IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Badly drawn waveforms vs. the audio that’s actually output—filters etc, Split from: Jplay - just another scam? Topic ID: 92856
Wombat
post Feb 14 2012, 16:37
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 950
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



QUOTE (JimH @ Feb 9 2012, 16:44) *
Cross posting a jplay thread on the computeraudiophile forum. I finally had to say something last night.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/...#comment-127258

I used the M word.

I just did read over the thread at computeraudiophile.
Seems like all comes down to the better RAM handling changing the sound to the positive. So the claim is that inside the same plattform using jplay changes the way even a asynchronous attached device gets its buffer filled.
This at least should be to measure but isn´t for some reason.
My understaning of this implies that every single processor/RAM/platform implementation must sound different which is a problem.

This of cause has to lead to only one possible conclusion: PC based sound playback doesn´t work and should be considered a dead end, there are to many variables at play smile.gif

When i imagine myself to be a software developer like you JimH, that did spend endless hours of his life to develop a complete suite that grew over many years i´d really had to wonder. Isn´t it much easier to code some esotheric code that prevents bit-rot* and demanding twice the money for it?

When you have some time and read over the forum there are several threads that have strange reasoning. This one for example:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Why-2496-not-24192
They even use scientific pictures wink.gif
It must be said there are of course several people knowing their stuff.

* bit-rot is a term i learned lately and describes the audiophile problem that happens on computer playback all the time
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
andy o
post Feb 14 2012, 17:20
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1252
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



Is it possible to explain non-mathematically (or just a little) why this linked from Wombat's link is wrong? I know it is, just don't understand it very well.

This is one of the pictures accompanying the article:



QUOTE
I tested some 10 kHz and 20 kHz sine waves that were recorded at several word lengths (16 bit or 24 bit) and sampling frequencies (44.1 kHz, 96 kHz, 192 kHz), analyzing them in a software sequencer.

Isn't that just Audacity? I wonder if they "analyzed them in a software sequencer" to sound more professional.

This post has been edited by andy o: Feb 14 2012, 17:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xnor
post Feb 16 2012, 17:41
Post #3





Group: Developer
Posts: 380
Joined: 29-April 11
From: Austria
Member No.: 90198



I'm not sure if there are any free tools available that don't just draw straight lines. But you could resample to some (much) higher sample rate to take a look at the waveform.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 20:39