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 [[;)]]
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
-
Hmmm, I only recently read some interesting things about this topic on another topic. Confusing? Not so: wave field synthesis uses convolution to simulate real spaces through arrays of speakers surrounding the listener. There are installments for research in a small cinema in Germany, Ilmenau, at the Fraunhofer Institut, as well as it was already used at the Bregenzer Seebühne. Still a work in progress as I see so far, but it's said it's only possible to do nowadays since its discovery, because - and that's the interesting part - the computing power is availible today... from 44 up to 192 speakers have to be fed with signals and every "source" in the soudn image needs one convolution. They say, they only use the recorded impulse for a certain, more or less short, time and simulate the rest of the impulse with a conventional reverb, in order not to save some substantial computing power.
I'm sure you already know about these technologies, but maybe the principles of these could also be applied to your technology here? I don't know...
All the best,
PolarBear
-
@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.