Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Torvalds is half right (Score 1) 449

"The nature of the workload required for most workstations is non-uniform processing of large quantities of discreet, irregular tasks. For this, parallelism (as Torvald's correctly notes) is likely not the most efficient approach."

Please, he can't even PP his way out of a DX-OGL call/wrap. He's got zero standing ground to talk about paralelism when there are people taking Linux, making it run highly parallel, and it works like a goddamned dream. Being able to do all of those irregular discrete tasks without having to wait for something else to finish first is the goal.

People have worked on pseudo-parallel code for OoO and what not. minimum 200% increase in performance.

Meanwhile, Linus still refuses to fix a bug in kernel, which exists all the way back to before kernel version 2.x ever hit the scene, which alows anyone to hardlock the kernel (and could've been mitigated or entirely prevented by having some fucking paralel-capable code.)

Linus needs to go crawl in his hole and shut up. People more competent than him have taken over his project, and he's just bitching about it in a non-descript way.

Comment Human eye sees WAY more. (Score 1) 187

'It should be safe to conclude that humans can see frame rates greater than 24 fps."

We can go even faster than that.

While this video I just shot won't show it very well due to FPS limitations, you can easily perceive much faster than anyone here assumes. In the frequency range I'm playing in, you've got THOUSANDS of hertz in difference on some of these notes. The LED setup makes it REALLY easy to see in real time.

Comment Re:uh - by design? (Score 1) 163

Are you forgettingelectrical signals don't propagate at light speed? Bring that up a few more ns. Now toss in all your processing, etc in a digital solution.

" Mackie 1404"

Not eeeeeeven close, but at least you got the brand right. You're missing the digital /SPDIF and optical outputs on the back - I've timed this from the same equipment and different outputs. Digital adds latency like mad.

 

Comment Re:uh - by design? (Score 1) 163

Yea. I work in Riverside. Done audio and video work for groups such as The Neil Deal and other bands out in Studio City. I have plenty of experience with digital recording and multitracking/overdubbing, starting with Cool Edit back in the late 90s (and some MIDI/MOD/IT tracking.)

Simple physics alone is going to dictate that sub 5ms latency is pretty much impossible without your cables being a foot long once you take all the signal pathways, processing overhead, etc. in a piece of hardware into account.

Everything else is marketing.

Comment Re:uh - by design? (Score 1) 163

"you need PCIe or Thunderbolt if you want to have a few hundred tracks and still have under 5 milliseconds latency"

That's what a mixer board is for and even ASIO drivers don't provide sub 5ms latency. The only thing on this planet providing sub 5ms latency are direct connections from instrument to IEMs, and even then you have to deal with things like comb filtering.

Yamaha has a good piece on this and I'd take their word well over Avid's, given Yamaha has been in this game FAR longer, starting with musical instruments back in 1887, versus Avid's 1984 starting date.

Comment Re:uh - by design? (Score 1) 163

"You're obviously not in the pro audio world."

You obviously aren't either. Thunderbolt's way overkill for bandwidth requirements, and most onboard sound systems in a typical desktop handle proper mixer outputs and inputs just fine, with pretty much professional noise floors. I get more noise from my guitar amp and distortion pedal than I get recording the line-in with nothing attached/everything turned off.

Pretty easy setup. Added bonus, you can't infect through a line-in signal that I'm aware of!

Slashdot Top Deals

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...