Except in this case, it's carrying the heat to a single 120mm exhaust port, instead of the entire surface area of that huge card it would have otherwise normally had.
The main point of enthusiasm is that liquid cooling is easier to do than phase change cooling with hobbyist
There are several advantages. One key one is that coolant pipes are longer and much, much, much more flexible than heatpipe pipes. This means you can easily place the large radiator on the edge of the case, with the fan blowing outwards. This has substantial advantages than the heatpipe coolers which recircuate air withing the case and rely on other fans to cycle fresh air.
That really sounds like a flaw in your case than the radiators contained within it. Back when we had blow-down heatsinks instead of tower ones, cases would come with side vents and shrouds to provide cool air directly to the fans. If you open up a server case, chances are it will have a shroud that covers both CPUs and all your memory, ducting air directly from several of the mid-plane fans. You can get cases that move the power supply to the bottom, so the CPU is directly in the top rear corner of the case, next to exhaust fans. You can get cases that rotate the board sideways so that everything vents upwards, taking advantage of convection to prevent recirculation outside the case.
A standard GPU heatsink is really god damned big. It's about an inch thick, and extends the entire length of the card, with a big centrifugal blower fan at one end, and exhaust vents out the back of the case on the other. The 120mmx20mm radiator they replaced it with is actually smaller.
In this case, they're sacrificing the blower fan, rear exhaust, and all that surface area directly on the card, for a single 120mmx20mm radiator that gets mounted to the back of your case. Using water cooling to feed a giant external heat exchanger is beneficial compared to traditional air exchangers directly in the case. "closed loop" water cooling systems are nothing more than the Monster cables of the heat sink market.
Or a dremel. Just cut off the remaining pins for the extra channels and it works fine. You can even test it out by taping off those pins and mounting it in an x16 slot.
Again, you're missing the point. Of course the studio setup and processing makes a big difference, but that has nothing to do with digital audio. Of course the output processing and listening room setup makes a big different, but that again has nothing to do with digital audio. Digital audio is only a storage and transport mechanism, and in its role as a transport mechanism, analog audio cannot compete.
No one said it was perfection. Clearly you are dropping lots of data. However, 44.1kHz/16-bit is sufficient to cover the entire functional range of human hearing. 44.1kHz sampling, with proper filtering, provides perfect reproduction of all sounds within the 20kHz range of human hearing. 16-bit quantization provides sufficient dynamic range that in order to exceed that, one would cause immediate hearing damage to the listener.
The issue with onboard sound isn't about sound quality, but in isolation. If I stick a DVD in my computer and hear the drive spin up over my speakers, it's time for a discrete sound card.
You're unwittingly pointing out the flaw in the study.
The point of the study was to show that for the purposes of musical performances, there is no value in a Stradivarius over a modern recreation. Stradivarius violins should be appreciated as a work of art and for their historical significance, but no longer as a musical instrument that is actively used.
The problem with digital is that you won't find my Bill Hardman or Frank Rosolino recordings in that medium. It doesn't matter how much "better" it sounds to you if you can't listen to it at all.
And there's exactly the problem. You're using subjective words like "better". When you're looking for "better" sound, you're looking for the specific quirks and distortions that you prefer. None of that belongs in a recording medium. A recording medium should be measured on how accurate it is, and nothing else, and that's something analog simply cannot complete with digital on. All recordings will be lossy, but where analog loss is based off chaotic physical imperfections, the loss in a digital system is precisely, mathematically known.
I record the concerts my wife's string quartet does at 96 khz/24 bit, and when I down sample to 44.1 khz/16 bit to made a CD, it seems to me that I can hear differences there as well.
Then you need to find someone who knows how to produce a proper digital master. 44.1kHz/16bit CDs cover the full functional range of human hearing.
were you to listen on my system (Linn LP-12 turntable, Bryston preamp, Linkwitz Orion loudspeakers), you'd hear real differences in vinyl vs. CD. Is one better than the other? Not really if your goal is simply to listen to good music. But the differences are certainly there.
That's correct. The vinyl recording has more distortion. The CD will be a perfect re-production of the original master within the limits of human hearing. Recording formats only exist to reproduce the original. They should not "color" the audio due to their particular deficiencies.
If you're listening to it mostly on a cell phone with shitty ear buds, then there is absolutely no reason to waste space on a high resolution recording.
The output device is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to waste space on high resolution (greater than 16-bit, 44.1kHz) unless you are doing audio production.
For pretty much every single problem set that exists, you would be better off with a typical 1U Xeon server with a good chunk of memory. For redundancy, you add a second 1U Xeon server.
Rolling backwards is exactly what you need to do to decrypt the message, which is the same process for an eavesdropper or the intended recipient. If you increase the complexity of the key, or the complexity of the encryption algorithm, you are making decryption a more exhausting process for the intended recipient. Encryption only works because the method of trying the one correct key is much less expensive than trying all possible keys. There is nothing revolutionary about this algorithm, it is merely evolutionary to continue increasing complexity to maintain security against ever improving computers.
This wisdom came from a ghost now inhabiting the skull of an henchman killed in an explosion during a firefight between the Monarch and the Office of Secret Intelligence.
Also note, even spinach has a soul, so there's no sense going vegan.
Slashdot Mirror
Except in this case, it's carrying the heat to a single 120mm exhaust port, instead of the entire surface area of that huge card it would have otherwise normally had.
The main point of enthusiasm is that liquid cooling is easier to do than phase change cooling with hobbyist
There are several advantages. One key one is that coolant pipes are longer and much, much, much more flexible than heatpipe pipes. This means you can easily place the large radiator on the edge of the case, with the fan blowing outwards. This has substantial advantages than the heatpipe coolers which recircuate air withing the case and rely on other fans to cycle fresh air.
That really sounds like a flaw in your case than the radiators contained within it. Back when we had blow-down heatsinks instead of tower ones, cases would come with side vents and shrouds to provide cool air directly to the fans. If you open up a server case, chances are it will have a shroud that covers both CPUs and all your memory, ducting air directly from several of the mid-plane fans. You can get cases that move the power supply to the bottom, so the CPU is directly in the top rear corner of the case, next to exhaust fans. You can get cases that rotate the board sideways so that everything vents upwards, taking advantage of convection to prevent recirculation outside the case.
A standard GPU heatsink is really god damned big. It's about an inch thick, and extends the entire length of the card, with a big centrifugal blower fan at one end, and exhaust vents out the back of the case on the other. The 120mmx20mm radiator they replaced it with is actually smaller.
In this case, they're sacrificing the blower fan, rear exhaust, and all that surface area directly on the card, for a single 120mmx20mm radiator that gets mounted to the back of your case. Using water cooling to feed a giant external heat exchanger is beneficial compared to traditional air exchangers directly in the case. "closed loop" water cooling systems are nothing more than the Monster cables of the heat sink market.
Or a dremel. Just cut off the remaining pins for the extra channels and it works fine. You can even test it out by taping off those pins and mounting it in an x16 slot.
Again, you're missing the point. Of course the studio setup and processing makes a big difference, but that has nothing to do with digital audio. Of course the output processing and listening room setup makes a big different, but that again has nothing to do with digital audio. Digital audio is only a storage and transport mechanism, and in its role as a transport mechanism, analog audio cannot compete.
No one said it was perfection. Clearly you are dropping lots of data. However, 44.1kHz/16-bit is sufficient to cover the entire functional range of human hearing. 44.1kHz sampling, with proper filtering, provides perfect reproduction of all sounds within the 20kHz range of human hearing. 16-bit quantization provides sufficient dynamic range that in order to exceed that, one would cause immediate hearing damage to the listener.
I mean... anywhere, had by anyone.
The issue with onboard sound isn't about sound quality, but in isolation. If I stick a DVD in my computer and hear the drive spin up over my speakers, it's time for a discrete sound card.
You're unwittingly pointing out the flaw in the study.
The point of the study was to show that for the purposes of musical performances, there is no value in a Stradivarius over a modern recreation. Stradivarius violins should be appreciated as a work of art and for their historical significance, but no longer as a musical instrument that is actively used.
The problem with digital is that you won't find my Bill Hardman or Frank Rosolino recordings in that medium. It doesn't matter how much "better" it sounds to you if you can't listen to it at all.
And there's exactly the problem. You're using subjective words like "better". When you're looking for "better" sound, you're looking for the specific quirks and distortions that you prefer. None of that belongs in a recording medium. A recording medium should be measured on how accurate it is, and nothing else, and that's something analog simply cannot complete with digital on. All recordings will be lossy, but where analog loss is based off chaotic physical imperfections, the loss in a digital system is precisely, mathematically known.
I record the concerts my wife's string quartet does at 96 khz/24 bit, and when I down sample to 44.1 khz/16 bit to made a CD, it seems to me that I can hear differences there as well.
Then you need to find someone who knows how to produce a proper digital master. 44.1kHz/16bit CDs cover the full functional range of human hearing.
were you to listen on my system (Linn LP-12 turntable, Bryston preamp, Linkwitz Orion loudspeakers), you'd hear real differences in vinyl vs. CD. Is one better than the other? Not really if your goal is simply to listen to good music. But the differences are certainly there.
That's correct. The vinyl recording has more distortion. The CD will be a perfect re-production of the original master within the limits of human hearing. Recording formats only exist to reproduce the original. They should not "color" the audio due to their particular deficiencies.
If you're listening to it mostly on a cell phone with shitty ear buds, then there is absolutely no reason to waste space on a high resolution recording.
The output device is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to waste space on high resolution (greater than 16-bit, 44.1kHz) unless you are doing audio production.
I can understand fuses, since those are an electrical device that fits in line with your electrical circuits, but rocks?
For pretty much every single problem set that exists, you would be better off with a typical 1U Xeon server with a good chunk of memory. For redundancy, you add a second 1U Xeon server.
If you're truly omniscient, then there is no free will.
You realize that "man" is a generalized term for "human race", correct? "The Fall of Human" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Because of course, if you want to get rich, you start a religion.
most likely would have preferred to create a race of robots who can only do what they are told
Blindly obedient robots are boring. Everyone loves discovering new, unexpected emergent behavior in a seemingly deterministic system.
When your key is as large as the data you want to send, why not just send your data through your key sharing mechanism?
Rolling backwards is exactly what you need to do to decrypt the message, which is the same process for an eavesdropper or the intended recipient. If you increase the complexity of the key, or the complexity of the encryption algorithm, you are making decryption a more exhausting process for the intended recipient. Encryption only works because the method of trying the one correct key is much less expensive than trying all possible keys. There is nothing revolutionary about this algorithm, it is merely evolutionary to continue increasing complexity to maintain security against ever improving computers.
This wisdom came from a ghost now inhabiting the skull of an henchman killed in an explosion during a firefight between the Monarch and the Office of Secret Intelligence.
Also note, even spinach has a soul, so there's no sense going vegan.
Show:
Venture Brothers
Episode:
Venture Brothers Season 4 Episode 8: "Pinstripes & Poltergeists"
Characters:
Henchman 21, Henchman 24
Henchman 24 of course!