ten fingers ten toes Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Check it out. Guy has his Geforce 7200 AGP computing a 1 second delay line in a VST. Uses almost no CPU juice doing it either (since the delay is running off of the graphics card). Incredibly cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 about damn time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosmachine Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 ps, the sorts of effects that are possible to do with this very easily that would be a pain in the ass on a cpu are great. If I understand correctly that he's basically feeding audio in as textures for a pixel shader to fuxor with, then the amount of stuff you can do with texture manipulation stuff would be insane. Something as simple as realtime pitch-shifting with interpolation literally requires 1 line of HLSL code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Elemeno von Hat X: PhD Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 yeah, definitely about damn time. graphics cards essentially have a huge-ass bank of matrix multipliers and such. not for every audio effect, but it'd help a damn lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ten fingers ten toes Posted December 17, 2006 Author Share Posted December 17, 2006 1 possible problem is that graphics cards manufacturers have had little incentive to follow IEEE standards for floating point accuracy in those matrix multipliers. close enough really is close enough for shading and lighting, etc. Still, works great so far! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 1 possible problem is that graphics cards manufacturers have had little incentive to follow IEEE standards for floating point accuracy in those matrix multipliers. close enough really is close enough for shading and lighting, etc. Still, works great so far! and is close enough for dsp also. part of the appeal of old analogue synths is that they were 'close enough' but not perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ten fingers ten toes Posted December 17, 2006 Author Share Posted December 17, 2006 Erm, well, the 'floating point' on Analog equipment is pretty accurate seeing as how its the variations in voltage that are tracked. The floating point calcs used in these algorhithms are trying to express what happens when voltage does its thing, and thus, the more accurate the better. Inaccuracies would only exagerate the digital effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 sounds like a bit of a HARD DENORMAL DADDY omg if so, sweeeeeet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Erm, well, the 'floating point' on Analog equipment is pretty accurate seeing as how its the variations in voltage that are tracked. The floating point calcs used in these algorhithms are trying to express what happens when voltage does its thing, and thus, the more accurate the better. Inaccuracies would only exagerate the digital effect. I wasn't saying that it would sound Analog. I'm saying that the fuckups with analog stuff caused analog to have a distinct unique sound that people work so hard to get. Digital sounds good to me, because in 30 years people will be nostalgic for old shit FL studio synths running off of inaccurate GPUs instead of TB303s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Elemeno von Hat X: PhD Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 it'd probably just sound like a shitty bitcrusher effect. nothing to write home about. there's probably some sort of maths/coding voodoo magick that allows you to get the accuracy you want by using two ops instead of one or something. someone'll figure it out eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 it'd probably just sound like a shitty bitcrusher effect. nothing to write home about. maybe. there's probably some sort of maths/coding voodoo magick that allows you to get the accuracy you want by using two ops instead of one or something. someone'll figure it out eventually. IIRC DirectX Shader Model 4.0 cards don't have this issue. The only SM4 card out right now is the Geforce 8000 series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alzado Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 what the hell are you nerds talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 what the hell are you nerds talking about? QQQ MOTHAFUCKA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest we_kill_soapscum Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 lol one of the best reverbs ive ever used was the EAX or whatever reverb from my soundblaster live platinum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celatid Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 ye, moneyshit is overrrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.