Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bhobba last won the day on November 29 2014

bhobba had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,129 Excellent

About bhobba

  • Rank
    Seriously DAC Addicted
  • Birthday 17/11/1955

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Redland Bay
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. bhobba

    Aus Open Tennis

    Good point - Rosewall hated playing Roscoe Tanner - the power on his serve was too much for him to handle. Nowadays of course many players hit with that kind of power on their serve - Tanner was a freak for his time. I guess we will never know - but I really would have liked to see them face Rosewall on indoor wood. Thanks Bill
  2. bhobba

    Aus Open Tennis

    Of course they did because as you said the tennis was crap in that heat and the people watching would be turned off - only by attracting large audiences can players, and Tennis Australia, get paid the amount they do. But Agassi had a point from the fairness perspective. Thanks Bill
  3. bhobba

    Aus Open Tennis

    The issue with Raffa playing Novak is Novak, due to his excellent timeing, can take Raffa's viscous topspin early to counter it. People sometimes ask how would the old time players like the great Ken Rosewall go against modern players like Raffa. Back in Rosewall's day they often played on a surface faster than grass - it was lightning fast indoor wood. If Rosewall played Raffa on that he would simply use his deadly backhand slice and Raffa would have no chance of hitting his topspin groundies. He would be forced into a slicing duel with Rosewall - a duel he would not win. Modern playing styles giveth and taketh. Lucky for modern players indoor wood is no longer used for tournament play. Thanks Bill
  4. bhobba

    Aus Open Tennis

    Because as Andre Agassi said part of playing in Australia is coping with the heat - you need to train and condition your body. Andre always did and it was not an easy thing to do. It is unfair on players who did this saying - if it gets too hot we will close the roof or whatever. Then there is the practical issue of simply getting through the matches. Thanks Bill
  5. My perverse opinion about manufacturers leads me to look at what they gain out of it. By not having USB out and using twin BNC cables to connect at the highest up-sampling rate you are locked into using Chord products to unlock its full potential. IMHO they should have forgot the twin BNC cables and used USB - but hey - that would mean putting the customer before profits - not really the capitalist way is it? Thanks Bill
  6. Of course not - but a guy with a PhD means what he says should be looked at and not dismissed. I personally found his analysis insightful and considered things I did not think of eg often with Intel processors you use a co-processor which brings down a multiplication to just a couple of clock cycles. And Rob taking so long to code the million taps - as one person said correctly - he doesn't get that (after thinking on it neither do I really) - a filter should be rather simple to do - it may have something to do with the WTA filter - who knows. Rob said he did half a million pretty quick - its the million that took a while. Thanks Bill
  7. On that we can agree - its only a breakthrough in Rob's own WTA filter. We will need to wait and see if other makers follow down the same path. But care must be taken in statements - witness the difference in opinion on what a Tap is between Rob and Miska. I am pretty sure I know what Rob means by a tap - but what Miska means I do not know - he claims 2 million already in his HQ player (and I know from personal use it is good) which would mean about 400 Billion multiplications per second for 96k upsampling - even with six cores and a co-processor that's pushing it somewhat using an I7 - yet I have had his HQ player running on a pretty basic I3 - so I am unsure exactly what he means by a tap. Thanks Bill
  8. Well golly gee - an expert has said the modern processors have the grunt (just - my math indicated you need about 200 billion multiplications per second) - but has other issues. As for 10 year old processors - well you can look up the specs of those and do the math then post it. Here is the analysis: An AVX512 processor can do two 8-wide double precision FMA instructions per cycle. For example, an i7-7800X runs at 3.5 GHz, so you have 56 billion multiplications per second per core. You have 6 physical cores, so in principle you have the horsepower. In practice, this would require that you can keep the cores fed, and these million multiplications involve information that is always in registers. That is almost certainly not the case, and it's also much easier to achieve with an FPGA. The other problem is that Intel chips throttle when one part of them gets hot, so you run the risk of it slowing down the FP arithmetic if you tried to run it flat out. Again, an FPGA is less prone to this. So yes I goofed - but the result is the same - the Intel processor is unsuitable for it. Thanks Bill
  9. bhobba

    The wonderful NBN.

    I wont regale people with my NBN experience from living in a granny flat. I had a terrible 'battle'. Suffice to say when they went from fiber to the home to fiber to the node many of the things fiber to the home made possible, and assumed to be true in the rules the government made for connecting to the NBN, were no longer true - but did they change they rules. No. Typical bureaucratic incompetence and the amazing - not my worry - I am just here to enforce the rules - I do not make them attitude of staff was a 'joy' to behold. I wasn't going to mention it but the issue I had is with Fibre to the Home you got 4 separate outlets in your box, each of which can be connected to a separate ISP if you so desire. This means the rule they made of one NBN connection per home was not an issue in practice. But when they switched to Fibre to the Node did they revisit the rule and its consequences? No. I live in a granny flat out the back of my sisters place with a separate phone line. My sister connected to the NBN before I did, and when it came time for me to be connected I was told you already were. It just went downhill from there. They were going to cut my phone off. I had to pull the disabled card and prove due to my conditions I needed a phone. That's the only way I got my NBN connection - and even then I had to go to my local MP. Evidently he was swamped with a lot of people in that position and had to see people (obviously at a high level) in the NBN to stop getting the phones cut off and people in my situation connected to the NBN. As far as I am concerned NBN is government bureaucracy gone mad - worse even than most of the rubbish I saw during 30 years working for the government - a few things rose to this level of 'silliness' - but not many. Thanks Bill
  10. Based on the replies over at the technical forum I am involved with it seems to be the situation. Modern Intel processors seem to have the grunt, but are plagued with other issues. Thanks Bill
  11. If you can't tell humor when you see it - well that does make discussions hard to follow. You might like to have a look at Vandium 50's response and check out his bio. Thanks Bill
  12. Now we may be getting to what the issue really is. There is a long standing argument between the maker of HQ player - Miska (you can find his posts etc over on Computer Audiophile) and Rob on what a Tap is. Miska claims exactly what Dave claims eg he wrote - 'Funny thing is that computers doing stated upsampling to 16x with 1M taps doesn't even break a sweat. It is so easy to pull it to completely different figures with computer, if one wants....'. That will not be resolved here - except to say what Rob considers a Tap requires more processing power than what Miska thinks of as a Tap. BTW HQ player is the real deal - it does sound good but the reports are the M-Scaler is better. I will need to compare the two when my health improves - that is if I can find the windows machine I had HQ Player on - I think I let someone else have it - I switched over to Audirvana which to me had exactly the same sound quality as HQ player - besides I got sick and tired of every time you got a Windows update it was Russian roulette if the DAC drivers would work. Apple has no such issues and my sanity is better for it. Thanks Bill
  13. Because Dave it goes against what Rob Watt's has stated. He had to wait for the processor to come out to do it. Yet you seem to think it can be done on an Intel processor. Basically you think Rob is telling a fib. I have zero idea why you would want promulgate such a notion. It has been mentioned not all cores are equal - of course - but the engineer who wrote the code for it says he needs the power of the 740 cores to do it - the Intel processor simply does not have that kind of power. My PC uses a pretty high end Intel processor but costs much less that the M-Scaler. If it could be implemented on such hardware Chord would have done it and be able to sell the M-Scaler at a cheaper price with a higher profit margin. Unless you have a conspiracy type view of such things simple logic would indicate it cant be done with the processors you find in PC's Can anyone be 100% sure of this? Unless you have actually written the code on both processors of course you can't - all you can do is take the word of the person that did it. Thanks Bill
  14. Really. Or maybe it is you that does not. I could point to the degree I have in computer science and 30 years working as a computer programmer - but I will not. I will however point you to a site where professors in computer science hang out and we can take the discussion over there: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/xilinx-xc7a200t-vs-intel-processor.964960/ We will see. Thanks Bill
  15. You are incorrect - the Xilinx XC7A200T in the M-Scaler is MUCH more powerful than any in a PC or MAC. What Intel processor has 740 cores which the XC7A200T has? The fastest Intel processor, the Core i7-8086K, is a 6 core processor. I have zero idea how you reach the conclusion above - it wrong and obviously so. Rob had to wait until the new Xilinx processor was released to create the device. If it was a simple matter of using an Intel processor he would have done it ages ago. It simply does not have the power. Thanks Bill