Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:06:00 +0000, John Dallman wrote:
 

In article <vcgpqt$gndp$1@dont-email.me>, david.brown@hesbynett.no
(David
Brown) wrote:
>

Even a complete amateur can notice time mismatches of 10 ms in a
musical context, so for a professional this does not surprise me.
I don't know of any human endeavour that requires lower latency or
more precise timing than music.

>
A friend used to work on set-top boxes, with fairly slow hardware. They
had demonstrations of two different ways of handling inability to keep
up
with the data stream:
>
- Keeping the picture on schedule, and dropping a few milliseconds
  of sound.
- Dropping a frame of the picture, and keeping the sound on-track.
>
Potential customers always thought they wanted the first approach, until
they watched the demos. Human vision fakes a lot of what we "see" at the
best of times, bit hearing is more sensitive to glitches.

 Having the ears being able to hear millisecond differences in sound
arrival times is key to our ability to hunt and evade predator's.

Not only that, but the slight non-sylindrical shape of the ear opening 6 canal cause _really_ minute phase shifts, but they are what makes it possible for us to differentiate between a sound coming from directly behind vs directly ahead.

 While our eyes have a time constant closer to 0.1 seconds.
 That is, I blame natural selection on the above.

Supposedly, we devote more of our bran to hearing than to vision?
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"