or
even somewhat below) the quietest sound that the human ear could hear
against a background of silence in a perfectly noise-free room, then a
full-amplitude signal would instantly release enough energy to blow
the entire neighborhood (and perhaps the continent) into a ball of
incandescent plasma.
The general consensus was that such a system had only a very limited
commercial appeal.
Mr.T said:Not so, he's been posting the same insanity for years.
Rick Massey said:You know, I don't agree. I have noticed some forward progress with him.
Normally, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but Radium seems to actually
want to know things, and the responses it (not sure of gender) makes
indicate that it is really interested in this topic, just highly confused
and not firing on all cylinders.
But back to your earlier question about the OPL3 and
phase cancellation: You wonder what is happening in the
OPL3 that causes the results you get when you run it
through a "vocal cancellation" process. But why should
you think this has anything at all to do with the OPL3,
instead of the vocal cancellation circuit? I don't know
anything about the particular device you are using,
but it's common to allow some phase adjustment in
case the vocalist isn't dead-center. You may be
hearing the results of cancelling more low-frequency
sounds than high-frequency due to this.
(Hardware intensive, as well as computation
intensive, in a time when you couldn't digitally create things in the chip
realm like we can now)
You do know that you are having a discussion with the Raja of this group,
don't you?
Rick said:You know, I don't agree. I have noticed some forward progress with him.
Normally, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but Radium seems to actually
want to know things, and the responses it (not sure of gender) makes
indicate that it is really interested in this topic, just highly confused
and not firing on all cylinders. If we can make it see that it's coming off
as a whackjob on this, and get it to actually learn a bit what it's talking
about, which it has already shown some progress in, then there will be a net
sum gain in humanity.
Leslie said:Or the military applications. Perhaps someone should build this Radium
Soundcard and use it to take over the planet.
Radium said:I still think Creative Music
Synth beats all other *Soundcard-based* MIDI synths.
Bob Myers said:Very true, but it almost always starts out with something that sort
of LOOKS legit before it veers off into the Twilight Zone...
What about the old Yamaha cards then. They used the same FM techniques only
better.
Radium said:I'll first have to listen to them, only then can I compare.
*Soundcard-based* MIDI synths."
Radium said:I'll first have to listen to them, only then can I compare.
why in God's name do you crosspost all that stuff around.
Additive.Radium said:Which one are you describing above, additive or FM synthesis?
You know, I don't agree. I have noticed some forward progress with him.
Normally, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but Radium seems to actually
want to know things, and the responses it (not sure of gender) makes
indicate that it is really interested in this topic, just highly confused
and not firing on all cylinders. If we can make it see that it's coming off
as a whackjob on this, and get it to actually learn a bit what it's talking
about, which it has already shown some progress in, then there will be a net
sum gain in humanity.
Pastor said:Try this posting for size:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2ae078def7a3bd3a