Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 21:06 +0100 (BST)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <memo.20240920210657.19028B@jgd.cix.co.uk>
References: <vcgpqt$gndp$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 22:06:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac02fca4414dc35ecc7d6f31a2ffc60e";
	logging-data="1311847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oeU8BGTwxn8WhqIrQy2NEtngK266uMmA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Kpmy1ZBJR1qqFSEVR+gtYWJSBI=
X-Clacks-Overhead-header: GNU Terry Pratchett
Bytes: 1767

In article <vcgpqt$gndp$1@dont-email.me>, david.brown@hesbynett.no (David
Brown) wrote:

> Even a complete amateur can notice time mismatches of 10 ms in a 
> musical context, so for a professional this does not surprise me.  
> I don't know of any human endeavour that requires lower latency or 
> more precise timing than music.

A friend used to work on set-top boxes, with fairly slow hardware. They
had demonstrations of two different ways of handling inability to keep up
with the data stream:

- Keeping the picture on schedule, and dropping a few milliseconds 
  of sound.
- Dropping a frame of the picture, and keeping the sound on-track. 

Potential customers always thought they wanted the first approach, until
they watched the demos. Human vision fakes a lot of what we "see" at the
best of times, bit hearing is more sensitive to glitches. 

John