[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I don't know of any device that can 'see how a chip worked'.
There are devices that allow you to reverse-engineer a chip through
physical means. You can literally shave off one thin layer at a time,
and use a high power microscope, and then apply
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
Hi,
Umm... how does this contradict anything that I said?
Damn, I'm sorry! I misread your mail. My eyes were reading it,
but my mind were thinking on the discussion on doing so on a portable.
I also have post some mails
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 17 Mar 2000
| The entire point of USB is to move hardware *outside* of the host machine.
| If you put the encoder inside, then there is no reason for a USB device.
| *Looks at his USB keyboard and mouse* . odd I never usually have my
| keyboard and
1) I don't know of any device that can 'see how a chip worked'.
There are devices that allow you to reverse-engineer a chip through
physical means. You can literally shave off one thin layer at a time,
and use a high power microscope, and then apply image-analysis algorithms
to build masks
1) I don't know of any device that can 'see how a chip worked'.
2) You're probabably confusing ROM/RAMs with CPUs and DSPs..
To be honest, I have no way in hell of knowing WHAT was done. This is
what my friend told me, which is total BS, but, I did view some of the
prototype stuff
On 15 Mar 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
Hi,
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 15 Mar 2000
| Possibly it would, although it may need to be a rather faster ATRAC.
| Remember this whole thread started because I suggested that it would be
| better to implement ATRAC encoding at
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
SCSI over USB :). But really, Firewire/iLink/IEEE-1394 is infinitely
superior for bulk data, currently 400Mb/s vs
Umm... how does this contradict anything that I said?
* Francisco Jose Montilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 16 Mar 2000
| I disagree, the original point was to be able to transfer to MD at
| several times normal speed.
Is the 10 times normal playback speed throughput capacity of USB 1.1
Which brings me back around to the original point that implementing real
time ATRAC in software on today's desktop is not going to happen.
Well, I think that there's a small qualifier here. I've been watching this
thread for a long time now, keeping my trap shut. What it comes down to is
There have been several non-professional software programs made in my
area by some people who were able to see how the chip worked and was able
to get the code from it (my friends dad worked at a place that had a chip
reader).
Not that great, but realtime.
BTW people who have been around for
Even if a high-speed ATRAC chip is used as opposed to software ATRAC, I
think the encoder would be better off at the PC end as this allows more
utilisation of the limited bandwidth USB ports.
Well, I'll just give my standard response to this sort of argument -- USB
is designed for
* Andrew Hobgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 15 Mar 2000
| Well, I'll just give my standard response to this sort of argument -- USB
| is designed for peripherals, not for media storage or transfer, IMHO. If
| I'm going to be doing data storage or retrieval, I'd be using SCSI.
SCSI over USB :).
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 15 Mar 2000
| Possibly it would, although it may need to be a rather faster ATRAC.
| Remember this whole thread started because I suggested that it would be
| better to implement ATRAC encoding at the PC rather than at the MD because
| it would free up the
From: Andrew Hobgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
Well, I think that there's a small qualifier here. I've been watching
this
thread for a long time now, keeping my trap
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 12 Mar 2000
| There's no reason why an MP3 encoder couldn't take this approach either - I
| think LAME may even do just that!
No, it does not. LAME is a set of patches to the psychoaccoustic model in
the ISO reference implementation of the MP3 encoder.
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
Whosoever has told you that is full of crap. At the fundamental level,
MP3
(MPEG-1 Layer III audio) has a pathetic time
* Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 11 Mar 2000
| I'm missing something. Didn't I demonstrate that MP3 (a more complex
| coder than ATRAC)
Whosoever has told you that is full of crap. At the fundamental level, MP3
(MPEG-1 Layer III audio) has a pathetic time-frequency distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
100MHz SDRAM is cheap these days-- I got 128Mb for ukp80 inc vat and shipping
more than enough for Windoze98 and some theoretical ATRAC encoder I would
think. I would say I'm a bit puzzled as to why my machine is nearly 20% slower
when I disable the motherboard's
From: PrinceGaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
Who cares, Nick only ever issues a very mild warning after eg, prattling
on about
gun-control for days so this topic has to be okay
- Original Message -
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:46 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
But your Mazda Miata (your "consumer sports car") needs a lot of
supertuning to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is that the ATRAC chip in the MD only has one task to perform and
it is very good at it. The Pentium chip in the PC has a lot of tasks to
*oversee* - it is not actually performing all of them, it has other systems
to do that. The graphics card is handling
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Mar 2000
| I think there is only going to be one way to get this solved and that is for
| somebody to write an ATRAC encoder on the PC based upon the ASIC system.
| Unfortunately I lack the expertise to write something that complex - is
| anyone else on
From: Ralph Smeets [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
And all that is tied together with a 33Mhz PCI bus (Which has an
average performance of 33MB/s (PCI is ONLY fast when in burst
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
Emuating an ASIC in software? No, that is a bad idea. Remember when I
said that emulation is slow?
I didn't say
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Mar 2000
| I didn't say emulate the ASIC, I said devise a system based up it. The
| Windows caluclator is based upon an actual calculator, but it isn't an
| emulation. I have been arguing for a while that the best way to reproduce a
| system is not
Ralph Smeets wrote:
On the PC, it's not only the ATRAC algorithm that's running, but
also writing a packet of data received by the soundcard to memory, and
writing
this data back to disc.
I just did an experiment. On my 350 Mhz Pentium II, I can write data to my
old hard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 08 Mar 2000
| Fair enough, however, modern DIMMs are much much faster than the RAM you
| would find in the MD. The processor is also much much faster. If it takes me
| 3 instructions to do what the ATRAC chip does in 1, that
From: Ralph Smeets [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 08 Mar 2000
| Fair enough, however, modern DIMMs are
Magic wrote:
Now compare that with the Van. It's engine doesn't do a lot of work because
it has been suped up - it has a didicated system handling steering, another
handling suspention, it even has secondary engines to help maintain momentum
when it moves. In fact, it has so many of these
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 09 Mar 2000
| Ok. Now assume your sports car is built to be price-economical (ie. at a
| price that a large number of people can afford rather than absolute
| state-of-the-art technology that hardly anyone except the super-rich can
| afford). It would
===
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
(Sorry I
Rat rit:
You make the assumption that the ATRAC ASIC in your R55
is doing math the
same way your PIII does math, which is not the case. For
its one task, the
R55 is more powerful than your PIII.
Rick was not assuming, he was asserting, that the ASIC contains a DSP
Ralph Smeets wrote:
I thinks the PC has a performance problem due to the
'enormous' overhead of the
OS and the fact that most encoders are programmed in C.
Most of the overhead of an OS is associated with input/output through
multiple layers of device drivers/protocol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralph Smeets wrote:
I thinks the PC has a performance problem due to the
'enormous' overhead of the
OS and the fact that most encoders are programmed in C.
Most of the overhead of an OS is associated with input/output through
multiple layers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rat rit:
You make the assumption that the ATRAC ASIC in your R55
is doing math the
same way your PIII does math, which is not the case. For
its one task, the
R55 is more powerful than your PIII.
Rick was not assuming, he was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Simon Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
Rick was not assuming, he was asserting, that the ASIC contains a DSP core
to execute the ATRAC
From: Simon Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
Rick was not assuming, he was asserting, that the ASIC contains a DSP core
to execute the ATRAC algorithm. And I further assert
Ralph Smeets wrote:
has run for 3h33m CPU time. The total for ALL the other
processes is about 3
minutes.
Hmm,
what are you doing on that machine?
As little as possible ? Reading/writing endless MD emails ?
to. Add to that that most 'deamons'
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Yip, Chee Soon SHQ
Sent: 08 March 2000 00:26
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
You're missing another point: I guess that if you send data at
2X/3X/4X to the MD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that were the case, then you would be able to encode MP3 streams that
sound as good as ATRAC 4 (which they do not) in real time on your desktop
(which you cannot at this time). As I mentioned previously, a Pentium II
running at 400MHz is capable of turning
On 6 Mar 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
Hi,
Don't want to stop an interesting thread, but...
[...]
| Yeh but you don't want to emulate an ATRAC chip, you wana encode data to
| ATRAC standard natively on a PC using a PC processor software taking
| advantage of chip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Mar 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
Hi,
Don't want to stop an interesting thread, but...
[...]
| Yeh but you don't want to emulate an ATRAC chip, you wana encode data to
| ATRAC standard natively on a PC using a PC processor
Hi,
Two points on this rather lengthy thread--
AMD have just announced the release of a 1GHz Athlon CPU, and
Intel are expected to announce a P3 at 1GHz very soon. If Rat thinks
these monsters can't handle a well-written implementation of even
R-Type Atrac what do you think is needed?
06 Mar 2000 21:35:42 -0500
Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
| Yes, and that requires many fast fourier transformations (FFTs) per
second,
| which as I said before are slow on general purpose processors. ATRAC 4 in
| real time is just not going to happen on the desktop for a while
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 07 Mar 2000
| A fair comparison would be to encode at the same bitrate as ATRAC. 128kbps
| is substantially less than ATRAC resulting in a heavier computatoinal
| requirement as more optimisations need to be made.
I would guestimate that the average desktop
* "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 07 Mar 2000
| AMD have just announced the release of a 1GHz Athlon CPU, and
| Intel are expected to announce a P3 at 1GHz very soon. If Rat thinks
| these monsters can't handle a well-written implementation of even
| R-Type Atrac what do you think is
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
* Stories [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 06 Mar 2000
| Do you mean Compressing or Decompressing?
snippage
[...]
| Yeh
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
* Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 06 Mar 2000
| On what do you base this statement? My understanding
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 07 Mar 2000
| Strange that - the Xing MP3 encoder managed to encode the whole of Elgar
| Cello Concert (around 40 minutes of audio) in just under 5 minutes at
| 160kbps. I'm using a P3 450MHz - 64Mb RAM.
The Xing encoder is known to be only slightly better
You're missing another point: I guess that if you send data at
2X/3X/4X to the MD, it will have to spin faster while recording; that
implies greater power consumptions, and higher accuracy, so modifications
to the MD hardware must be done anyway, and a standalone device won't be
very
* Ralph Smeets [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 07 Mar 2000
| 1) The Alpha is about 4 times faster at the same clock-speed than a Pentium
| class
|CPU
Depends on the Pentium. The ~533MHz Alpha EV67 is effectively about twice
as fast as a 500MHz Pentium III Xeon (I got to play with one of
* Edmund Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 06 Mar 2000
| Bleem! does, in fact, emulate the MIPS CPU directly.
Well, no:
URL:http://207.71.8.31/about/FAQ.html
There is no emulation of the MIPS R3000A in Bleem!.
| It's the only way you can run code for another CPU architecture. And the
| 33mhz
* Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 06 Mar 2000
| On what do you base this statement? My understanding of ATRAC (based
| upon looking at an ATRAC decoder) is that the computational demands of
| encoding ATRAC are similar to those for MP3. I would expect a software
| ATRAC encoder to run
* Stories [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 06 Mar 2000
| Do you mean Compressing or Decompressing?
Encoding. It is technically not compressing.
| If your talking about compression, what software do you use?
LAME.
| because theres a HUGE variation between different products.
| My PIII-500 quite
If that were the case, then you would be able to encode MP3 streams that
sound as good as ATRAC 4 (which they do not) in real time on your desktop
(which you cannot at this time). As I mentioned previously, a Pentium II
running at 400MHz is capable of turning SPDIF into 128Kbps MP3 in real
The Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
because FFTs are much more
complex than simple
things like addition and multiplication.
I suppose FFT's ARE fairly complex, although they are implemented as a load
of additions and multiplications.
I would estimate the ASIC in any MD
On what do you base this statement? My understanding of ATRAC (based
upon looking at an ATRAC decoder) is that the computational demands of
encoding ATRAC are similar to those for MP3. I would expect a software
ATRAC encoder to run about as fast as an MP3 encoder.
On that note, remember the
A Pentium II at 400MHz can manage to convert to MPEG-I Layer III at
128Kbps
in real time. It cannot handle significantly higher bitrates in real
time.
Do you mean Compressing or Decompressing?
If your talking about compression, what software do you use?
because theres a HUGE variation between
From: Stories [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
A Pentium II at 400MHz can manage to convert to MPEG-I Layer III at
128Kbps
in real time. It cannot handle significantly higher bitrates
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 04 Mar 2000
| The most obvious solution to this would be to put the ATRA
* "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 05 Mar 2000
| Are you quite certain of that, my rodent friend? I'm very much into
| emulation of other hardware on my PC (everything from fairly recent
| arcade hardware, back to Space Invaders, various home computers, and the
| Psion organiser range)
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 05 Mar 2000
| No, you'd simply have the option to send either "ATRAC Encoded" or "SPDIF"
| down the line. This would make it compatible with external CD-Rs etc too.
But you cannot do that, without encapsulating the SPDIF signal in the same
fashion as SCSI
From: Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MD-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 05 Mar 2000
| No, you'd simply have the option to send either &quo
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 05 Mar 2000
| Encoding SPDIF is incredibly simple.
Encoding USB bulk data traffic is not simple. Look at usb-storage.c in the
current Linux 2.3 kernel source tree sometime (and that is one of the
simpler drivers :). On top of that, SPDIF over USB has to be
...
Bleem! is not an emulator. Emulation is slow, I mean really slow, I mean
slow like molassas flowing up hill, in Alaska, in winter. The way Bleem!
functions, it does not translate PlayStation code to Windows code. It
simply maps PlayStation system calls to DirectX and Windows API
From: Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:25 PM
Subject: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
3) Make it run at a special 4X or 8x S/PDIF rate, so that a portable
MD player could compete in downloading convenience with an MP3
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 04 Mar 2000
| The most obvious solution to this would be to put the ATRAC encoding on the
| computer end. This means that only 1/5th of the data would need to be sent
| down the USB interface.
It also means that you would not be able to use this with any
From: "Stainless Steel Rat" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 04 Mar 2000
| The most obvious solution to this would be to put the ATRAC encoding on the
| computer end. This means that only 1/5th of the data would need to be sent
| down the USB interface.
Besides, ATRAC
Is S/PDIF hard to generate?
Computer audio chips tend to send/receive it right with pins on the main
sound chip and CD/MD equipment also tends to have it integrated at the chip
level (this is the most economical way to do it). So my guess is that it's
no big deal, if Sony has designed a
69 matches
Mail list logo
