Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:i see why assembly code is needed for audio... getting sign of a number is complex already

you don't need to work out the sign, just multiply x by -1 each loop and add to d

loop1 d=0, x=640
loop2 d=640, x=-640
loop3 d=0, x=640

etc

your way looks better.

trying to imagine what it looks like in assembly... having a headaches...

------

this manifest works impressively with mqn.exe
can have a good effect on lekt.exe... but not as much
has a effect on mqnplay.exe... also not as much

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0">
<assemblyIdentity
version="1.0.0.0"
processorArchitecture="ia64"
name="mqn.exe"
type="win32"/>
<description></description>
<trustInfo xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3">
<security>
<requestedPrivileges>
<requestedExecutionLevel level="requireAdministrator"/>
</requestedPrivileges>
</security>
</trustInfo>
</assembly>

----
piano notes are definitely better. especially for fast notes

for piano- lekt2.97+this manifest > mqn2.82
emotion is less. but earaches is zero.

sbgk wrote:is this better ? get's rid of the if then else. Also use waitforsingleobjectex.

x=-640

loop:
WaitForSingleObject(h,0xFFFFFFFF);
loaddata(d,...);

d+=x;
x=x*-1;
goto loop

best calculation is logical bitwise as >>, <<, &, |, ^ , don't use arithmetical operations *,/, they are most difficult for CPU. if/then with unsigned char also good (only compare >0 or !=0).
i^=1;if(i>0)d-=640;else d+=640; // 2 variables i and d, i is 1 byte, unsigned. 640 is constant
vs
d+=x;x=x*-1; // 2 variables, x is signed short 2 bytes. signed not good as unsigned. operator * is bad. x isn't constant.

not sure, you need test SQ in each case.

lekt wrote:

sbgk wrote:is this better ? get's rid of the if then else. Also use waitforsingleobjectex.

x=-640

loop:
WaitForSingleObject(h,0xFFFFFFFF);
loaddata(d,...);

d+=x;
x=x*-1;
goto loop

best calculation is logical bitwise as >>, <<, &, |, ^ , don't use arithmetical operations *,/, they are most difficult for CPU. if/then with unsigned char also good (only compare >0 or !=0).
i^=1;if(i>0)d-=640;else d+=640; // 2 variables i and d, i is 1 byte, unsigned. 640 is constant
vs
d+=x;x=x*-1; // 2 variables, x is signed short 2 bytes. signed not good as unsigned. operator * is bad. x isn't constant.

not sure, you need test SQ in each case.

I use neg in assembly which is a two's compliment instruction
x is an 8 byte register as it's used in the address calculation

i remember used in old version:
x=-640;

loop:
d+=x;
x^=-256; // result 640, -640, 640,...
goto loop;

now code in C i don't directly add/substract pointer value (ie. don't use d+=640;), use only by bytes, 1st-byte of its 8-bytes, 2nd-byte,... sound have much vibration.

best calculation is logical bitwise as >>, <<, &, |, ^ , don't use arithmetical operations *,/, they are most difficult for CPU. if/then with unsigned char also good (only compare >0 or !=0).
i^=1;if(i>0)d-=640;else d+=640; // 2 variables i and d, i is 1 byte, unsigned. 640 is constant
vs
d+=x;x=x*-1; // 2 variables, x is signed short 2 bytes. signed not good as unsigned. operator * is bad. x isn't constant.

I'll try it, but still think it will have cmp and jmp instructions plus branch prediction issues.

if you put the pointer into a variable after the first get and then call get again and put that pointer into a variable then you don't need any arithmetic, just use the 2 pointer variables d=p1 then d=p2 etc.

jesuscheung wrote:

if(i>0)d-=640;else d+=640;

how about this:
d += ((i<0) - (i>0)) * 640;

interesting, many ways to resolve this. in your case compiler will include two if/then (i<0) and (i>0), one subtraction, one multiplication. and d will asign value in temporary variable containing last result of multiplication. not benefit, hehe...

for any number if need 2 value then always can find out xor number for it.
if a xor x = b then x = a xor b.
take a is 640, b is -640, we can find needed number for xor operator: x = 640 xor -640 = -256
and can do in loop x^=-256;d+=x;

can do more effective:

x=d^(d+640) // x declared as signed
loop:
d^=x;
goto loop;
(notice compiler don't let xor with pointer, need type casting.)

sbgk, i think it's best method.

uploaded v2.97.1 160

optimized code, replace some xor operators with asign = (one thing in loop ~ 100 things outside loop).
vibration much improved. try test other things.

lekt wrote:uploaded v2.97.1 160

optimized code, replace some xor operators with asign = (one thing in loop ~ 100 things outside loop).
vibration much improved. try test other things.

no sound here.... nothing

2.93 is weirdly good
that sound has feeling like ear whisper....
feels like honey moon...

is it a jitter or what? i just love it...
emotion is so strong, that, i have difficulty capturing the words/lyric

i have strong feeling that the sound of 2.93 should be used on youporn... hehe