Thanks for the link. If I understand, it describes a way to interpolate samples in such a way that the result looks as though it came from a source which had been sampled more frequently. The output is the same as if each input sample were replicated N times, and then passed through a low-pass filter to get rid of the stair-step effect. So it still seems to me that it's effectively augmenting the analog filter with a digital one.
If you still disagree, then I'll just have to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about and move on.:-) --
Re:Comparatively speaking...
on
MP3Pro Released
·
· Score: 1
As someone else pointed out, CDs have a lot more than 128Kbps. Both mp3 and OG achieve the lower bitrate by compression. If one compression format is better than another, then, I hate to tell you this, but you can get better quality at a lower bitrate. --
So, what you normally do is simply interpolate the signal, then put the filter at something like 192kHz.
So the effect is something like augmenting your analog filter with a digital one?
And as for your snotty remark, I don't care how stupid you are, or how little you know about the topic, you still need oversampling and interpolation to higher bits in order to retrieve the same signal you put in.
Holy shit, sorry. I had no idea my remark would be so offensive. Which one was it, in particular? The "I don't care" one?
In order not to lose accuracy, you must increase the resolution (16 bits -> 24 bits). So, having a 24 bit, 356kHz DAC is entirely reasonable, even if the input source is only 16 bits and 44.1 kHz.
I don't understand this. Oversampling an analog signal for greater accuracy is one thing, but on a CD the signal is already digital. I don't care how fast and accurate your system is; the CD only contains a certain amount of information, and that's 16 bits at 44.1kHz.
Is there a website that explains this in more detail? --
No computer language is any more powerful than any other. Sure, high-level languages constructs which make bookkeeping (keeping track of variables, memory, start/endpoints of code fragments, calculating jumps to code fragments, etc.) easier. But that's all it is; bookkeeping. It makes programming more convenient; nothing more. Convenience isn't power.
Only by one (not very useful) definition of "power". Sure, all reasonably powerful general-purpose programming languages can espress the same algorithms. That has been true for 50 years. So why use a definition of "power" which is so obviously useless?
In physics, power is work divided by time. By analogy, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that something that lets me get more work done in less time gives me more power. Higher-level programming languages let me write more sophisticated programs with less effort. To me, that's more power. --
Some believe that dynamic optimization can do things that static optimization can't do. For instance, you can straighten code that used to have a lot of branches in it. You can't do that statically because you don't know which branches will be taken most often. You could do every possible straightening and include them all with the binary, but that would probably be prohibitively large. You could profile the code and use that to direct a recompilation, but then that's nothing more than really-slow dynamic compilation.
So, once dynamic optimization technology has advanced, it may outperform statically-optimized code even in the same architecture.
Now, what happens if you dynamically optimize the dynamic optimizer... --
What does "Power" mean? All of these languages are Turing-complete; they all have exactly the same expressive power (which is the same as a Turing Machine. If you don't know what a Turing Machine is, you aren't qualified to have an opinion on this topic.).
Do you really, seriously think turing equivalence is all there is to expressive power? Do you think that programmers will be equally productive in any turing-equivalent language?
C is the first language any moderately competent programmer should learn.
I tend to think Eiffel is best. There is no single discipline I have learned that has provided me more benefit than Design by Contract. What's so great about C as a first language? --
This will be important only so long as uniprocessor speeds are relevant. If we move to more parallelism (or, of course, quantum computing), this be no more relevant than a limit based on how quickly people can shift the beads of an abacus. --
I don't think C++ is the first C-like language someone ought to try. I wouldn't call it the "middle" of the C family; it's really at one extreme of power and complexity.
I'd say Java is in the middle. It's more powerful than C but simpler than C++, and it's more dynamic than C or C++ but less so than Perl or PHP. --
TCP/IP has big problems when you have thousands of nodes, each filling the pipe as fast as possible.
And the relevance to clusters is...?
If clusters were limited to "thousands of nodes", I promise you nobody would notice.
The main bottlneck with MP machines is the message passing. It's rarely the memory or cpu speed, it's how fast one node can talk to another.
You're talking about clusters of uniprocessors. I don't research this area myself, but I have been told that clusters of 4-way SMP machines saturate the memory bus before the netrork. That's because you have four CPUs and a Myrinet card all competing for the same bus, not to mention other DMA devices.
Sure, if you use uniprocessors in your cluster, then the network becomes the bottleneck. No big insight there. And, it has nothing to do with TCP/IP.
If you think the Internet doesn't have scaling problems, where have you been the past 10 years? Under a rock?!
You mean to say the TCP/IP scaling problems in clusters are the same as in the Internet? I think not.
Look, I just think a claim like "TCP/IP has fundamental scaling problems" could have been phrased better, because it seems ridiculous at first glance. I'm sure their claim is valid, whatever it is, but clearly there is ample evidence that TCP/IP itself scales to far larger systems than any cluster. --
Sure, TCP/IP will be slower than Myrinet, but that's a speed problem, not a scalability problem, right? You can have an ethernet switch which does the same function as a Myrinet switch, just slower. Again, it's speed, not scalability. --
Ok, I think this is as creepy as the next guy, but at one point the article says this (my emphasis):
But if the feature is so benign, why is Microsoft hiding it and offering sites a way to block it?
Since when has offering people choices been evidence of wrongdoing? Come on, if they had not offered such a choice, that would also have been taken as evidence that MS is evil.
It has reached the point where it's not easy to find the legitimate issues amongst the MS-bashing. --
I didn't realize how small it is. From the
space.com article
mentioned in the parent post:
The X-43A weighs in at approximately 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms). The craft is 12 feet (3.7 meters) long, with a width of 5 feet (1.5 meters), and measures 2 feet (.6 meters) in height.
Somehow I just assumed it was the size of a normal airplane. --
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, thanks for the summary. Interesting stuff.
:-) (I gather it's some kind of multidimensional matrix-like thingy.)
Now I just need to find out what a tensor is.
--
Are you sure that's sqrt(r)? I thought the square of the period was proportional to the cube of the distance. That would make it r^(-3/2).
--
--
Thanks for the link. If I understand, it describes a way to interpolate samples in such a way that the result looks as though it came from a source which had been sampled more frequently. The output is the same as if each input sample were replicated N times, and then passed through a low-pass filter to get rid of the stair-step effect. So it still seems to me that it's effectively augmenting the analog filter with a digital one.
:-)
If you still disagree, then I'll just have to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about and move on.
--
As someone else pointed out, CDs have a lot more than 128Kbps. Both mp3 and OG achieve the lower bitrate by compression. If one compression format is better than another, then, I hate to tell you this, but you can get better quality at a lower bitrate.
--
Regardless, thanks for the info.
--
I don't understand this. Oversampling an analog signal for greater accuracy is one thing, but on a CD the signal is already digital. I don't care how fast and accurate your system is; the CD only contains a certain amount of information, and that's 16 bits at 44.1kHz.
Is there a website that explains this in more detail?
--
In physics, power is work divided by time. By analogy, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that something that lets me get more work done in less time gives me more power. Higher-level programming languages let me write more sophisticated programs with less effort. To me, that's more power.
--
Why not recompile it natively?
Ah, that is the question.
Some believe that dynamic optimization can do things that static optimization can't do. For instance, you can straighten code that used to have a lot of branches in it. You can't do that statically because you don't know which branches will be taken most often. You could do every possible straightening and include them all with the binary, but that would probably be prohibitively large. You could profile the code and use that to direct a recompilation, but then that's nothing more than really-slow dynamic compilation.
So, once dynamic optimization technology has advanced, it may outperform statically-optimized code even in the same architecture.
Now, what happens if you dynamically optimize the dynamic optimizer...
--
You know a DAG isn't a tree, right?
--
--
Nice of you to take my rather mean-spirited criticism in such a good-natured way. :-)
--
This will be important only so long as uniprocessor speeds are relevant. If we move to more parallelism (or, of course, quantum computing), this be no more relevant than a limit based on how quickly people can shift the beads of an abacus.
--
Most people can't make out any detail smaller than a centimeter.
By "people" do you mean "blind people feeling things with their feet"?
A centimeter is 0.4 inches. I don't know about most people, but I can sure see things smaller than that.
--
I don't think C++ is the first C-like language someone ought to try. I wouldn't call it the "middle" of the C family; it's really at one extreme of power and complexity.
I'd say Java is in the middle. It's more powerful than C but simpler than C++, and it's more dynamic than C or C++ but less so than Perl or PHP.
--
Can someone explain to me why this is a troll?
--
--
If clusters were limited to "thousands of nodes", I promise you nobody would notice.
You're talking about clusters of uniprocessors. I don't research this area myself, but I have been told that clusters of 4-way SMP machines saturate the memory bus before the netrork. That's because you have four CPUs and a Myrinet card all competing for the same bus, not to mention other DMA devices.Sure, if you use uniprocessors in your cluster, then the network becomes the bottleneck. No big insight there. And, it has nothing to do with TCP/IP.
You mean to say the TCP/IP scaling problems in clusters are the same as in the Internet? I think not.Look, I just think a claim like "TCP/IP has fundamental scaling problems" could have been phrased better, because it seems ridiculous at first glance. I'm sure their claim is valid, whatever it is, but clearly there is ample evidence that TCP/IP itself scales to far larger systems than any cluster.
--
Sure, TCP/IP will be slower than Myrinet, but that's a speed problem, not a scalability problem, right? You can have an ethernet switch which does the same function as a Myrinet switch, just slower. Again, it's speed, not scalability.
--
I like where they say TCP/IP has inherent scalability limitations. Have they heard of the Internet?
--
It has reached the point where it's not easy to find the legitimate issues amongst the MS-bashing.
--
I mean SatireWire of course.
--
Yeah, I know what you mean. If I want to read BBSpot, I can go there.
I'm gonna set up a script to scan other news sites and submit their articles to Slashdot. Then maybe at least I'll get karma for it.
--
--
--