4 ms·

I keep coming back to this forum post as the most relevant audiophile meme, in which someone finds an alternate memcpy implementation and claims to hear the dif

• creakingstairs 5y ago
  Wow that is gold. Thank you for this. I'm almost tempted to translate this and share it in a Korean audiophile forum.
• tilt_error 5y ago
  “[..] this version removes the hard edge produced by memcpy” “[..] most players use malloc to get memory while new is the c++ method and sounds better” The very essence of religion.
  • asplake 5y ago
    Satire?
    • Alan_Dillman 5y ago
      Or dumb as tire.
• LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  I don't know. I remember older PC's of the 486 to Pentium era making different noises via bad active speakers, or even in the FM-Radio. Especially during uncompressing some stuff, but also different operations in different programs. The same can often be said for todays onboard sound, no matter if via headphones, or active speakers. That's why some people are saying use the cheapest USB-sound-dongle, and enjoy decoupled sound, otherwise enjoy the buzz of your system-busses. Also mainboard makers advertising some sort of shielding for the audio chip from the rest of the board, for the same reasons. Memcopy produces a pattern on the memory-bus, which may be audible under some circumstances. Using a different pattern may "sound" different, or not all. shrug