KLANG: A New Linux Audio System For The Kernel

[ninez]

Because with float, we are operating with analog-like values, but using digital base to process and store them. True analog does not have thresholds (ie 1 / 0) and hence is much more detailed, "warm", but also more chaotic and susceptible to noise. Remember those audiophiles preferring vinyl over everything? Vinyl discs and whole processing is true analog, no digitization (and hence, no "bumpness"). Digital technology can compensate this by throwing heaps of bandwidth and processing power though.

I understand the difference between analog and digital, thanks. I attended a Music and Technology program and have also worked in several studios in my 20s... and Again, i wasn't arguing any of your post, but only citing that floating point does not equal 'fake analog' which in terms of terminology that could be used, is a completely unneeded junk term that doesn't even translate into something useful for a layman. - which was the point of my post.

The point that I had, is that the float value inside digital machines is not as chaotic, noisy or unpredictable as datenwolf has seen it. Its pretty discrete.
So, in my opinion, the only pro-argument for KLANG was/is: integer processing takes less resources - which I think is also incorrect, because we have floating point processing modules and specific instructions.

I really don't think all this has any value for Linux or its users.. It looks like a fight between misunderstandings and good vs better.

However, making something integrated, like CoreAudio, from ALSA+JACK+Pulse, while staying flexible -- would be a good thing for KLANG to do. Yet I don't think its possible without cooperation of whole scene. Which in turn means, if datenwolf values truth over personal opinion, lets hope he will cooperate instead of sack punching in the basement. Because if even if he succeeds, the result will just tear the system more apart, instead of evolution. Paul has typed pretty a lot of interesting info here, so he (Paul) does not seem to me he'll refuse to cooperate...

How is KLANG going to make these technologies (Jack, PA, ALSA) integrated, when the project is setting out to replace ALL of them inside the kernel??? (hint: it can't). Actually, what i personally got from reading Paul's posts (but i don't speak for him) was that he pretty much shot down the entire idea of KLANG, and also pointed out some areas where Datenwolf seems to have not thought about real world usage, nor bothered to even interact with any other Linux proaudio developers, either :\

To me KLANG is just a really bad idea - if you want to improve the Linux audio stack, work on ALSA, PA and/or Jack ... OSS sucks and we don't need to revive it under some new name (klang) with some added features, while then trying to convince every developer to port his/her applications to it. ALSA has better hardware support than OSS (or KLANG) so unless DW plans to port and maintain every driver from ALSA - this just seems like a dumb idea, regardless of any argument of Float vs. fixed-point ...

[crazycheese]

I understand the difference between analog and digital, thanks. I attended a Music and Technology program and have also worked in several studios in my 20s... and Again, i wasn't arguing any of your post, but only citing that floating point does not equal 'fake analog' which in terms of terminology that could be used, is a completely unneeded junk term that doesn't even translate into something useful for a layman. - which was the point of my post.

Hm, ok, let me approach it from the other side. I'm not trying to teach you, just sharing thoughts.

The discrete approach, contrary to analog, has finite states. 1 or 0. You can't really chop 1 down to 0.9, same with zero. This is distinct feature, not bug, of discrete - to withstand chaos, science requires precision.

You can, however chop analog in half, so much you need. 0,5; 0,25; 0,125 ... ∞
However, the disadvantage is that analog is completely unstable to noise and "going down the road" you will encounter higher noise levels, which do sum up in operations, and will limit the amount of real granularity. Pretty sure everyone knows it. Musicians value analog for "chopping" and use good cables to protect from noise.

Well, you may call it "analog model nested on discrete approach", or "analog emulation on discrete".. it is the floating point variables.

I use the term "fake analog" for digits that exist and are processed using discrete approach (granular one),
but have the analog nature (of inifinite "going down the road") inside.

Because they are based on discrete, they are protected from noise and chaos which you would encounter in analog wire. They are precise here for.
Because they follow analog model, they can be chopped and chopped, every time correctly in half.

But the disadvantage of comes from their discrete basement - they can only be chopped down up to certain volume, limited by their mantissa.
This does not happen with true analog approach - at all (read above).

After they (float) run out of space, they will "approximate" by cutting down, rounding. All this imprecision is cased by lack of volume, by lack of processing power. And of course by some specific operations, that are only applicable to analog values that is - such as "rounding up" (mod), for example. Pretty same happens to discrete integer, if it runs out of "volume" - it will overrun or clip the "less insignificant part".

I think the engine, proposed by datenwolf will have problems processing audio volume (audio fidelity) and will require much higher bit capacity to overcome than he proposed, granted it will have zero imprecision. 64bit, 128bit?

[ninez]

Hm, ok, let me approach it from the other side. I'm not trying to teach you, just sharing thoughts.

What part of i don't need you to teach me the difference between analog and digital did you not understand, exactly?!?!

oh, i am not trying to teach you, just "sharing my thoughts" - yet then here you go, with another lesson - 'approaching it from the other side' :\

again, I already know the difference - i don't need a lesson (yet again). my comment was only geared at your terrible terminology, that being 'fake analog', which i think is a somewhat useless term, that wouldn't be used in any definition of 'floating point'.

you don't need to continue, pointing out fairly obvious things to someone whom already understands these concepts, especially when i have already explained to you that I don't need you to educate me on a subject. :\

[Nevertime]

What part of i don't need you to teach me the difference between analog and digital did you not understand, exactly?!?!

oh, i am not trying to teach you, just "sharing my thoughts" - yet then here you go, with another lesson - 'approaching it from the other side' :\

again, I already know the difference - i don't need a lesson (yet again). my comment was only geared at your terrible terminology, that being 'fake analog', which i think is a somewhat useless term, that wouldn't be used in any definition of 'floating point'.

you don't need to continue, pointing out fairly obvious things to someone whom already understands these concepts, especially when i have already explained to you that I don't need you to educate me on a subject. :\

I feel your pain simply reading through his condescending comments. Reminds me of a time long ago, when my dad felt compelled to outline in detail the 'correct' method of taping up an broken envelope. It forced me to tape the envelope in a completely unconventional way in order to defy his unwanted explanation...

In short, you don't have to ague with him. Everyone (else) realises you understand the difference between analogue and digital... However, you will never truly be able to live in peace with yourself until you prove without doubt that analogue and digital are in fact the same thing.

[ownagefool]

I feel your pain simply reading through his condescending comments. Reminds me of a time long ago, when my dad felt compelled to outline in detail the 'correct' method of taping up an broken envelope. It forced me to tape the envelope in a completely unconventional way in order to defy his unwanted explanation...

In short, you don't have to ague with him. Everyone (else) realises you understand the difference between analogue and digital... However, you will never truly be able to live in peace with yourself until you prove without doubt that analogue and digital are in fact the same thing.

This is somewhat apt, but I think theres a way out of it. After having similar feelings I read his name, pondered for a second and read it again. Its sort of bliss wheen you realise.

[fliteshare]

KLANG = German for SOUND
I am not kiddin you
Unbeknown to him, this guy picks one awsome name for an audio utility.

With a name like that it better live up to those German quality standards !

[elanthis]

KLANG = German for SOUND
I am not kiddin you
Unbeknown to him, this guy picks one awsome name for an audio utility.

With a name like that it better live up to those German quality standards !

It's also very similar to the name of an existing userspace library, irrKlang.

Frankly, Pulseaudio already works.

I'd much, much, MUCH rather see a FOSS reimplementation of FMOD. And no, OpenAL is not even remotely fucking close to being a replacement. Especially when you keep in mind the FMOD Designer tool.

[droste]

Unbeknown to him, this guy picks one awsome name for an audio utility.

The creator of this ("Wolfgang 'datenwolf' Draxinger") speaks German. I'm pretty sure this was not a coincidence.

[crazycheese]

What part of i don't need you to teach me the difference between analog and digital did you not understand, exactly?!?!

oh, i am not trying to teach you, just "sharing my thoughts" - yet then here you go, with another lesson - 'approaching it from the other side' :\

again, I already know the difference - i don't need a lesson (yet again). my comment was only geared at your terrible terminology, that being 'fake analog', which i think is a somewhat useless term, that wouldn't be used in any definition of 'floating point'.

you don't need to continue, pointing out fairly obvious things to someone whom already understands these concepts, especially when i have already explained to you that I don't need you to educate me on a subject. :\

So, you understand what I'm talking about, but you don't like how I call it ? Call it as you like then, problem solved. Regarding my terminology, I like it and hereby it stays approved for and by me.

[Zorael]

I'm still withholding judgment until I see how it performs. In the meantime I'm happy with PA.

KLANG = German for SOUND
I am not kiddin you

It also means 'tone' or 'sound with an appealing character' in Swedish, so I imagine both derive from an old Germanic word.

It's also very similar to the name of an existing userspace library, irrKlang.

Not to mention CLANG!

I like the name KLANG in this conext; it's clever and tongue-in-cheek, like upstart, telepathy, pidgin, mutter, konversation, et al. It even fits as an acronym (Kernel-level Audio Next Generation).

That said, it really really conflicts with existing projects', to the point where I'd recommend a name change before it gets irrevocably set in stone. Obviously most names are already taken, so to avoid the "Simpsons did it" phenomenon you'd have to take into account how widespread and popular they are.