@PolarBear said:
[...] in Germany, Ilmenau, at the Fraunhofer Institut [...]
PolarBear
... now guess where I go to in December (not for the first time, BTW) [;)]
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
-
@Dietz said:
Now I understand. For what we are after, it's the result that counts, so every way to make the way to this result faster and easier is a valid one. You know - if it sounds right, it is right [[;)]]
Is the result actually any different? I never heard a comparison of the varying convolution techniques. There should be a difference, right?
-
I'm trying to understand what you mean by frequency convolution. Do you mean constructing filters by using a static "picture?" Time-compressing sweeps?
What I don't understand is how you get the decay time of whatever you're sampling that way - assuming I'm on the right track.
(Before a little over a year ago I didn't understand pure time convolution either, so please be patient. [:)] )
-
-
Iunderstood it was that CPUs are just not efficient enough yet.
I assume the recent Core 2 Duos are not up to it as they've been out for a while. Perhaps the "Core 2 Extreme Quad" processors will be enough. They're due out in November and are supposedly 70% faster than the Core 2 Duos.
And by the end of the decade processors with 80 cores and teraflop performance on a single PC and essentially unlimited RAM.
We must be patient - and I suspect it's more frustrating for Dietz than anyone else.