[Dream] DSP vs CPU (Was Timestretch)

[UnderTow]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Mark wrote:

> I find it very difficult to believe that you do not think that
> third-party asshattery can seriously interfere with something as
> time-sensitive as real-time DSP.

That is quite a thought leap you made there. :) No where did I write or 
imply this wasn't the case.

Sure third party software can interfere with processes running on a native 
CPU just as third party TDM plugins can interfere in a ProTools system. 
The difference being that Protools allocates processing power to each 
plugin before hand. That has advantages and disadvantages.

An advantage is that you know where you stand. You won't run out of DSP 
power half way through playing back a mix. The disadvantage is that the 
resources are alocated even if the plugin only does something for a few 
seconds of the mix.

Also I think Digidesign requires third party plugins to be tested and 
approved first. This would indeed insure less potential problems. I could 
be wrong though.

But that is entirely besides the point. CPUs are still much more 
powerfull.

> Saying that the CPU's in a PC still
> "pack alot more punch" than dedicated DSP hardware seems rather
> nonsensical when the quality and quantity of CPU usage from other
> applications and OS-related tasks is unknown.

Mark, you are being non-sensical. The fact that a couple of plugins bring 
your antiquated G4 to it's knees has absolultely no bearing on what is 
possible with the CPUs I am talking about nor their potential power.

If a plugin really brings your system to it's knees, you ask for a refund 
or ditch it if it is a freebie just as you would do if a TDM plugin caused 
problems on a PT system. Or you upgrade your hardware to cope with modern 
plugins if the plugins themselves are not to blame.

> Furthermore, when the hardware and software are from the same
> company, they have a serious incentive to make the code more
> efficient, as doing so allows them to produce the same or better
> results at a lower cost.

Unless that company is in the business of selling as much hardware as 
possible... Anyway, ProTools also supports third party plugins. If the 
plugin isn't properly written, it can also use innordinate amounts of 
DSP. No difference.

Mark, the things you mention might be true in theory but in reallity it 
never works that way because there are so many other influences. 
Technical, political, commercial or whatever.

The bottom line is that modern CPUs are alot more powerfull doing audio 
DSP calculations above and beyond all other tasks compared to an Accell 
card.

The SSE3 subsystem off a modern CPU alone can allready give you over 20
Gigaflops of computing power. The new quad cores will have arround 64 
Gigaflops.

An Accel card delivers     <pause for dramatic effect>     1.6 Gigaflops.

Let that sink in for a bit. :)

FYI, a G4 will provide 1.6 Gflops in ideal conditions. Usualy less 
depending on the way things are coded. No wonder you think an Accel card 
is powerful. :)

> Otoh, it seems that many of the companies
> who produce DSP software that runs native couldn't give a rat's ass
> how bloated their code is.  That Albino or Vanguard take up half of a
> 1Gz G4 is just ridiculous, imho.

A 1Ghz G4 is at least ten times less powerfull than the CPUs I am talking 
about! And the fact that a couple of vendors deliver bad software is no 
basis to write off the entire native computing concept.

Mark, time to fastforward to the 21st century mate. :)

UnderTow