Jump to content
STC

CPU Load and Sound Quality

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, esldude said:

John, you need to copyleft it.  So no one makes money, but they can all contribute to improvements.

That's not how it works. A lot of people, myself included, make money from GPL code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mansr said:

That's not how it works. A lot of people, myself included, make money from GPL code.

 

I would suppose that having worked with FreeBSD and having more than passing familiarity with Linux, John knows more about licensing than he really wants to at this point. But you were replying to Dennis, not John. I'm guessing Dennis is also familiar with the topic, but was speaking only of John's technique specifically rather than GPL generally. Perhaps a better way for Dennis to have stated it is that copyleft would impede anyone else from making the technique proprietary.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> eero Pro router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I would suppose that having worked with FreeBSD and having more than passing familiarity with Linux, John knows more about licensing than he really wants to at this point. But you were replying to Dennis, not John. I'm guessing Dennis is also familiar with the topic, but was speaking only of John's technique specifically rather than GPL generally. Perhaps a better way for Dennis to have stated it is that copyleft would impede anyone else from making the technique proprietary.

GPL is a license that would apply to documents or software.  I am not sure how one could GPL the idea of using multiple servers -- more like patent material.   One can GPL a document describing the combination, but not being a lawyer -- I don't know if directly GPLing the technique makes sense...  Now, if the design is patented, then documents further describing the design could be GPLed?

 

REALLY -- I don't know.  If someone can describe how/what to do - I'd suspect that other people, even off topic, might be curious. 


Nowadays, I tend to avoid things that I don't know much about, it makes me less nervous to keep focused on what I know :-).

 

I just program (in C++ and Unix Shell ONLY) nowadays, and sometimes help EE friends when they need ideas, but nowadays I feel it safest to talk only about things that I know something about :-).

 

(PS: getting political, no one choice of license is always best, but GPL might be very useful for an individual to maintain control of their own work, esp if they will always be in sole control...  Otherwise, I go proprietary or 'really free' what I present to the public.  Most of the time, I don't care if someone takes advantage of some insignifcant effort of mine -- so free is okay.  The problem with GPL is that the greatest minds will tend to avoid making huge investments in the effort, but instead will tend to dabble.  Sometimes, stuff like Clang, which tends more towards the common concept of free,  gets support because those who add technology can embargo it until they realize that support issues will eventually force them to contribute to the free side of the effort -- e.g. Apple.)   Of course, then there is the idealism thing about GPL which also justifies using it on large projects.  But for the small project, GPL is good protection.

 

Example of proprietary is the DHNRDS, and an example of 'free' is that really simple, incomplete compressor that I recently gave away.  If I was going to really fill-out the compressor, making it product quality, accept changes, but wish to maintain control -- then GPL is a nice compromise.   There is TOO MUCH hyper valuable intellectual property in DHNRDS for it to be 'free' or 'GPL'.  It isn't just yet another expander program, and even how it does gain control is patentable.   If I decide to fully publish the techniques, place them in the public domain, therefore converting the proprietary sections into a  kind of prior art - then I would more than likely GPL DHNRDS someday.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

GPL is a license that would apply to documents or software.  I am not sure how one could GPL the idea of using multiple servers -- more like patent material.   One can GPL a document describing the combination, but not being a lawyer -- I don't know if directly GPLing the technique makes sense...  Now, if the design is patented, then documents further describing the design could be GPLed?

 

Pretty wide spread (corporate) interpretation seems to be that GPL grants implicit free license to any patents covered by the code.

 

8 hours ago, mansr said:

A lot of people, myself included, make money from GPL code.

 

Yeah, I made my living for about 14 years by working on GPL and other open source code. Mostly because it was hardware that was the revenue source. For that reason, I like to experiment with the inverse too, commercial software but free open source hardware designs. :)

 

Would be great to see as much hardware under CERN OHL as there is software under GPL.

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Miska said:

Pretty wide spread (corporate) interpretation seems to be that GPL grants implicit free license to any patents covered by the code.

GPL3 does have some such provisions. Still, any code could be (and probably is) covered by some patent the author has never heard of.

 

Quote

Would be great to see as much hardware under CERN OHL as there is software under GPL.

The thing about hardware is that any nontrivial design is also nontrivial to assemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mansr said:

GPL3 does have some such provisions. Still, any code could be (and probably is) covered by some patent the author has never heard of.

 

GPLv3 has some statements about it, but it seems to be quite widespread understanding that the wording in GPLv2 also implies the same.

 

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

The thing about hardware is that any nontrivial design is also nontrivial to assemble.

 

It is no different from software. One can of course also sell software and give hardware for free on the side along with the designs. For example for the Windows code signing key I'm paying for the key, but not for the required hardware token to store the key. Same for the RSA SecurID style access token for bank account.

 

There are already some open hardware designs that come with full schematics, plus design and Gerber files the boards. But it really needs to be taken to cover the chips, like CPU designs and such. It also allows better security reviews and bug fixes and more dynamics on the hardware production, plus lower prices. ;)

 

So just turn the model around, sell software and services and give hardware for free.

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Miska said:

It is no different from software.

Software requires only a compiler that you can download for free. An advanced PCB is impossible to assemble without some rather expensive equipment. Many parts are also difficult or expensive to buy in small quantities (< 1000).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mansr said:

An advanced PCB is impossible to assemble without some rather expensive equipment. Many parts are also difficult or expensive to buy in small quantities (< 1000).


But the *design* (analogous in some ways to the source code) can be made available for free.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> eero Pro router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jud said:

But the *design* (analogous in some ways to the source code) can be made available for free.

Of course it can, but it will be useless to most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, marce said:

 

 

Personally rather than using the magic dark bits to enhance my images, I try and use the best lenses and techniques, but as with music, its the image that's important, not how sharp it is, some images look better less sharp...

Sorry for the interlude, Back to the dark bits...

 

Luckily, it doesn't work that way with music - recordings, that is. The best sharpness you can devise or engineer is your friend - but the sharpness has to be the genuine thing; in photography nomenclature, typical so-called "high resolution" audio rigs are stinking with 'lens' aberrations - and they indeed make a mess of what one 'sees' ...

 

 


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Luckily, it doesn't work that way with music - recordings, that is. The best sharpness you can devise or engineer is your friend - but the sharpness has to be the genuine thing; in photography nomenclature, typical so-called "high resolution" audio rigs are stinking with 'lens' aberrations - and they indeed make a mess of what one 'sees' ...

 

It works the same for audio or photography, you can reduce resolution and sell the result cheaper. But it is somewhat different thing for content in a way that content has been already largely released from chains of physical media. You are not paying premium for silver or gold CD discs anymore, you just buy the content (analogous to software), without any hardware involved. DVD vs Bluray as physical media is also going away and instead you just pay for different software features (video resolution).

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Same goes for cars, there are many cars that have physically same engine, but only different ECU parameters to give different amounts of engine power. There is a hefty price difference between each power version, although the actual car is mechanically identical, only a configuration parameter to the onboard computer makes the difference.

 

 

Or mainframe computers, 😃. When I started my working life with with a significant company of the time, it was a "never tell the customer!" that the main product was engineered to operate at high speed, but then slugged to provide the lower cost option - if that customer was willing to cough up some big ones, a team was sent in "to upgrade" - which involved moving a single jumper wire, 😜. Plenty of time to then wander down to the pub, etc ...


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It works the same for audio or photography, you can reduce resolution and sell the result cheaper. But it is somewhat different thing for content in a way that content has been already largely released from chains of physical media. You are not paying premium for silver or gold CD discs anymore, you just buy the content (analogous to software), without any hardware involved. DVD vs Bluray as physical media is also going away and instead you just pay for different software features (video resolution).

 

 

The content is always "high resolution", innately - adding the phrases SACD, or 24/384 does close to zero to actually improving anything, as far as stored content is concerned. The useful, and heard resolution is reduced, often dramatically, in the bowels of the playback chain - unfortunately, paying lots of moolah often gains you very little, overall - it's swings and roundabouts time.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

The content is always "high resolution", innately - adding the phrases SACD, or 24/384 does close to zero to actually improving anything

 

There are good and there are bad hires files. Nowadays majority are good and they actually improve the output result.

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Miska said:

 

There are good and there are bad hires files. Nowadays majority are good and they actually improve the output result.

 

 

I agree.

 

The days of places like HDTracks selling upsampled files on a regular basis are long gone.


Girl, you want it, you take it, you pay the price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Luckily, it doesn't work that way with music - recordings, that is. The best sharpness you can devise or engineer is your friend - but the sharpness has to be the genuine thing; in photography nomenclature, typical so-called "high resolution" audio rigs are stinking with 'lens' aberrations - and they indeed make a mess of what one 'sees' ...

 

 

Many recordings are 'defocused' or 'aritificially sharpened' also (depending.)

Making a picture too bright or too much contrast doesn't make it prettier. Some of the best pictures have all of the detail intact -- too bad we get overly sharpened high-res pictures rather than a raw, clean copy of the picture that was taken.

 

I could tell really cool stories about photography (like usual, I forget big chunks of history, then remember them spontaneously.)  Something your wrote reminded me of working in the group that did the original photographic/mechanical cruise missile guindance system.  When we/they did the first cruise missile, electronics technology couldn't hack the job.

 

On PM,  if interested, I can explain how the original cruise missile guidance worked -- no longer classified.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Dyson said:

Many recordings are 'defocused' or 'aritificially sharpened' also (depending.)

Making a picture too bright or too much contrast doesn't make it prettier. Some of the best pictures have all of the detail intact -- too bad we get overly sharpened high-res pictures rather than a raw, clean copy of the picture that was taken.

 

I could tell really cool stories about photography (like usual, I forget big chunks of history, then remember them spontaneously.)  Something your wrote reminded me of working in the group that did the original photographic/mechanical cruise missile guindance system.  When we/they did the first cruise missile, electronics technology couldn't hack the job.

 

On PM,  if interested, I can explain how the original cruise missile guidance worked -- no longer classified.

 

John

 

 

Interesting, a friend helped put the first radar guidance system in cruise missiles when they went to that.

 

A neighbor is one of six living Americans who did engineering for nuclear tests. He says the greatest challenge was getting the data up the wires before they vaporized.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> eero Pro router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Interesting, a friend helped put the first radar guidance system in cruise missiles when they went to that.

 

A neighbor is one of six living Americans who did engineering for nuclear tests. He says the greatest challenge was getting the data up the wires before they vaporized.

The cruise guidance was multi-faceted.  The one that I worked on/with was Tomahawk -- the scene matching was done by my boss (Jon Carr) and a few of my co-workers  (James Sobek was one) just about a yr or so before I started.  The photographic technique was ingenius.  It should be searchable under 'SMAC' or 'DSMAC'.  I worked on (designed) the very first attempt at digital scene matching -- to no avail, not enough CPU in 1975 or so.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...