Render This Fast

[unixronin]

C|Net reports that nVidia is releasing itx GTX260 and GTX280 graphics chipsets today.  The GTX280 has 240 cores and 933 gFLOPS of processing power.

Yeah, that's right — almost 1 TFLOPS in a single GPU. nVidia claims the GTX280 can render three million triangles per frame.  That's some serious graphics performance.

I couldn't help but notice this paragraph further down, though:

Nvidia is also boasting that a dual-core GTX 280 can convert a high-definition movie into iPod video format in 35 minutes, compared to about five hours for a quad-core CPU system with low-end integrated graphics.

Um, OK, I guess I'm impressed.  Or something.  But you know, I can't help thinking that might actually mean something if an iPod had a high-definition screen.

It reminds me of an article I was reading the other day talking to a professional audio engineer about CDs vs. vinyl.  He made the good point that no vinyl record ever offers perfect audio reproduction and no vinyl record ever can, no matter how careful the engineer, because the playback stylus is a different shape from the cutting stylus and tracks the groove differently, even on a linear-arm turntable.  He discussed how the "warmth" that vinylphiles like to talk about as part of vinyl's "faithful reproduction" is largely composed of surface noise, and it isn't there on the master.

Then he went and blew his cred by saying that all compression formats are bad, and that he loads his iPod only with uncompressed raw PCM to get the most flawless possible reproduction of his classical music favorites.

Flawless reproduction ... on an iPod with a pair of earbud headphones?

Sorry, buddy, but you're kidding yourself there.  It may sound good, but invent a pair of earbud phones capable of flawless, 100% faithful reproduction, and half the audio world will beat a path to your door begging to license your secret.

Comments

[guppiecat]

He may be listening to his iPod in one of those speaker docks.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's possible, but have you seen the size of the speaker cones in those things? I've yet to see one that didn't sound like a tinny boombox.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, is it the case that he said he listens to his iPod via earbuds? I know a fair number of people who plug their iPods into high-end stereo equipment.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Seems to me if you're listening to it on a hi-fi setup capable of faithfully reproducing the music, you might as well just load the CD in the first place. (Also: Does anyone know the actual fidelity level of an iPod's DAC outputs? I can't find a total harmonic distortion spec for it anywhere. I've yet to find an iPod "speaker dock" with quoted THD < 0.5%.)

[robbat2.livejournal.com]

No specs on it, but I saw it in the window of an audiophile shop while passing, and that was a tube-based iPod dock with stand-alone speakers.

[otherbill.livejournal.com]

I'm oddly reminded of the what-not-to-do saying:

Measure with a micrometer.
Mark with chalk.
Cut with an axe.

[mazianni.livejournal.com]

Every self-proclaimed audiophile I know, if they have a portable mp3 player, seems to immediately replace the earbuds with, at bare minimum, a pair of $40 Sennheiser head phones.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I have in-ear buds with Sennheiser drivers -- not bad. If I were this guy, I'd plug in a set of Shur or Etymotic molded in-ear drivers. (Assuming this guy can afford $200 headphones.)

The weak link may be the isolation of the stuff post-DAC from all digital junk in an iPod, a rather compact device. And this is assuming the DAC is good from 20Hz-40kHz.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

This is true, I don't know that he's using the stock earbuds. It was an unjustified and probably false assumption. Nevertheless, I'd still be a bit dubious about the idea without knowing what kind of actual output fidelity an iPod is capable of. There surely ain't room for much of an audio amplifier in there. There are reasons high-end audio gear is big.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

There's a reason it's called an audio *chain*... a single weak link in the chain, and the quality of the other links is wasted.

source -> mic -> master -> reproduction -> compression -> storage -> decompression -> reproduction -> transmission -> speaker -> listener...why crank up one if you've got a weak spot elsewhere?

(Really, the astonishing part is how often signal loss happens at the listener, and how rarely this is commented on. My ability to enjoy crappy-sounding music went up as my hearing got less acute.)

[skellington.livejournal.com]

Ah, but what they're saying is that they can down convert an HD movie (processing the 25 or 50G of data) into an iPod format in 35 minutes.

If you were to buy your new movie in BluRay, but decide to watch it at the gym or on the airplane on your iPod, it is something you'd seriously consider avoiding if it took 5 hours.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think I'd sooner have my eyeballs scooped out with a dull spork than seriously try to watch a movie — or almost any video I actually wanted to see — on a 2" 320x240 screen.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the iPod touch (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html) has a 3.5" 480x320 screen--that's about LDTV resolution. If you're using it like a book--close focus--it's actually pretty good.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, a 3.5" display is still way smaller than I want to watch anything on that I actually care about watching. My near-field visual accomodation isn't what it used to be.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

but it's not FOR YOU. doesn't matter if you can't see it, many can.

they are providing a real world mapping of speed to common application that many people can relate to.

also, all of those things can output via an NTSC cable. so the devices resolution is nearly as good or better than 480i.

what that means: really fast. okay, let's skip rendering. how about breaking primes numbers or other encryptions? very very fast. combine 4 of those... and you've got a nice super duper computer.

#

[gdmusumeci.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but 480x320 on a 3.5" display isn't that bad....

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

See just above. :)

[argonel.livejournal.com]

My portable device is a Nokia N800. It has a 4" 640x480 screen. I love it and have good nearfield vision, but I still wouldn't want to watch a movie on it. It does OK for youtube clips though.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

And I was just laughing at the $300 high-end dock for the iPod, when most of what I listen to is mp3 format. I have no idea what the iPod amp is capable of, I do know it is significantly better than the Sansa e260. Still, considering that I am using about 10% of the iPod capacity (80GB) for a LOT of CDs, I could probably afford to use better fidelity formats and capacities.