Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More Power To You (processing anyway)
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"JoVee" wrote in message ... http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? jb |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"JoVee" wrote in message ... http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? jb |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody besides myself see the UAD-2 card with an Nvidia 3d chip set
installed? Max Arwood "reddred" wrote in message ... "JoVee" wrote in message ... http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? jb |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody besides myself see the UAD-2 card with an Nvidia 3d chip set
installed? Max Arwood "reddred" wrote in message ... "JoVee" wrote in message ... http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? jb |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article writes: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? How much does the graphics card in question cost? The thing is that a UA or t.c. DSP card is a fairly limited application thing and therefore has a fairly limited market. A graphics board for a consumer-level computer (even a hot-rod consumer) has potential for far greater sales, so it has potential for far lower cost. Which do you think is more likely - that UA or t.c. will enter the consumer market so they can make their $500 cards to sell for $100, or that an already established graphics card maker will sell more cards because of the audio processing power available on them? I don't (at least at this point) see this as a way to run serious pro audio applications, but rather as a way to enhance consumer audio coming out of a computer - much in the way that improved graphics cards provide better video (as in "movie") capability than ever before. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1094384426k@trad... In article writes: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? How much does the graphics card in question cost? The thing is that a UA or t.c. DSP card is a fairly limited application thing and therefore has a fairly limited market. A graphics board for a consumer-level computer (even a hot-rod consumer) has potential for far greater sales, so it has potential for far lower cost. Which do you think is more likely - that UA or t.c. will enter the consumer market so they can make their $500 cards to sell for $100, or that an already established graphics card maker will sell more cards because of the audio processing power available on them? I don't (at least at this point) see this as a way to run serious pro audio applications, but rather as a way to enhance consumer audio coming out of a computer - much in the way that improved graphics cards provide better video (as in "movie") capability than ever before. My understanding from the article is that the software will sell for between 2 and 8 hundred dollars. Add that to the cost of a recent high-end video card (which can cost 500 dollars in and of themselves) and you're looking at a lot of dough for what I see as a 'neat' but imperfect solution. It seems to me like it is something that needs to run from startup at a deeper level than your regular app. If it can be turned on and off painlessly, and costs around 1 or two hundred bucks, he may have a winner on his hands. jb -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1094384426k@trad... In article writes: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...02_135943.html I saw that yesterday, as a matter of fact. It's a neat idea, but how cost effective is it when you can get a DSP upgrade card for 500 bucks? How much does the graphics card in question cost? The thing is that a UA or t.c. DSP card is a fairly limited application thing and therefore has a fairly limited market. A graphics board for a consumer-level computer (even a hot-rod consumer) has potential for far greater sales, so it has potential for far lower cost. Which do you think is more likely - that UA or t.c. will enter the consumer market so they can make their $500 cards to sell for $100, or that an already established graphics card maker will sell more cards because of the audio processing power available on them? I don't (at least at this point) see this as a way to run serious pro audio applications, but rather as a way to enhance consumer audio coming out of a computer - much in the way that improved graphics cards provide better video (as in "movie") capability than ever before. My understanding from the article is that the software will sell for between 2 and 8 hundred dollars. Add that to the cost of a recent high-end video card (which can cost 500 dollars in and of themselves) and you're looking at a lot of dough for what I see as a 'neat' but imperfect solution. It seems to me like it is something that needs to run from startup at a deeper level than your regular app. If it can be turned on and off painlessly, and costs around 1 or two hundred bucks, he may have a winner on his hands. jb -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I just like that 40gflps!
Max Arwood "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1094418196k@trad... In article writes: My understanding from the article is that the software will sell for between 2 and 8 hundred dollars. Add that to the cost of a recent high-end video card (which can cost 500 dollars in and of themselves) and you're looking at a lot of dough for what I see as a 'neat' but imperfect solution. Yeeouch! That being the case, they'd better be able to show me that they have more to offer than the current crop of DSP cards for audio applications. I'll bet it's not trivial to port a popular auido plug-in to the video card's GSP, so for a while anyway, all the software will be coming from this company. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I just like that 40gflps!
Max Arwood "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1094418196k@trad... In article writes: My understanding from the article is that the software will sell for between 2 and 8 hundred dollars. Add that to the cost of a recent high-end video card (which can cost 500 dollars in and of themselves) and you're looking at a lot of dough for what I see as a 'neat' but imperfect solution. Yeeouch! That being the case, they'd better be able to show me that they have more to offer than the current crop of DSP cards for audio applications. I'll bet it's not trivial to port a popular auido plug-in to the video card's GSP, so for a while anyway, all the software will be coming from this company. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: My understanding from the article is that the software will sell for between 2 and 8 hundred dollars. Add that to the cost of a recent high-end video card (which can cost 500 dollars in and of themselves) and you're looking at a lot of dough for what I see as a 'neat' but imperfect solution. Yeeouch! That being the case, they'd better be able to show me that they have more to offer than the current crop of DSP cards for audio applications. I'll bet it's not trivial to port a popular auido plug-in to the video card's GSP, so for a while anyway, all the software will be coming from this company. As far as the convolution power, which is what is really needed today, it says that they will be eschewing the inaccurate FFT method for the direct one. That will make it run out of Hz far sooner than the gflop numbers alone would indicate, as much as 1000 times sooner for a reasonably long FIR. That is simply a reflection of the lack of flexibility in reconfiguring or programming these things. If they could use a partitioned FFT you can damn betcha there would be _no_ reason not to. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: My understanding from the article is that the software will sell for between 2 and 8 hundred dollars. Add that to the cost of a recent high-end video card (which can cost 500 dollars in and of themselves) and you're looking at a lot of dough for what I see as a 'neat' but imperfect solution. Yeeouch! That being the case, they'd better be able to show me that they have more to offer than the current crop of DSP cards for audio applications. I'll bet it's not trivial to port a popular auido plug-in to the video card's GSP, so for a while anyway, all the software will be coming from this company. As far as the convolution power, which is what is really needed today, it says that they will be eschewing the inaccurate FFT method for the direct one. That will make it run out of Hz far sooner than the gflop numbers alone would indicate, as much as 1000 times sooner for a reasonably long FIR. That is simply a reflection of the lack of flexibility in reconfiguring or programming these things. If they could use a partitioned FFT you can damn betcha there would be _no_ reason not to. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: As far as the convolution power, which is what is really needed today, it says that they will be eschewing the inaccurate FFT method for the direct one. That will make it run out of Hz far sooner than the gflop numbers alone would indicate, as much as 1000 times sooner for a reasonably long FIR. That is simply a reflection of the lack of flexibility in reconfiguring or programming these things. If they could use a partitioned FFT you can damn betcha there would be _no_ reason not to. You lost me in the first sentence, because I don't know how these things work, nor do I feed a need to know. Ok. Nonetheless the point was of some real signifigance. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: As far as the convolution power, which is what is really needed today, it says that they will be eschewing the inaccurate FFT method for the direct one. That will make it run out of Hz far sooner than the gflop numbers alone would indicate, as much as 1000 times sooner for a reasonably long FIR. That is simply a reflection of the lack of flexibility in reconfiguring or programming these things. If they could use a partitioned FFT you can damn betcha there would be _no_ reason not to. You lost me in the first sentence, because I don't know how these things work, nor do I feed a need to know. Ok. Nonetheless the point was of some real signifigance. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
Yeeouch! That being the case, they'd better be able to show me that they have more to offer than the current crop of DSP cards for audio applications. I'll bet it's not trivial to port a popular auido plug-in to the video card's GSP, so for a while anyway, all the software will be coming from this company. the chip used on the UAD-1 started life as a graphics processor. -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | "someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
Yeeouch! That being the case, they'd better be able to show me that they have more to offer than the current crop of DSP cards for audio applications. I'll bet it's not trivial to port a popular auido plug-in to the video card's GSP, so for a while anyway, all the software will be coming from this company. the chip used on the UAD-1 started life as a graphics processor. -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | "someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1094469385k@trad...
In article writes: As far as the convolution power, which is what is really needed today, it says that they will be eschewing the inaccurate FFT method for the direct one. That will make it run out of Hz far sooner than the gflop numbers alone would indicate, as much as 1000 times sooner for a reasonably long FIR. That is simply a reflection of the lack of flexibility in reconfiguring or programming these things. If they could use a partitioned FFT you can damn betcha there would be _no_ reason not to. You lost me in the first sentence, because I don't know how these things work, nor do I feed a need to know. My thing is external interfaces, trusting that what's inside the "black box" (be it hardware, software, or soupware) will either do its job or not. So is this a good thing, a bad thing, a potentially good thing if they do it right (what isn't?), or a marketing thing? i think what he's saying is that they are dropping the fft (fast fourier transform) for a direct transform, right? the fft does some mathematical compromises to get the computational load down into a realistic realm of current computers -- and that they're *really* doing this not because of the "inaccuracies", but because the video-optimized GPU isn't flexible to do the mx+b type operations that audio requires. however, i understood that convolution was a rather "simple" process compared to fft -- and only presented more cpu load with longer impulse response samples . . . at any rate, 200-800 is completely unrealistic -- it's band-aid technology to begin with that smacks of vaporware -- the overhead of audiovideopcigpupcivideoaudio processing alone will eat up most of the gains -- just buy another P4 box for $500! cheers, chris deckard saint louis mo |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1094469385k@trad...
In article writes: As far as the convolution power, which is what is really needed today, it says that they will be eschewing the inaccurate FFT method for the direct one. That will make it run out of Hz far sooner than the gflop numbers alone would indicate, as much as 1000 times sooner for a reasonably long FIR. That is simply a reflection of the lack of flexibility in reconfiguring or programming these things. If they could use a partitioned FFT you can damn betcha there would be _no_ reason not to. You lost me in the first sentence, because I don't know how these things work, nor do I feed a need to know. My thing is external interfaces, trusting that what's inside the "black box" (be it hardware, software, or soupware) will either do its job or not. So is this a good thing, a bad thing, a potentially good thing if they do it right (what isn't?), or a marketing thing? i think what he's saying is that they are dropping the fft (fast fourier transform) for a direct transform, right? the fft does some mathematical compromises to get the computational load down into a realistic realm of current computers -- and that they're *really* doing this not because of the "inaccuracies", but because the video-optimized GPU isn't flexible to do the mx+b type operations that audio requires. however, i understood that convolution was a rather "simple" process compared to fft -- and only presented more cpu load with longer impulse response samples . . . at any rate, 200-800 is completely unrealistic -- it's band-aid technology to begin with that smacks of vaporware -- the overhead of audiovideopcigpupcivideoaudio processing alone will eat up most of the gains -- just buy another P4 box for $500! cheers, chris deckard saint louis mo |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
mr c deckard wrote: i think what he's saying is that they are dropping the fft (fast fourier transform) for a direct transform, right? Close. More specifically they are dropping fast convolution which employs the FFT for direct convolution. the fft does some mathematical compromises to get the computational load down into a realistic realm of current computers -- The only compromise is latency with a payoff of reducing the computation from an O(N*N) problem to an O(N*log2(N)) where N is the length of what you are convolving with the audio stream. For even a 1024 sample filter IR, it can be 100+ to 1 improvement in throughput done in special hardware. Get up to say a 16,384 sample reverb (and they can be a lot longer than that) and the improvement is up to 1170 to 1. There aren't really any "accuracy issues." These ratios are actually somewhat smaller because there is more overhead for a less hardware streamlined FFT that eats into the ratio some but that's still how fast the difference grows. And the latency issue is tractable by using a more complex "partitioned" convolution algorithm which also uses the FFT. and that they're *really* doing this not because of the "inaccuracies", but because the video-optimized GPU isn't flexible to do the mx+b type operations that audio requires. Not quite, the b-mx+b is the core operation of the direct convolution. The kernal operation of the FFT is what is called a "complex butterfly" using complicated routing as you go or reordering logic at the end of each block. however, i understood that convolution was a rather "simple" process compared to fft -- and only presented more cpu load with longer impulse response samples . . . Direct convolution is definitely simpler than fast convoultion using FFT but the results are identical and it is only really practical for very short IR's. You run out of HzPower _really_ fast using the simple direct method. For the kind of convolutional filtering used in video, the IR's are very short and are probably down in the range where the direct form is faster when overhead is taken into account so there is little motivation to design in the data paths and control sequences to do an FFT form convolution. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
mr c deckard wrote: i think what he's saying is that they are dropping the fft (fast fourier transform) for a direct transform, right? Close. More specifically they are dropping fast convolution which employs the FFT for direct convolution. the fft does some mathematical compromises to get the computational load down into a realistic realm of current computers -- The only compromise is latency with a payoff of reducing the computation from an O(N*N) problem to an O(N*log2(N)) where N is the length of what you are convolving with the audio stream. For even a 1024 sample filter IR, it can be 100+ to 1 improvement in throughput done in special hardware. Get up to say a 16,384 sample reverb (and they can be a lot longer than that) and the improvement is up to 1170 to 1. There aren't really any "accuracy issues." These ratios are actually somewhat smaller because there is more overhead for a less hardware streamlined FFT that eats into the ratio some but that's still how fast the difference grows. And the latency issue is tractable by using a more complex "partitioned" convolution algorithm which also uses the FFT. and that they're *really* doing this not because of the "inaccuracies", but because the video-optimized GPU isn't flexible to do the mx+b type operations that audio requires. Not quite, the b-mx+b is the core operation of the direct convolution. The kernal operation of the FFT is what is called a "complex butterfly" using complicated routing as you go or reordering logic at the end of each block. however, i understood that convolution was a rather "simple" process compared to fft -- and only presented more cpu load with longer impulse response samples . . . Direct convolution is definitely simpler than fast convoultion using FFT but the results are identical and it is only really practical for very short IR's. You run out of HzPower _really_ fast using the simple direct method. For the kind of convolutional filtering used in video, the IR's are very short and are probably down in the range where the direct form is faster when overhead is taken into account so there is little motivation to design in the data paths and control sequences to do an FFT form convolution. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Power Filtration | Audio Opinions | |||
Power conditioner or power cord or something else | Audio Opinions | |||
System warm-up | Audio Opinions | |||
old solid state circa 70-80's` | Audio Opinions | |||
Power outage | Pro Audio |