Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #113367 > unrolled thread

Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch

Contents

  Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 05:28 -0500
    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-06 16:21 +0000
      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:54 -0500
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:18 -0700
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 15:42 -0500
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 14:37 -0700
      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-09-07 12:26 +0200
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:59 -0500
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:13 +0000
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 18:58 -0500
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-09-07 21:16 -0500
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 22:55 -0500
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-09-08 06:49 -0500
                    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 23:28 -0500
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-09-09 07:06 -0500
                        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-09 18:47 +0300
                          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 20:27 -0500
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:12 +0000
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-08 10:59 +0200
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 15:10 -0500
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-08 21:10 +0000
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 18:57 -0500
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 21:49 -0500
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-09 15:06 +0200
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:13 -0500
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-09 20:55 +0000
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:15 -0700
                    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:17 -0700
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-09 23:23 +0200
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-09-08 17:57 -0400
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-08 23:51 +0000
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-09 15:51 +0200
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-09-12 13:01 -0400
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-09-12 12:23 -0500
                    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-12 20:32 +0200
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-09-14 07:43 -0400
                        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-14 15:08 +0200
                    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-12 18:58 +0000
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-12 14:30 -0500
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-09-12 14:46 -0500
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-22 03:18 -0800
      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 01:35 +0000
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-11 15:06 +0000
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-11 15:59 +0000
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-19 02:10 +0000
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-11 12:56 -0500
    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-09-06 11:59 -0500
      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 12:31 -0500
    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-06 20:52 +0300
      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 14:19 -0500
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 01:33 +0000
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-09-11 02:05 -0500
      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-22 03:31 -0800
        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 15:21 -0600
          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-23 00:13 +0000
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-01-22 18:36 -0600
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-23 02:00 +0000
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-01-22 20:20 -0600
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 02:25 -0600
                    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2026-01-23 11:43 +0200
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 05:27 -0600
                        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-23 15:49 +0000
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-23 17:37 +0100
                        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2026-01-23 18:56 +0200
                          Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-23 18:14 +0100
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-14 20:44 -0800
                        Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-02-15 02:11 -0600
                    Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-01-23 11:07 -0600
                      Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 14:52 -0600
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-23 15:36 +0000
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-01-23 15:35 -0800
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-14 20:57 -0800
                Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-02-15 09:09 -0600
                  Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-18 00:40 -0700
            Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 17:04 -0800
              Re: Random/OT: Low sample rate audio weirdness/mystery BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 05:13 -0600

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#114763

On 1/23/2026 3:43 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
> 
>     [snip]
> 
>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
> 
>     [snip]
> 
>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
> 
> Indeed. I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a large 
> local electronics shop. The assistant asked for my price range, and when 
> I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65 kilo-euro. Talk 
> about "framing" a price discussion :-)
> 
> The shop had one of those items in a locked glass display case. 
> Reportedly each pair of headphones is hand-built. They come with a white 
> veined marble stand that is also an electronics box, with eight or ten 
> vacuum tubes mounted visibly on the top surface. The builder comes to 
> your home to personally install and tune the stuff for your environment. 
> The price, however, was only 62 999 euro; perhaps it was discounted as a 
> display item.
> 
> We settled on a cheaper model.
> 


The cheapest ones on Amazon, sold individually, were around $10, but 
mostly the variety that used to come with portable cassette and CD players.

It was possible to get these ones for cheaper per unit (say, ~ $2/ea), 
but it generally would involve buying a whole box of them (and I don't 
need a whole box of cheap/crappy headphones).

There is a lower limit for me though.


Where, options are, say:
   Portable music player headphones (cheap but suck);
   Some random Chinese brand (generally also suck);
   Logitech or similar (mostly doesn't suck);
   Sennheiser or similar (generally more expensive than Logitech);
   ...

Well, before getting into the realm of crazy expensive niche things.

...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114765

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>On 1/23/2026 3:43 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
>> 
>>     [snip]
>> 
>>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
>> 
>>     [snip]
>> 
>>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
>> 
>> Indeed. I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a large 
>> local electronics shop. The assistant asked for my price range, and when 
>> I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65 kilo-euro. Talk 
>> about "framing" a price discussion :-)
>> 
>> The shop had one of those items in a locked glass display case. 
>> Reportedly each pair of headphones is hand-built. They come with a white 
>> veined marble stand that is also an electronics box, with eight or ten 
>> vacuum tubes mounted visibly on the top surface. The builder comes to 
>> your home to personally install and tune the stuff for your environment. 
>> The price, however, was only 62 999 euro; perhaps it was discounted as a 
>> display item.
>> 
>> We settled on a cheaper model.
>> 
>
>
>The cheapest ones on Amazon, sold individually, were around $10, but 
>mostly the variety that used to come with portable cassette and CD players.

I've been using these when I mow and work in the shop:

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/home-improvement-us/worktunes/

They actually sound good, and filter out the environmental
noise well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114766

On 23/01/2026 10:43, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
> 
>     [snip]
> 
>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
> 
>     [snip]
> 
>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
> 
> Indeed. I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a large 
> local electronics shop. The assistant asked for my price range, and when 
> I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65 kilo-euro. Talk 
> about "framing" a price discussion :-)
> 
> The shop had one of those items in a locked glass display case. 
> Reportedly each pair of headphones is hand-built. They come with a white 
> veined marble stand that is also an electronics box, with eight or ten 
> vacuum tubes mounted visibly on the top surface. The builder comes to 
> your home to personally install and tune the stuff for your environment. 
> The price, however, was only 62 999 euro; perhaps it was discounted as a 
> display item.
> 

With that level of work involved in making (and installing) them, it is 
not surprising they cost such a lot.  There are many steps between the 
manufacturer and the customer, with distributors, sales offices and 
shops, and these all need to take their cut.  That cut needs to be high 
as the quantities sold are low - high end hi-fi equipment can be in 
stock in shops for months or more without being sold.  So a factor of 5 
or more between manufacturer price and customer price is not uncommon in 
this field.

You are not just buying good quality sound reproduction - you are buying 
prestige, and the "feel" of the product.  If you have the money, and you 
like this sort of thing, and you understand you are buying look and 
feel, not sound quality (they are presumably good quality, but not 
/that/ good), then that's fair enough.  It is no different from buying 
jewellery, or a fancy car.


But if someone is telling you that you need a valve amplifier for the 
sound quality, file that along with the "oxygen-free directional" 
speaker cables, gold-plated power leads and "audio quality" ethernet cables.

> We settled on a cheaper model.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114767

On 2026-01-23 18:37, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/01/2026 10:43, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
>>
>>     [snip]
>>
>>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
>>
>>     [snip]
>>
>>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
>>
>> Indeed. I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a large 
>> local electronics shop. The assistant asked for my price range, and 
>> when I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65 
>> kilo-euro. Talk about "framing" a price discussion :-)
>>
>> The shop had one of those items in a locked glass display case. 
>> Reportedly each pair of headphones is hand-built. They come with a 
>> white veined marble stand that is also an electronics box, with eight 
>> or ten vacuum tubes mounted visibly on the top surface. The builder 
>> comes to your home to personally install and tune the stuff for your 
>> environment. The price, however, was only 62 999 euro; perhaps it was 
>> discounted as a display item.
>>
> 
> With that level of work involved in making (and installing) them, it is 
> not surprising they cost such a lot.

Sure, plus the luxury factor (higher price => more luxurious). I was 
more surprised that this shop -- which is not an "exclusive" luxury 
store, although a very large one with a wide product range -- had such 
an item, and ...

> as the quantities sold are low

... the shop assistant admitted they had not sold a single one, so far. 
That may be because Russia's attack on Ukraine prevents rich Russians 
from visiting Helsinki, where the shop is.

Probably the shop only keeps this item on display to amaze the 
customers. They also keep an old Soviet MIG fighter jet on the roof of 
the building, and one can view it up close, even touch it. But no price 
is listed for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114769

On 23/01/2026 17:56, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2026-01-23 18:37, David Brown wrote:
>> On 23/01/2026 10:43, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
>>>
>>>     [snip]
>>>
>>>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
>>>
>>>     [snip]
>>>
>>>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
>>>
>>> Indeed. I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a 
>>> large local electronics shop. The assistant asked for my price range, 
>>> and when I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65 
>>> kilo-euro. Talk about "framing" a price discussion :-)
>>>
>>> The shop had one of those items in a locked glass display case. 
>>> Reportedly each pair of headphones is hand-built. They come with a 
>>> white veined marble stand that is also an electronics box, with eight 
>>> or ten vacuum tubes mounted visibly on the top surface. The builder 
>>> comes to your home to personally install and tune the stuff for your 
>>> environment. The price, however, was only 62 999 euro; perhaps it was 
>>> discounted as a display item.
>>>
>>
>> With that level of work involved in making (and installing) them, it 
>> is not surprising they cost such a lot.
> 
> Sure, plus the luxury factor (higher price => more luxurious). I was 
> more surprised that this shop -- which is not an "exclusive" luxury 
> store, although a very large one with a wide product range -- had such 
> an item, and ...
> 
>> as the quantities sold are low
> 
> ... the shop assistant admitted they had not sold a single one, so far. 
> That may be because Russia's attack on Ukraine prevents rich Russians 
> from visiting Helsinki, where the shop is.

Russian oligarchs, crime lords, and their relatives are the prime 
customers for that kind of thing.  They are also popular for bribes 
(though a bit bulkier than Rolex's).  Chinese nouveau rich are also 
candidate customers, but I don't suppose so many of them go shopping in 
Helsinki.

Of course, there is the odd honest rich person that buys them!

(For the real audio foolery stuff, like simple cables for $100K, I have 
heard that they are often used for money laundering in the drug trade. 
They cost practically nothing to make, but can be sold for vast amounts, 
so are used as a way to pass drug money across borders.)

> 
> Probably the shop only keeps this item on display to amaze the 
> customers. They also keep an old Soviet MIG fighter jet on the roof of 
> the building, and one can view it up close, even touch it. But no price 
> is listed for it.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114977

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:

> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
>
>    [snip]
>
>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
>
>    [snip]
>
>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
>
> Indeed.  I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a large
> local electronics shop.  The assistant asked for my price range, and
> when I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65
> kilo-euro.  Talk about "framing" a price discussion :-)

Back in the day, the day being roughly 1970s, there was
a commercial model of headphones that had electrostatic
drivers, and they sounded pretty darn good.  Made by Koss
IIRC.  Price was about $150 in 1970ish (again IIRC).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114981

On 2/14/2026 10:44 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On 2026-01-23 10:25, BGB wrote:
>>
>>     [snip]
>>
>>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
>>
>>     [snip]
>>
>>> Granted, more expensive headphones exist, but I am not made of money.
>>
>> Indeed.  I had occasion recently to inquire about headphones at a large
>> local electronics shop.  The assistant asked for my price range, and
>> when I hesitated, he mentioned that their range went up to 65
>> kilo-euro.  Talk about "framing" a price discussion :-)
> 
> Back in the day, the day being roughly 1970s, there was
> a commercial model of headphones that had electrostatic
> drivers, and they sounded pretty darn good.  Made by Koss
> IIRC.  Price was about $150 in 1970ish (again IIRC).


Maybe kinda ironic in a way that in modern times, people would obsess on 
features like it being wireless, having BlueTooth, noise cancellation, etc.

Whereas, if one just had some old analog headphones from the 70s and 
plugged them into a phono jack, chances are they would just work 
(assuming one still has phono jacks because they aren't using a computer 
from a company that has decided such things are obsolescent).


Recently my dad was complaining because he had gotten a newfangled 
modern PC from a store, which did the "glass front, no optical drive" 
thing; and then was faced with the supreme annoyance of the inability to 
put a DVD in his computer...


Meanwhile, my PC still have a DVD drive (and am annoyed by the trend of 
companies trying to take this stuff away).

Bonus points if to compensate for the PC lacking phono jacks one then 
ends up needing to use USB headphones, but then lacking USB-A one needs 
USB-A <-> USB-C adapters, because, say, while it isn't from Apple, their 
taint is spreading...

I don't have an internal 3.5" floppy drive anymore, but only an external 
USB one. But, alas, haven't used many floppies as of late, and they have 
become rare.


Well, also USB-C has replaced "connector only goes in one way" with 
"connector goes in both ways but device often only works correctly if 
plugged in one way...".

Or, say, "Riddle me this... If the connector goes in both ways, wouldn't 
it have made sense for it to also be fully electrically symmetric?..."



Well, could have been more "LOLZ":
   Design USB like a TRS (or TRRS) connector;
   Have the rings radially segmented;
   Connector only works if turned to the correct angle.

Then maybe later add a special notch to the top part of the connector to 
make it easier to align the connector during insertion.

Maybe make it mechanically compatible for electrically incompatible with 
a normal analog headphone connector or line in/out.

...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114768

On 1/23/26 2:25 AM, BGB wrote:
>On 1/22/2026 8:20 PM, David Schultz wrote: 
>> And what about the phase errors resulting from varying distances from 
>> different parts of the panel to your ears?
>>
> 
> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.

I fail to see what that has to do with those big electrostatics.



-- 
http://davesrocketworks.com
David Schultz
"Gag me with a Smurf"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114771

On 1/23/2026 11:07 AM, David Schultz wrote:
> On 1/23/26 2:25 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 1/22/2026 8:20 PM, David Schultz wrote:
>>> And what about the phase errors resulting from varying distances from 
>>> different parts of the panel to your ears?
>>>
>>
>> I am currently using some ~ $35 Logitech gaming headphones.
> 
> I fail to see what that has to do with those big electrostatics.
> 

Most people don't have these, and phase mostly doesn't matter for most 
speakers. Also electrostatic speakers are impractically expensive, etc.


On the more practical end of speaker technology, it is mostly "voice 
coil and magnet" speakers, vs piezoelectric speakers.

I would guess, probably many/most people use headphones, probably some 
people use earbuds, but the earbud experience kinda sucks IMO.



some people go for very large speakers, but the issue is that as speaker 
gets bigger, frequency range shifts lower. But, the people going for for 
giant speakers are also the ones going for using 00 gauge wire and 
similar for their speaker cables (and then people fighting over whether 
they can use copper-clad aluminum for speaker wires, and others claiming 
that the wires need to be pure copper because of supposed audio 
degradation from using aluminum wire, or arguing about the need for gold 
connectors, etc).


Well, or the more realistic option, of getting some PA Horn speakers...
Which appear to be cheaper than the giant cone speakers, and are 
generally well proven at being loud, etc.


But, I don't really get it personally...


Audio seems to reach peak quality at roughly 44100 16-bit or similar.
Is there a difference between 44100 and 48000? I don't notice.
Even the difference between 32000 and 44100 probably doesn't matter.

Contrast, 16000 and 22050 are "more economical" (mostly good enough for 
general use, less memory needed).

Though, makes sense to mix at 32000 or 44100 if there is the 
computational power to do so, as the difference between 16/22 and 
32/44.1 is still perceptible (if minor).


With 8000 and 11025 in the "sounds poor" territory (bad for primary use, 
still mostly OK for sound-effects or input audio; excluding speech, 
which ironically does benefit from being at least ~ 16000).


16-bit PCM works well as an audio storage format, but sometimes isn't 
great for mixing. Where, for mixing use, 16 or 32 bit floating-point 
seems to have some merit. In audio mixing, sometimes the audio can 
exceed the dynamic range of 16-bit PCM, and clamping can be detrimental 
(ideally clamping only being done for the final output).

Could use 16-bit PCM, but shift right for more usable dynamic range, but 
this ends up worse than using Binary16 or similar. Arguably, Binary32 is 
better, but seems kinda overkill for audio, and is bulky. Big issue is 
mostly if doing filtering tasks that require keeping a buffer of 
previous audio (such as for reverb or echoes, which may require 
potentially multiple seconds of audio buffers). But, on a normal PC, for 
practical reasons one may need to use Binary32 here, even if overkill, 
due to typical lack of native Binary16 (and Binary16->Binary32 
conversion adding an undesirable level of overhead to "very big FIR 
filter" use cases)

But, to make these more practical, can store these at a lower sample 
rate (people are not likely to notice as much of the reverb or echo math 
is using 8kHz or similar for the delayed parts of the audio, say with 
16k samples for a 2-second delay loop).

Or, say: primary mixing happening at 32 kHz, with 8 kHz for the reverb.


In some of my 3D engines, I try to dynamically calculate reverb based 
off of the world geometry. This somewhat helps IMO.


I rather personally dislike the use of "presets" (like EAX and openAL) 
because (at least to me), that the audio is essentially being bounced 
within various size of boxes centered around the listener's head, seems 
obvious.

Like, one has options:
   Traditional mixing:
     You are just in a big open space.
     Walls don't exist in terms of audio.
   Presets:
     Typically a big box, doesn't match with environment.

Better IMO (at least in a voxel engine) to check block types in an area 
around the player, and calculate the relative contribution from each 
point in the scene (and the approximate delay to apply). This then 
effectively generates a dynamically changing FIR filter that moves along 
with the player (in this case, it can overlap with the use of raycasts 
for visibility determination, where the "visible shell" found by the 
ray-casting can also be used for audio).

Isn't perfect though, IRL often to some extent sounds go through walls, 
but in a voxel engine can ignore this by the walls being 1 meter cubes 
of solid material, where the reflective sound contribution from the 
other side of a 1 meter wall is effectively null.


Downside is that this is computationally expensive, so there desire to 
try to limit the amount of math needed (such as by using lower sample 
rate, and sparser sampling with larger delays), but then the difficulty 
is doing this without it becoming obvious.


But, alas, seemingly no one notices or cares.
Like, if people did notice, maybe games would just stop doing their 
audio mixing like the player is floating in a big empty space (or, maybe 
get fancy and abruptly put the players' head in a 15-foot wooden box or 
similar).

Nevermind if the initial sound-mixing in my case doesn't account for 
walls. Otherwise one would need to do raycasts from the speaker to the 
listener, which would greatly increase computational costs (and it is a 
little cheese to do the audio-reflections as-if the sound was always 
coming from the listener). But, this sort of works in a similar kinda 
way to how "screen space reflections" work (not very accurate, but sorta 
good enough).

Can instead merely attenuate the audio sources, along with applying time 
delays due to distance and relative velocity (which most people also 
don't bother with for some reason). Well, and using things like 
floating-point math and cubic splines for the audio interpolation, etc.


But, at least to me, audio reflections and Doppler shifts seem a lot 
more "real" than a lot of the stuff that audiophiles go on about.

But, presumable most people don't notice, since most game style audio 
mixers don't bother, and presumably would bother if more people tended 
to notice, etc.


Well, but then again, I was doing a thing of storing input sound-effects 
at low sample rates mostly based on how obvious it was. Like, sometimes 
one needs 16 kHz, but much of the time one may find that 8 or 11 is 
sufficient.

Well, apart from mostly avoiding 8-bit linear PCM, which manages to 
sound poor regardless of sample rate (like, 44.1 8-bit PCM is just a 
waste, 44.1 failing to make 8-bit PCM sound good).

Typically, the sample rate used for mixing seems to matter more than 
that used for the sound effects though.


...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114764

MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes:
>
>David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> posted:
>
>> On 1/22/26 6:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>> > The timber of instruments requires phase accurate reproduction of
>> > frequencies up to at least 15KHz.
>> 
>> Define "phase accurate". As in how much phase error at say 20KHz is 
>> acceptable to you. 1 degree? 10?
>
>When instruments quit sounding like they sound in person.
> 
>> And how do you maintain that through the signal chain? In, for example, 
>> speaker crossover networks.
>
>I use a full range electrostatic speaker (Martin Logan CLS (Rev G))

I'm also a fan of electrostatics.   I use Magnepan MMGs with a
Klipsch 15" sub.


>Also note:: Room is 17 feet wide and 57 feet long, you can play as 
>low as about 1 Watt and hear everything while others are carrying
>on conversations.

My listening room is more squarish (36' wide by 30' long)
(LR/DR combo), with a vaulted ceiling over the LR.  Acoustically
not ideal, but the system (driven by a Yamaha A3070 receiver)
sounds quite fine regardless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114772

David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> writes:
> > I use a full range electrostatic speaker (Martin Logan CLS (Rev G))
> A rare and specialized speaker. What about the rest of us?

Through a unique set of circumstances, I ended up with a pair of their
electrostat towers (I'm remote, otherwise I'd mention the specific
model #).  To quote Ferris Bueller:

    It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend
    picking one up.

If they ever die beyond my ability to repair, I'll go back (with great
regret) to Speakers for Mortals.

Andy Valencia
Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114979

David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> writes:

> On 1/22/26 6:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> The timber of instruments requires phase accurate reproduction of
>> frequencies up to at least 15KHz.
>
> Define "phase accurate".  As in how much phase error at say 20KHz is
> acceptable to you.  1 degree? 10?

Between 2 and 10 degrees, based on a rough calculation.

> And how do you maintain that through the signal chain?  In, for
> example, speaker crossover networks.

One way of doing that is to drive full-range electrostats
directly from the output stage of the amplifier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114991

On 2/14/26 10:57 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> writes:
> 
>> On 1/22/26 6:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>
>>> The timber of instruments requires phase accurate reproduction of
>>> frequencies up to at least 15KHz.
>>
>> Define "phase accurate".  As in how much phase error at say 20KHz is
>> acceptable to you.  1 degree? 10?
> 
> Between 2 and 10 degrees, based on a rough calculation.
> 
>> And how do you maintain that through the signal chain?  In, for
>> example, speaker crossover networks.
> 
> One way of doing that is to drive full-range electrostats
> directly from the output stage of the amplifier.

A big panel launching a wave front at you. All with varying 
distances/phase to your ear.

I love my Maggies but if I move my head even a few inches up or down the 
high frequencies roll off enough for even my old lead ears to notice.

-- 
http://davesrocketworks.com
David Schultz
"Gag me with a Smurf"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#115412

David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> writes:

> On 2/14/26 10:57 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/22/26 6:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>
>>>> The timber of instruments requires phase accurate reproduction of
>>>> frequencies up to at least 15KHz.
>>>
>>> Define "phase accurate".  As in how much phase error at say 20KHz is
>>> acceptable to you.  1 degree? 10?
>>
>> Between 2 and 10 degrees, based on a rough calculation.
>>
>>> And how do you maintain that through the signal chain?  In, for
>>> example, speaker crossover networks.
>>
>> One way of doing that is to drive full-range electrostats
>> directly from the output stage of the amplifier.
>
> A big panel launching a wave front at you.  All with varying
> distances/phase to your ear.

One of the main points of using a panel speaker is they produce a
plane wave rather than a collection of point sources.  Undoubtedly
there are some second-order effects because the panels have finite
size but for the most part the phase is uniform over a fairly large
area.

> I love my Maggies but if I move my head even a few inches up or down
> the high frequencies roll off enough for even my old lead ears to
> notice.

Magnepans and Magneplanars are okay.  I didn't ever own Magnepans
but I did own Magneplanars for a while and liked them.  They weren't
as good as the electrostats.  I suspect the main reason for that is
the much larger diaphragm mass of the Magneplanars, which causes its
own kind of problems, including in particular frequency-dependent
phase lag.  I can say for sure that the electrostats were more
transparent than the Magneplanars, even as good as they Magneplanars
were.

Regarding the high-frequency roll off - it's likey this does occur
(high frequencies do beam after all) but in my experience it doesn't
affect the listening experience much.  Maybe that's because when I
listen I tend to be stationary rather than moving.  Also the ear is
more sensitive to changes in phase than changes in amplitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114757

On 1/22/2026 4:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> 
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> posted:
> 
>> On 1/22/2026 5:31 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 05:28:16 -0500
>>>> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just randomly thinking again about some things I noticed with audio
>>>>> at low sample rates.
>>>>>
>>>>> For baseline, can note, basic sample rates:
>>>>>      44100:  Standard, sounds good, but bulky
>>>>>      32000:  Sounds good
>>>>>      22050:  Moderate
>>>>>      16000:  OK, Modest size, acceptable quality.
>>>>>        Seems like best tradeoff if not going for high quality.
>>>>>      11025:  Poor, muffled.
>>>>>       8000:  Very poor, speech almost unintelligible (normally).
>>>>>         But, it is seeming like a "weird hack" may exist here.
>>>>
>>>> 8000 x 8bit (mu-law in USA, A-law in majority of the world) was a
>>>> standard sampling rate for digital back ends of analog wired telephony
>>>> for more than 50 years.  I didn't check, but would assume that it still
>>>> is.
>>>> Most people founded it quite intelligible.
>>>
>>> Yes but bit rate isn't the whole story.  First the measure is not
>>> "good sound" but only "understandable sound".  Second telephony
>>> does frequency filtering in a very different way than digital
>>> audio does.  Voices on phones are recognizable but still easily
>>> differentiable from the original.  Music played via phone-quality
>>> audio sounds terrible.
>>>
>>
>> In general, A-Law generates better sounding audio.
>>
>> But, at low sample rates (eg, 8 kHz), I had noted that ADPCM gives more
>> intelligible speech than A-Law, even if the A-Law "sounds nicer".
> 
> I am not listening for the sound to be good or bad, I am listening
> whether {the violin sounds like a violin, the trumpet sounds like a
> trumpet, and the drums sound like drums} when listening to them live!
> 
> That is what was the hallmark of "Hi Fi" when I started (1965-ish.)
> -----------------------
>>
>> In my past testing, seems like 2kHz to 4kHz is the most important band
>> for speech intelligibility (at least for me). It is improved with the
>> 4kHz to 8kHz band, but it seems like this is less important.
> 
> The timber of instruments requires phase accurate reproduction of
> frequencies up to at least 15KHz.
> 

Well now...

https://youtu.be/Ze4soU1nK1w?list=RDn13GHyYEfLA

Or a wonderful game song, live:

(love this one! wow.
Aquatic Ambiance - Big Band Jazz Piano ft. Smart Game Piano (The 8-Bit 
Big Band)

https://youtu.be/5znrVdAtEDI?list=RD5znrVdAtEDI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114762

On 1/22/2026 7:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 1/22/2026 4:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>
>> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> posted:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2026 5:31 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 05:28:16 -0500
>>>>> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just randomly thinking again about some things I noticed with audio
>>>>>> at low sample rates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For baseline, can note, basic sample rates:
>>>>>>      44100:  Standard, sounds good, but bulky
>>>>>>      32000:  Sounds good
>>>>>>      22050:  Moderate
>>>>>>      16000:  OK, Modest size, acceptable quality.
>>>>>>        Seems like best tradeoff if not going for high quality.
>>>>>>      11025:  Poor, muffled.
>>>>>>       8000:  Very poor, speech almost unintelligible (normally).
>>>>>>         But, it is seeming like a "weird hack" may exist here.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8000 x 8bit (mu-law in USA, A-law in majority of the world) was a
>>>>> standard sampling rate for digital back ends of analog wired telephony
>>>>> for more than 50 years.  I didn't check, but would assume that it 
>>>>> still
>>>>> is.
>>>>> Most people founded it quite intelligible.
>>>>
>>>> Yes but bit rate isn't the whole story.  First the measure is not
>>>> "good sound" but only "understandable sound".  Second telephony
>>>> does frequency filtering in a very different way than digital
>>>> audio does.  Voices on phones are recognizable but still easily
>>>> differentiable from the original.  Music played via phone-quality
>>>> audio sounds terrible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In general, A-Law generates better sounding audio.
>>>
>>> But, at low sample rates (eg, 8 kHz), I had noted that ADPCM gives more
>>> intelligible speech than A-Law, even if the A-Law "sounds nicer".
>>
>> I am not listening for the sound to be good or bad, I am listening
>> whether {the violin sounds like a violin, the trumpet sounds like a
>> trumpet, and the drums sound like drums} when listening to them live!
>>
>> That is what was the hallmark of "Hi Fi" when I started (1965-ish.)
>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> In my past testing, seems like 2kHz to 4kHz is the most important band
>>> for speech intelligibility (at least for me). It is improved with the
>>> 4kHz to 8kHz band, but it seems like this is less important.
>>
>> The timber of instruments requires phase accurate reproduction of
>> frequencies up to at least 15KHz.
>>
> 
> Well now...
> 
> https://youtu.be/Ze4soU1nK1w?list=RDn13GHyYEfLA
> 

Been a while since people have referenced Undertale much...


Though, ironically, had noted that the Undertale/Deltarune art style 
does seem to align with how my dream world looks, which seems curious 
(as from descriptions, apparently most people dream in a more 
natural-looking full color thing, not so much high-contrast 
mostly-monochrome, or with some 16-color like stuff going on).

Like, can't really explain it, it is like my brain is too cheap to 
afford color depth (or even analog grayscale). Yet, my normal vision has 
full colors and gradients (it is like, when "importing" images, my mind 
simplifies them, maps out the edges, and then blows out the contrast).



> Or a wonderful game song, live:
> 
> (love this one! wow.
> Aquatic Ambiance - Big Band Jazz Piano ft. Smart Game Piano (The 8-Bit 
> Big Band)
> 
> https://youtu.be/5znrVdAtEDI?list=RD5znrVdAtEDI

I kinda liked some of the 90s Sonic games music.
It was MIDI/FM based, but mostly well done.

Actually, 90s was notable, as many games did "actually good" music.
MIDI and Tracker music often having a special quality here, more so if 
the song is good.

Vs, say the 2000s, where seemingly much of the industry was like "hey, 
why don't we use a bunch of crappy garage band music!" and, mostly just 
kept doing so.

Then, people mostly remember the game songs where someone does something 
nice sounding with MIDI or trackers or similar. Not so much the ones 
where someone is yelling in the microphone and doing blaring guitar sounds.

...




Well, not much notable recently...
   A while ago, added SCAD model support to BGBCC;
   Then implemented SIMD stuff for RV and XG3;
   Then tweaked the ABI rules;
   Then went and implemented some backprop neural net stuff;
   Then partially reversed a few changes to default ABI for XG3:
     Going back to using the 8-argument-register ABI as default (*1);
   Then, debugging the SCAD stuff I had added to BGBCC.

*1: Where, say, 16 arguments in registers:
Slightly net-negative for performance in RV64G;
Helped for XG3 performance, but mismatched ABI leads to issues;
Temporarily went with 8 args for RV64 but 16 args for XG3;
But, then ran into some mismatch annoyances;
Ultimately, made more sense to stick with the 8-argument ABI as the 
default for both RV and XG3 targets.

Did stay with having moved F4..F7 over to being callee-save, as this did 
help in both cases.


After I started trying to make more use of BGBCC as a tool for 
converting SCAD models, I have started ending up needing to debug it; as 
as-is it is still pretty incomplete and buggy (doesn't take much to 
stumble on bugs here).

Mostly, in this case, was fiddling some with stuff in my BT3 engine, 
where BGBCC's core has ended up being used as the asset converter and 
packaging tool.

Like, well:
   Compiles C code;
   Converts files for the resource section;
   Can pack WAD2 and WAD4 files;
   Can convert images;
   Can convert sound effects;
   Can turn SCAD scripts into BMD models and similar.

Then again, the PEL resource section is essentially WAD based, and a lot 
of the file-conversion stuff can be used in either case (except maybe 
that SCAD is a bit much... but ironically, could leverage some other 
parts of the C compiler).

Had I wanted to do a SCAD interpreter otherwise, would likely have 
needed to leverage the core of a JS interpreter or similar, but maybe 
might have made more sense than making use of a hacky interpreter that 
was built on top of the "expression reducer" (which in turn exists as 
part of BGBCC's front-end optimizer steps).

It is in some ways, a very stupid way to do an interpreter (as it 
effectively evaluates things via expression rewriting), but, yeah... 
Generally, SCAD scripts are not exactly bound by the evaluation parts, 
more by the CSG parts. But, it is somewhat higher level than, say, the 
Quake "Brush Model" system, which exists as an intermediate step.

So, say:
Parse SCAD script, as a vaguely JS like syntax;
Evaluate script, in this case results in a tree of primitives replacing 
the original AST;
Convert this tree into brush models and unions and similar;
Build and clip the polygons;
Convert to a 3D model in the desired format;
Add to target packaging.

So, in some sense, it works, even if, essentially, using a C compiler to 
convert SCAD scripts into 3D models and package assets seems kinda stupid.


But, the BT3 engine and TestKern are ending up using some similar tech:
   WAD2 and WAD4: Yep;
   BMP: Yes, for some things.
     BT3 uses 16 color and 256 color BMP images for some uses.
   WAV (ADPCM): Yep.
     Don't have much "obviously better" than ADPCM for my uses (*1).
   XML: Yeah, both BGBCC and BT3 have ended up using XML.
   UPIC: Yeah.
     Ended up going with UPIC with a transode to DXTn path.
     Originally, BT3 was using DDS, but DDS has drawbacks.
       UPIC has some advantages over both JPEG and PNG here (*2).


*1: For the weaknesses of ADPCM, there is pretty much nothing that 
competes well against it in my uses. Basically: Something that is cheap 
and simple to decode and can do "doesn't sound like crap" audio in the 
16-32 kbps range (8000/11025/16000 2-bit mono, and 8000 4-bit mono).

4000-6000 2-bit mono is possible, but pushing the sample rate below 8000 
usually does not result in passable audio quality. For the BT2 engine, 
had used some 5512 Hz ADPCM for BGM (with some filtering trickery), but 
for the BT3 engine am mostly using S3M for music.

Though, S3M can itself risk bulk it the patches are too large. If I were 
designing the format, would likely go with MIDI format but with patches 
stored in ADPCM. But, tracker software doesn't really support this and 
this decays back to wavetable based General MIDI, and the lack of a 
good/free option for a GM wavetable. Did previously hack something 
together using scavenged audio, but my improvised wavetable failed to 
sound better than using FM synthesis (and scavenging the MIDI FM 
parameters from the "GENMIDI.DAT" lump from FreeDoom).

But, alas, harder to make a good sounding General MIDI wavetable when 
some amount of the patches were themselves derived from edited FreeDoom 
sound-effects and similar (it being otherwise difficult to do provenance 
for the copyright status of sound-effects). But, at a certain level of 
crappy, pretty much anything can be made to sound like a musical 
instrument (even with the crappiness of "listen to instrument sound, 
look for a sound effect that contains something 'kinda similar' that can 
be edited out"; then just sorta shoved into a WAD as a bunch of blobs of 
8kHz APCM).

But, otherwise, for the BT3 engine ended up going with S3M and my 
lackluster musical skills. As, while many (and much better) MOD and S3M 
music exists, options that work well as BGM and also are royalty free, 
is harder. Well, and some amount of what I had made, is either 
repetitive patterns, or using a similar strategy to that previously 
described by Cryiak and Vihart, namely doing the melody by picking a 
popular numeric sequence and laying out the digits as notes (for however 
many notes one needs for that part of the pattern); often results in 
something "slightly creepy".

But, would make no pretense of being a musician here.



*2: UPIC:
   Structurally similar to T.81 JPEG, but:
     Uses a TLV packaging scheme;
     Uses STF+AdRice rather than Huffman,
       with an LSB first bitstream
       Z3V5 with a Deflate-like VLC coding.
     Uses Block-Haar and RCT rather than DCT and YCbCr.
       Both computationally cheaper and reversible.
       Also has blocky CDF-5/3 and YCoCg and similar as options.
     Natively supports an alpha channel.
   Lossy compression seems competitive with T.81 JPEG;
     For many images, compresses better than PNG and is faster to decode;
     Supports lossless image storage.

UPIC is a nonstandard format, but this is less of an issue when used for 
textures.

It ended up winning out vs BMP+BT5B: BT5B is inherently lossy, and while 
it can support smaller images than DDS, for functional reasons it fails 
to achieve better Q/bpp than using DDS (and, "like DDS, but more 
complicated to load" isn't super compelling). BMP+CRAM8 could also serve 
a similar role (can be smaller than DDS, but looks worse).

While not the fastest option, UPIC ended up "less bad" in other areas, 
and texture loading mostly isn't CPU bound. Bolting a DXTn decoder 
directly onto the block decoder is a trick I had used with JPEG decoding.

...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch

csiph-web