Message Board

enginerd wrote:Hey Leigh, speaking of being a sore loser, what is your perfect operating system? Which DAW do you currently own?

Uh, yeah... check your PM and then get back to me.

Seems to me though that the whole point of the OP posting this thread was that DSP clocking errors do not exist. Yet they do, especially in a computer that has not been optimized for audio processing. Please explain. Did you see my reponse to you, near the bottom of the previous page of this thread...

I don't know what articles are on file at AES, I'm not a member. But errors in the math being performed in any computer can exist and can create undesirable artifacts in audio [or] video. This is a known factor and always has been. ...This stuff isn't made up, it's real. The OP's opening statement ...

When summing ITB you're putting a heavier load on the computers internal DSP clock A clock does not get "loaded" down, based on how many calculations the processor it is clocking is performing. That's just not how computers work. when you consider processing x-number of instances of plug-ins on you...

If you go OTB you're not doing DSP (processing) just converting. So, you'd avoid DSP errors in favor of getting converter clock errors. Even if summing OTB, 99.9% (just a rough guess) of users are still using DSP. Any type of change to the input signal once it's in the computer requires DSP. This i...

vvv wrote:Could the ad hominem attacks be sui generis?

(This befuddled mind wants to know!)

Ha! Perhaps...

enginerd wrote:So nice witch hunt here...

Hey there first-time caller. No need for ad hominem attacks. Just explain this very simple statement, and you and/or BLA win this particular debate:

"DSP is prone to clock-based errors"

It raises the question of whether their other claims are false. Yep. This has turned me off from considering their gear. plenty of great converters out there. I will say, the dude (well, person - he/she still hasn't signed an actual name to any of their emails) at BLA does seem to have done a lot o...

Why can't you let it go? This thread exists for googlers curious to dig deeper into their claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, but wondering why you're compelled to "solve" this somehow. See above - having been irritated by the smokescreen, I find it hard to put the issue down. And I feel like othe...

Hey after we're done with BLA can we head over and bash on FMR for a while... Whatever size company I'm dealing with, I find it profoundly irritating when someone tries to smokescreen me with a bunch of irrelevant jargon. Or, rather than directly addressing a question, brings up a bunch of tangenti...

The latest email from BLA said that they are aware of this thread, and that they are "not interested in continuing the discussion".

Not a satisfactory conclusion. I am thinking of how to proceed.

Leigh

Edit: I really wish BLA had said "Oh yeah, you're right, we better fix that" when first contacted. This is sortof a weird, lengthy discussion in response to what, ultimately, is mainly a slight wording mishap on a web page. Yeah, me too. I've given BLA a heads-up on this thread now, so maybe they w...

Digital logic is digital logic. Plugin programmers don't worry about "eye pattern errors" because such issues have been dealt with already by the chip designers. DSP and other logic chips can (and are) tested to make sure that they do exactly what they're designed to do. I'm inclined to agree with ...

Wouldn't it be easier (and more open) to provide BLA with a link to this thread so that they can respond directly to the various concerns being expressed here? Yeah, good call. When I started this thread, I thought BLA would jump in to the conversation sooner or later. But, since they haven't, and ...

"DSP clock" affects calculations? Man, that sure smells funny. If I get a better clock will my spreadsheets be more accurate? Will my tax returns have a bigger refund? Yeah, it does smell funny. I'm debating whether to share the entirety of my discussion with "BLA" here. First I would like to at le...