4 ms·
I understand that people are downvoting this because it is just a negative comment, or something. But, I felt it was VERY important to call out information that
by jblow 12y ago
I understand that people are downvoting this because it is just a negative comment, or something. But, I felt it was VERY important to call out information that is clearly false. Someone who doesn't know about audio programming might read the above post and think "hey that sounds plausible, I learned something today" when in fact they were deeply misled. Registering dissent is important and I tried not to be rude about it. I did go on to give a sketch of reasons in the thread below (but it is a complex issue with a lot of details; exact situations differ on every platform; etc, etc.)
- cnvogel 12y agoI didn't downvote you and was genuinely interested in why you were considering my information to be incorrect. And I now realize it's because I've always worked with systems where processing is always strongly synced to the central frame/sample/... clock. Also I read your initial comment as "why don't we use 'process every single sample' to reduce latency at all costs" which is -as you wrote- clearly a bad idea. Sorry for misrepresenting that.
- brazzledazzle 12y agoI thought it was a tad condescending. Instead of: >As someone who has actually done a good amount of soft-real-time audio programming, I can tell that you probably haven't. Everything you are saying about CPU speeds is made-up nonsense. You could have wrote: >I've actually done a good amount of soft-real-time audio programming and everything you're saying about CPU speeds doesn't make sense. I think it's good to call out what you see as misleading information but that may have been going a bit too far.