Ben Chambers wrote:

> You are right, it would add considerably to POV-Ray... It would add the number of
> pixels I can render in the same amount of time!!!
> By all means, speed it up!!! =)
> ...Chambers

If you want roundoff error.

<duck> Same reason CDs suck. <cover>

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:44:18 -0600, David Fontaine wrote:
><duck> Same reason CDs suck. <cover>

What, that old canard again?

That's not why CDs are said to suck.  The impossibly gifted people who
claim vinyl sounds better are claiming that the linear scale used to
digitize the music is a poor match for the logarithmic scale our ears 
actually hear on.  This has nothing to do with roundoff error.

Followups to povray.off-topic. :)

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

Hear, hear! I think it's time we POVers got more serious about speed. We
*need* platform-specific versions. Each platform would have a
Platform-Specific (PS) POV-Team, and the main POV-Team would work just like
it does now. When they release the generic version, the PSPOV-Teams get to
work tweaking and improving the regular POV-Ray. I volunteer for the

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> Followups to povray.off-topic. :)

? <G>

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:23:05 -0600, Tony[B] wrote:
>Hear, hear! I think it's time we POVers got more serious about speed. We
>*need* platform-specific versions. Each platform would have a
>Platform-Specific (PS) POV-Team, and the main POV-Team would work just like

We have those.  How do you think the Windows and Mac versions got those neato
GUIs?

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

> We have those.  How do you think the Windows
> and Mac versions got those neato GUIs?

Erm, I kinda meant in the direction of hardware-specific optimizations, not
so much GUI.

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" wrote:
> 
> > We have those.  How do you think the Windows
> > and Mac versions got those neato GUIs?
> 
> Erm, I kinda meant in the direction of hardware-specific optimizations, not
> so much GUI.

And thus the reason Chris Cason offers two compiles for Windows. One with
Watcom the other MSVC6++ both pentium II optimized. The price of each of
these two compilers is not cheap and requires that the developer has access
to equipment with archetecture the compiler is optimized for.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

As there is no OT I will try to make this a short lived thread.

Ron Parker wrote:

> What, that old canard again?
>
> That's not why CDs are said to suck.  The impossibly gifted people who
> claim vinyl sounds better are claiming that the linear scale used to
> digitize the music is a poor match for the logarithmic scale our ears
> actually hear on.  This has nothing to do with roundoff error.

Aside from that, any mathematician will tell you the sample rate is
insufficient. The highest frequency a person can hear is around 20kHz. The
sample rate of a CD is 44kHz. It should be at least double that, 5x the
highest frequency. Think about it, you could be sampling near the zero
point every time.

And records sound better <g> ;)

Now if they could just make records that last a decent number of
playings...


> Followups to povray.off-topic. :)

;)

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:

> > That's not why CDs are said to suck.  The impossibly gifted people who
> > claim vinyl sounds better are claiming that the linear scale used to
> > digitize the music is a poor match for the logarithmic scale our ears
> > actually hear on.  This has nothing to do with roundoff error.
>
> Aside from that, any mathematician will tell you the sample rate is
> insufficient. The highest frequency a person can hear is around 20kHz. The
> sample rate of a CD is 44kHz. It should be at least double that, 5x the
> highest frequency. Think about it, you could be sampling near the zero
> point every time.

That is of course not to imply that I agree linear scales lead to roundoff
error. I'd be somewhat hard to convince 65536 volume intervals is
insufficient. :)

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

> That's not why CDs are said to suck.  The impossibly gifted people who
> claim vinyl sounds better are claiming that the linear scale used to
> digitize the music is a poor match for the logarithmic scale our ears 
> actually hear on.  This has nothing to do with roundoff error.
> 

Well actually the problem has to do with the repeated processing
of a digital audio signal. The more effects ie. reverb, flange
etc. the more the rounding error adds up and becomes a kind of
distortion which IS audible. But your not going to hear the differnce
on your home stereo so much, however if you have a pro studio and
a set of nice reference monitors there is a difference.

Another thing you would notice is the lack of bottom end from the
vinyl. Bass frequencies are often rolled off in mastering because
it can cause the needle to jump right out of the groove. I used to
tape pennies above the needle to add some extra weight on for this
reason.


-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message