From: cr88192@gmail.com
On 1/22/2026 7:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 1/22/2026 4:13 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>
>> BGB posted:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2026 5:31 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> Michael S writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 05:28:16 -0500
>>>>> BGB 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;
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
