FPGA Central

Radium wrote:

...

> Remember:
>
> bit rate = sample rate X bit resolution X pixels

Yes.

> 1 = s X 100,000,000 X [1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X 1,000,000,000]

No.

> 1 = s X 100,000,000 X [10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]

No.

> 1 = s X 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

No.

> s = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Absurd

> s = 0.000000000000000000000000000001 Hz
>
>
> *sample* rate = 0.000000000000000000000000000001 Hz
>
> *bit* rate = 1 bit/second

A sample must have at least one bit (black or white). A pixel must have
(at least) one sample.

> bit-resolution = 100,000,000-bit

Is that 10^8 bits/pixel?

Remember, you need one sample for every pixel. Otherwise, you don't know
what it is.

> Pixels = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X
> 1,000,000,000

= 10^22

> There are 1,000,000 pixels for width, 10,000,000 pixels for height, and
> 1,000,000,000 pixels for depth.

3D?

So, by your numbers, 1 image = 10^6 * 10^7 * 10^9 = 10^22 pixels.

We've been over all this before. It's pointless to go on.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Radium wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Remember:
> >
> > bit rate = sample rate X bit resolution X pixels
>
> Yes.
>
> > 1 = s X 100,000,000 X [1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X 1,000,000,000]
>
> No.

Why not? The math works out. s is the sample rate.

> > 1 = s X 100,000,000 X [10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]
>
> No.
>
> > 1 = s X 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> No.
>
> > s = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> Absurd

Why?

> A sample must have at least one bit (black or white).

True. In my design, each sample has 10^8 bits/sample

> A pixel must have
> (at least) one sample.

Then why not sample them in a synchronized manner [i.e. sample all
pixels at once].

> > bit-resolution = 100,000,000-bit
>
> Is that 10^8 bits/pixel?

Yes. Color resolution is 10^8

> Remember, you need one sample for every pixel. Otherwise, you don't know
> what it is.

Can't all pixels be sampled at once? In sync with each other?

> > Pixels = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X
> > 1,000,000,000
>
> = 10^22
>
> > There are 1,000,000 pixels for width, 10,000,000 pixels for height, and
> > 1,000,000,000 pixels for depth.

> 3D?

Yes.

> So, by your numbers, 1 image = 10^6 * 10^7 * 10^9 = 10^22 pixels.

Yes.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Radium wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Remember:
> >
> > bit rate = sample rate X bit resolution X pixels
>
> Yes.
>
> > 1 = s X 100,000,000 X [1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X 1,000,000,000]
>
> No.

Why not? The math works out. s is the sample rate.

> > 1 = s X 100,000,000 X [10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]
>
> No.
>
> > 1 = s X 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> No.
>
> > s = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> Absurd

Why?

> A sample must have at least one bit (black or white).

True. In my design, each sample has 10^8 bits/sample

> A pixel must have
> (at least) one sample.

Then why not sample them in a synchronized manner [i.e. sample all
pixels at once].

> > bit-resolution = 100,000,000-bit
>
> Is that 10^8 bits/pixel?

Yes. Color resolution is 10^8

> Remember, you need one sample for every pixel. Otherwise, you don't know
> what it is.

Can't all pixels be sampled at once? In sync with each other?

> > Pixels = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X
> > 1,000,000,000
>
> = 10^22
>
> > There are 1,000,000 pixels for width, 10,000,000 pixels for height, and
> > 1,000,000,000 pixels for depth.

> 3D?

Yes.

> So, by your numbers, 1 image = 10^6 * 10^7 * 10^9 = 10^22 pixels.

Yes.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:15:08 -0700, Radium wrote:
> Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
>> Why would you want the read speed to be different from the "bit-rate", on
>> average?
>
> Its not a question of wanting. Isn't it true that the bit-rate and the
> read-speed don't necessarily have to be the same?

It is only true (that they don't have to be the same), in the average,
when the medium is not being used for real-time performance. That is,
it's perfectly reasonable to use a higher read speed when copying the
medium, for example.

>>The alternatives are under-run or unbounded buffering.
>
> Whats are these?

Under-run is when the real-time performance engine requires some bits in
order to produce the next part of the real-time performance, but they
aren't available because the read-speed is too low. This happens all the
time with, for example, streaming audio and video over the internet, where
the instantaneous effective transfer rate can vary wildly (due to the
presence of other traffic on the shared medium, at least).

Unbounded buffering is essentially the copying exercise. If you read bits
off the medium faster than you use them, then you have to put them
somewhere: buffer them. If your read speed is *always* faster than your
consumption speed, then your buffer will need to accommodate data at the
rate (read-speed - consumption-speed) for as long as the performance
continues.

>
>> What
>> other significance do you hold for the term "bit rate"?
>
> How many bits transferred per in a specific period of time = bit-rate
>
> There is a difference between *sample* rate and *bit* rate.

Of course. That difference is determined by the data encoding. They are
not typically completely unrelated, though. For a given encoding, they
are usually proportional. The bit rate merely tells you the maximum
information capacity of the channel.

I had deliberately not mentioned sample rates, as I thought that there
were enough points that needed clarifying in the data storage and
transport parts of your fantasy... We can get on to sample rate issues if
you like. As Jerry said, waiting a little over three billion years per
frame is not something that I'd fancy as an entertainment.

--
Andrew

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:43:38 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
> Remember, you need one sample for every pixel. Otherwise, you don't know
> what it is.

Not necessarily. Remember Radium said that he's imagining a psychedelic
entertainment system (of a remarkably slow sort...) How many pixels are
described by each bit, and how, is determined entirely by his
(unspecified) encoding.

Think postscript or PDF. In postscript I can make an entire page any
colour I like with a few bytes, irrespective of the final resolution of
the page. Obviously Radium's encoding may be different, but since his
information delivery rate and frame/sample rates are so low, I don't
imagine the result being very interesting.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Radium wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>Radium wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>Remember:
>>>
>>>bit rate = sample rate X bit resolution X pixels
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>1 = s X 100,000,000 X [1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X 1,000,000,000]
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Why not? The math works out. s is the sample rate.

Where does the 1 = come from?

>>>1 = s X 100,000,000 X [10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>1 = s X 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>s = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>
>>Absurd
>
> Why?

Because one sample every few billion years is absurd.

>
>>A sample must have at least one bit (black or white).
>
>
> True. In my design, each sample has 10^8 bits/sample
>
>
>>A pixel must have
>>(at least) one sample.
>
>
> Then why not sample them in a synchronized manner [i.e. sample all
> pixels at once].

How many samplers would that take? Where would you get them?

>>>bit-resolution = 100,000,000-bit
>>
>>Is that 10^8 bits/pixel?
>
>
> Yes. Color resolution is 10^8
>
>
>>Remember, you need one sample for every pixel. Otherwise, you don't know
>>what it is.
>
>
> Can't all pixels be sampled at once? In sync with each other?

No

>>>Pixels = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 X 10,000,000 X
>>>1,000,000,000
>>
>>= 10^22
>>
>>
>>>There are 1,000,000 pixels for width, 10,000,000 pixels for height, and
>>>1,000,000,000 pixels for depth.
>
>
>>3D?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>So, by your numbers, 1 image = 10^6 * 10^7 * 10^9 = 10^22 pixels.
>
>
> Yes.

That's 10^30 bits. How fast did you say the bits arrive?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Radium wrote:
> > Jerry Avins wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Bit rate and sample rate are related simply in the number of bits in a
> sample. If a bucket holds 16 quarts, and the fill rate is one bucket per
> minute, how many quarts per minute is that? I suspect that you
>
> 1. don't know what a bit is,
> 2. don't know what a sample is, or
> 3. can't do arithmetic.
>
> Jerry

You missed the most obvious possibility:

4. Radium is a troll.

4. Radium is a troll.

BINGO!!!

In article <[email protected] com>,
Radium <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi:

>I fantasize about a different type of DVD technology.

Just a short comment.

>Current DVD equipment burns pits into DVD discs. The burn "marks" the
>disc with 1s and 0s. The DVD player then reads the disc. Laser light
>reflected is 1, while laser light going through the disc indicated 0s.

When the 'pits' are made the only thing that is concerned is the
transition from pit to land. These are always considered '1'. The
time elapsed between the change from pit to land is measured and
the time then computers the number of '0's for the data.

We haven't acutally written 1's and 0's on any media since the days
of FM [not MFM] modulated single density floppies that had a time
pulse between every data bit.

And nothing goes 'through' the disk. It's all related to phase
difference in the reflection of the 'pit' or the 'land'.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Radium wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>
>>With 16 bits in a sample
>
>
> 16 bits?
>
> My design uses 100,000,000 bits per sample. I already said this in my
> 1st post.

Here we go again. Heavy sigh.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Radium" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected] ups.com:

> Disregard this post of mine
>

Can I? Can I really? Isn't life rewarding, at times?

On Feb 2, 11:56 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Can I? Can I really? Isn't life rewarding, at times?

How funny, you opened up a thread that started more than a year ago. I
will also continue to add to this thread that I started.

I know I've brought this extremely-off-topic subject up -- and in
other groups - before but I just can't get over it. I apologize
profusely to those who might be annoyed. I hate PCI sound cards and
their sick sample playback MIDI synth.

I request that readers please read this message from began to end
until they fully understand it.

On the Creative website -- forums.creative.com -- I am known as
"CMS220"

In the above link, is where I take revenge against the following:

1. Creative Technology for no longer making or upgrading Creative
Music Synth [220]

2. Customers who like -- or don't mind -- sample playback MIDI synths

3. Customers who dislike -- or don't care for - Creative Music Synth
[220]

On the Creative Technology site, I first asked my questions politely
but no one answered me. I then got frustrated and vented all my anger.
Now those jerks know how I feel.

I lost control of my temper and used very bad words. As a result, any
computer with my home IP address cannot access the Creative forums.
Also, if I login under the name "CMS220" in any part of the world, the
Creative site will automatically ban access to its forums from that
network. They've banned access to the forums from three places already
because I logged in under CMS220. They've got some auto-ban type of
feature, it seems.

It started off like this. I asked in the Creative Technology
http://forums.creative.com as politely as I could. I waited a couple
of weeks. No response. I asked again as politely as I could, waited
another few weeks. Again no answers. I tried on the third and last
time as politely as I could. AGAIN, no answers!!!

I then got impatient and aggressive. I started venting my anger in
those forums. I used bad words. As a result, they've permanently
banned my IP and I can no longer access their forums. What a buncha
jerks. Yes, I did get carried away with the foul language but hey, can
ya blame me?

So I can no longer sign-in under CMS220. I got a new username "SB16-
ISA-FM" and logged in from another network outside my house. I started
venting my anger again using colorful language. One of the Creative
Technology companymen then sent me a warning note, in which he/she/it
threatened to contact my ISP and shut-down my internet connection.
What those fools don't realize is that I can log in under any name
from any network that I am given access to. It doesn't have to be from
my house.

Maybe if Creative Technology weren't made up of such jerks, then I
wouldn't have started spamming their forums in the 1st place. So its
not my fault.

I would like a real Creative Music Synth [220]. Doesn't have to be in
a sound card. It could be a keyboard, a MIDI box or in any other
form.

Sadly, its not gonna happen because the mechanism by which Creative
Music Synth [220] is kept classified as top-secret by Creative
Technology Ltd. CMS220 is no longer made yet the sick @$$ company
still keeps the working of CMS220 a secret.

Creative Technology is a stubborn piece of crap. F--k those stingy
secretive bastards.

I hate sick sample playback MIDI synths.

I just wish the audio communities would revert back to real, non-
emulated SB16 FM synthesis and upgrade from there.
FM emulation [or any audio emulation for that matter] is sample
playback. Sample playback synth = human kakaa

SB Live stinks like human kakaa. It has no real music synthesis. Its
all kakaa-like emulation.

SB16 PCI has the disadvantages of SB16 ISA [e.g. limitation to 16-bit
resolution] without the advantages [e.g. *real* FM synthesis]. All
SB16 PCIs should be burned in oxyacetylene flames.

AFAIK, some PCI cards contain something called 'Yamaha FM synth'. I
don't hate it though because it is emulation. The Avance sound card
has 'Avance FM synth', but its also a real stinker as it isn't a real
synth. The evil PCI loves to inflict pain on other types of slot --
ISA being the unfortunate victim. PCI cards don't contain real FM
synths.

Anything kind of 'OPL' a PCI would have, would be emulation. The only
'OPL' any PCI cards have is OPL emulation. Emulation stinks like human
diarrhea kakaa foam. I don't understand why a PCI card cannot contain
a real FM synth like Creative Music Synth [220]. Is there a technical
barrier to this?

I can easily tell the difference between the freshness, brightness,
warmth, and liveliness of a *real* synth from the stale, cacophonous
-- or rather KAKAA-FOAMous -- fart of emulation.

Creative Music Synth [220] = SB16 ISA's FM synth = my favorite MIDI
synth.

I don't care for other MIDI synths.

Creative Music Synth [220] is:

1. Real

and

2. Digital

and

3. Hardware

and

4. Real-time

All other FM synths are okay. Wavetables are also good. But I don't
care for them.

Here are my ratings for *soundcard* MIDI synths in the order from best
to worst:
1. Creative Music Synth [220]
2. All digital hardware FM synths other than Creative Music Synth
[220]
3. Wavetables, non-FM digital synths, analog [non-digital] synths
4. Sample playback synths

Sample playback synths are the worst.

Sample playback synths STEEEENKS!!!!

Sample playback MIDI synths are the worst audio equipment ever. They
are stinky, tickly, itchy, creepy, irritating, farty, hissy,
terrifying, disgusting, and annoying.

I like the audio quality of Creative Music Synth [220]. It sounds so
warm, fresh, bright, rejuvenating, lively and effervescent.

The only thing about Creative Technology that I like is their Creative
Music Synth [220]. Other than that, they are a piece of kakaa.

Creative Technology is one f--king piece of crap that provides sh--ty
customer service. Their tech support is so limited.

Creative Technology used to be such a great company 13 years ago. Now
there are nothing but stinky-diarrhea-kakaa-foam-of-humans.

I've asked them about Creative Music Synth [220] -- through a variety
of means, including but not limited to phone, fax, and their online
tech support -- only to be totally-ignored. I asked them about this
for the past 5 years. Never got a decent answer. In addition, most of
their online tech support is pre-written garbage.

Creative Technology also uses such f--ked up sickening disgusting
sample playback synths in their PCI cards.

I wish that a gang of persons who support Creative Music Synth [220]
would attack Creative Technology and force them to make hardware
versions of Creative Music Synth [220] -- in PCI cards that are
compatible with PCI slots and Windows XP -- upgraded from 16-bit to 32-
bit and from 44.1 KHz to 192 KHz. And from there, keep on upgrading!
When XP and PCI are obsolete then Creative Technology should be forced
to make even newer hardware versions of CMS220 -- with even wider bit-
resolutions and higher sample-rates -- that are compatible with the
newer hardwares and softwares that will exist in that future time.

If Creative Technology refuses, I hope the CMS220-advocating gang ties
up the people who make up that company and torturously force them to
repeatedly listen to sample playback MIDI synths and emulation until
those Creative personnel are annoyed with burning headaches and are
deathly desperate for an escape. Only then will the people of Creative
Technology do the right thing -- make upgraded versions of Creative
Music Synth [220].

A rich spoiled-rotten company like Creative deserves to be heinously
hijacked and forced to do their duties.

The least Creative Technology Ltd could do is put a *real* 32-bit, 192
kHz, version of Creative Music Synth [220]. But
noooooooooooooooooooooo! They are too f--king lazy.

Its not just Creative Technology that's responsible. Its also the
fault of self-destructive customers who don't mind paying $$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$ for those crappy sample playback synths. F--k those customers
as well. Masochistic perverts! I don't care if those customers destroy
themselves. Though, I sure as f--k don't want them destroying me! Such
customers should eat their own stinky diarrhea kakaa foam. If you feed
a scum, then you're just as filthy as that scum and I sincerely hope
you suffer just as much.

I feel like torching the chips of sample playback synths with
oxyacetylene flames to distort their audio output.

Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite MIDI synth.

Its those sample playback synths that are crap.

Sadly most MIDI magazines advertise the kakaa-stinky sample playback
as a good thing often referring to them as 'wavetables'. These sick
marketers call sample playback synthesis 'realistic sounding'.

Sample playbacks synths are nothing more than the sound of a stinky
fart emitted from a human colon.

I've been looking hard for true FM synths. No luck. Most PCI cards
have OPL emulation. I hate FM emulation. FM emulation -- much like any
sample playback synthesis -- is to the ear what human kakaa is to the
nose.

I want *real* FM synthesis not some stinky trashy out-of-a-human-
behind emulation.

Those stinky-f==king marketers who refer to sample playback synthesis
as 'wavetables' deserve to be thrown into the sewer and made to eat
their own crap.

There is a world of different between sample playback synthesis and
wavetable synthesis.

If you still believe the marketer-induced myth that wavetable
synthesis and sample playback synthesis are the same thing, then
please educate yourself with the hardcore scientific facts presented
on the following link:

http://www.musicdsp.org/files/Wavetable-101.pdf

Wavetable synthesis is so much better than any kakaa-spitting sample
playback synth but not nearly as heavenly as *true* FM synthesis. Of
all the *true* FM synths, Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite.

If a synth is *not*:

1. *Real*

AND

2. *Digital*

AND

3. *Real-time*

AND

4. *Hardware*

then it,
STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is what I would like to do. I would like to make some replicable
electronic nanobots that will search for sample playback MIDI synths
in any part of the world and attach to the digital chips of sample
playback MIDI synths. These nanobots should contain magnetic receivers
that will extract any random environmental magnetic audio signals 2
kHz and 50 kHz [excluding spikes, square-waves, white noise, brown
noise, pink noise and bass sounds]. The nanobots then amplify those
signals to the point where they would significantly interfere with --
and cause inductive crosstalk in -- the audio signals in the digital
electronic chips of the sample playback MIDI synths. This will cause
sample playback MIDI synths to be full of annoying - and perhaps even
frightening -- auditory disruptions from environmental magnetic
interference.

That way all companies will be forced to make *real* synths and the
listeners will be forced to adapt to the excellent audio quality of
*real* synths. For those who miss their stinky human kakaa foam of
sample playback synths, well, f--k them!

I try playing Creative Music Synth [220], through my so called
'karaoke voice canceller' -- which inverts the phase of one stereo
channel [right or left] and then combines it the other channel --
which results in anything identical in both the left and right
channels being removed. I get a mono of what was different in the left
and right channels.

When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-
canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.

On Feb 2, 11:56 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Can I? Can I really? Isn't life rewarding, at times?

Reposted to include: comp.dsp, alt.lasers, sci.optics,
rec.video.dvd.tech, alt.video.dvd.tech [f--king google does not
automatically send replies newsgroups included in the headers] F--k
google. Hope they suffer like s--t

How funny, you opened up a thread that started more than a year ago. I
will also continue to add to this thread that I started.

I request that readers please read this message from began to end
until they fully understand it.

On the Creative website -- forums.creative.com -- I am known as
"CMS220"

In the above link, is where I take revenge against the following:

1. Creative Technology for no longer making or upgrading Creative
Music Synth [220]

2. Customers who like -- or don't mind -- sample playback MIDI synths

3. Customers who dislike -- or don't care for - Creative Music Synth
[220]

On the Creative Technology site, I first asked my questions politely
but no one answered me. I then got frustrated and vented all my anger.
Now those jerks know how I feel.

I lost control of my temper and used very bad words. As a result, any
computer with my home IP address cannot access the Creative forums.
Also, if I login under the name "CMS220" in any part of the world, the
Creative site will automatically ban access to its forums from that
network. They've banned access to the forums from three places already
because I logged in under CMS220. They've got some auto-ban type of
feature, it seems.

It started off like this. I asked in the Creative Technology
http://forums.creative.com as politely as I could. I waited a couple
of weeks. No response. I asked again as politely as I could, waited
another few weeks. Again no answers. I tried on the third and last
time as politely as I could. AGAIN, no answers!!!

I then got impatient and aggressive. I started venting my anger in
those forums. I used bad words. As a result, they've permanently
banned my IP and I can no longer access their forums. What a buncha
jerks. Yes, I did get carried away with the foul language but hey, can
ya blame me?

So I can no longer sign-in under CMS220. I got a new username "SB16-
ISA-FM" and logged in from another network outside my house. I started
venting my anger again using colorful language. One of the Creative
Technology companymen then sent me a warning note, in which he/she/it
threatened to contact my ISP and shut-down my internet connection.
What those fools don't realize is that I can log in under any name
from any network that I am given access to. It doesn't have to be from
my house.

Maybe if Creative Technology weren't made up of such jerks, then I
wouldn't have started spamming their forums in the 1st place. So its
not my fault.

I would like a real Creative Music Synth [220]. Doesn't have to be in
a sound card. It could be a keyboard, a MIDI box or in any other
form.

Sadly, its not gonna happen because the mechanism by which Creative
Music Synth [220] is kept classified as top-secret by Creative
Technology Ltd. CMS220 is no longer made yet the sick @$$ company
still keeps the working of CMS220 a secret.

Creative Technology is a stubborn piece of crap. F--k those stingy
secretive bastards.

I hate sick sample playback MIDI synths.

I just wish the audio communities would revert back to real, non-
emulated SB16 FM synthesis and upgrade from there.
FM emulation [or any audio emulation for that matter] is sample
playback. Sample playback synth = human kakaa

SB Live stinks like human kakaa. It has no real music synthesis. Its
all kakaa-like emulation.

SB16 PCI has the disadvantages of SB16 ISA [e.g. limitation to 16-bit
resolution] without the advantages [e.g. *real* FM synthesis]. All
SB16 PCIs should be burned in oxyacetylene flames.

AFAIK, some PCI cards contain something called 'Yamaha FM synth'. I
hate it though because it is emulation. The Avance sound card has
'Avance FM synth', but its also a real stinker as it isn't a real
synth. The evil PCI loves to inflict pain on other types of slot --
ISA being the unfortunate victim. PCI cards don't contain real FM
synths.

Anything kind of 'OPL' a PCI would have, would be emulation. The only
'OPL' any PCI cards have is OPL emulation. Emulation stinks like human
diarrhea kakaa foam. I don't understand why a PCI card cannot contain
a real FM synth like Creative Music Synth [220]. Is there a technical
barrier to this?

I can easily tell the difference between the freshness, brightness,
warmth, and liveliness of a *real* synth from the stale, cacophonous
-- or rather KAKAA-FOAMous -- fart of emulation.

Creative Music Synth [220] = SB16 ISA's FM synth = my favorite MIDI
synth.

I don't care for other MIDI synths.

Creative Music Synth [220] is:

1. Real

and

2. Digital

and

3. Hardware

and

4. Real-time

All other FM synths are okay. Wavetables are also good. But I don't
care for them.

Here are my ratings for *soundcard* MIDI synths in the order from best
to worst:
1. Creative Music Synth [220]
2. All digital hardware FM synths other than Creative Music Synth
[220]
3. Wavetables, non-FM digital synths, analog [non-digital] synths
4. Sample playback synths

Sample playback synths are the worst.

Sample playback synths STEEEENKS!!!!

Sample playback MIDI synths are the worst audio equipment ever. They
are stinky, tickly, itchy, creepy, irritating, farty, hissy,
terrifying, disgusting, and annoying.

I like the audio quality of Creative Music Synth [220]. It sounds so
warm, fresh, bright, rejuvenating, lively and effervescent.

The only thing about Creative Technology that I like is their Creative
Music Synth [220]. Other than that, they are a piece of kakaa.

Creative Technology is one f--king piece of crap that provides sh--ty
customer service. Their tech support is so limited.

Creative Technology used to be such a great company 13 years ago. Now
there are nothing but stinky-diarrhea-kakaa-foam-of-humans.

I've asked them about Creative Music Synth [220] -- through a variety
of means, including but not limited to phone, fax, and their online
tech support -- only to be totally-ignored. I asked them about this
for the past 5 years. Never got a decent answer. In addition, most of
their online tech support is pre-written garbage.

Creative Technology also uses such f--ked up sickening disgusting
sample playback synths in their PCI cards.

I wish that a gang of persons who support Creative Music Synth [220]
would attack Creative Technology and force them to make hardware
versions of Creative Music Synth [220] -- in PCI cards that are
compatible with PCI slots and Windows XP -- upgraded from 16-bit to 32-
bit and from 44.1 KHz to 192 KHz. And from there, keep on upgrading!
When XP and PCI are obsolete then Creative Technology should be forced
to make even newer hardware versions of CMS220 -- with even wider bit-
resolutions and higher sample-rates -- that are compatible with the
newer hardwares and softwares that will exist in that future time.

If Creative Technology refuses, I hope the CMS220-advocating gang ties
up the people who make up that company and torturously force them to
repeatedly listen to sample playback MIDI synths and emulation until
those Creative personnel are annoyed with burning headaches and are
deathly desperate for an escape. Only then will the people of Creative
Technology do the right thing -- make upgraded versions of Creative
Music Synth [220].

A rich spoiled-rotten company like Creative deserves to be heinously
hijacked and forced to do their duties.

The least Creative Technology Ltd could do is put a *real* 32-bit, 192
kHz, version of Creative Music Synth [220]. But
noooooooooooooooooooooo! They are too f--king lazy.

Its not just Creative Technology that's responsible. Its also the
fault of self-destructive customers who don't mind paying $$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$ for those crappy sample playback synths. F--k those customers
as well. Masochistic perverts! I don't care if those customers destroy
themselves. Though, I sure as f--k don't want them destroying me! Such
customers should eat their own stinky diarrhea kakaa foam. If you feed
a scum, then you're just as filthy as that scum and I sincerely hope
you suffer just as much.

I feel like torching the chips of sample playback synths with
oxyacetylene flames to distort their audio output.

Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite MIDI synth.

Its those sample playback synths that are crap.

Sadly most MIDI magazines advertise the kakaa-stinky sample playback
as a good thing often referring to them as 'wavetables'. These sick
marketers call sample playback synthesis 'realistic sounding'.

Sample playbacks synths are nothing more than the sound of a stinky
fart emitted from a human colon.

I've been looking hard for true FM synths. No luck. Most PCI cards
have OPL emulation. I hate FM emulation. FM emulation -- much like any
sample playback synthesis -- is to the ear what human kakaa is to the
nose.

I want *real* FM synthesis not some stinky trashy out-of-a-human-
behind emulation.

Those stinky-f==king marketers who refer to sample playback synthesis
as 'wavetables' deserve to be thrown into the sewer and made to eat
their own crap.

There is a world of different between sample playback synthesis and
wavetable synthesis.

If you still believe the marketer-induced myth that wavetable
synthesis and sample playback synthesis are the same thing, then
please educate yourself with the hardcore scientific facts presented
on the following link:

http://www.musicdsp.org/files/Wavetable-101.pdf

Wavetable synthesis is so much better than any kakaa-spitting sample
playback synth but not nearly as heavenly as *true* FM synthesis. Of
all the *true* FM synths, Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite.

If a synth is *not*:

1. *Real*

AND

2. *Digital*

AND

3. *Real-time*

AND

4. *Hardware*

then it,
STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is what I would like to do. I would like to make some replicable
electronic nanobots that will search for sample playback MIDI synths
in any part of the world and attach to the digital chips of sample
playback MIDI synths. These nanobots should contain magnetic receivers
that will extract any random environmental magnetic audio signals 2
kHz and 50 kHz [excluding spikes, square-waves, white noise, brown
noise, pink noise and bass sounds]. The nanobots then amplify those
signals to the point where they would significantly interfere with --
and cause inductive crosstalk in -- the audio signals in the digital
electronic chips of the sample playback MIDI synths. This will cause
sample playback MIDI synths to be full of annoying - and perhaps even
frightening -- auditory disruptions from environmental magnetic
interference.

That way all companies will be forced to make *real* synths and the
listeners will be forced to adapt to the excellent audio quality of
*real* synths. For those who miss their stinky human kakaa foam of
sample playback synths, well, f--k them!

I try playing Creative Music Synth [220], through my so called
'karaoke voice canceller' -- which inverts the phase of one stereo
channel [right or left] and then combines it the other channel --
which results in anything identical in both the left and right
channels being removed. I get a mono of what was different in the left
and right channels.

When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-
canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.