Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D News
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 27-03-19, 10:59 AM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,344
CD wasn't when music went from analogue to digital though, we had used digital recording systems(AKA Pulse-code modulation) for audio since around WWII to avoid the noise of analogue systems, while you could buy music in a digital format for over a decade before CDs were available, digital music recording and storage started just after WWII when "master recordings" started to be done on magnetic tape rather than vinyl across the industry, with vinyls just being conversions of the digital recording from then onwards(~1950). Digital music distribution started when magnetic tape systems became commercially viable for home users in the early 70's. All the infrastructure had already existed for decades by the time CDs came around, and home users, particularly audio enthusiasts, had already been using digital systems for over a decade.

If you were to compare the timeline of digital music distribution to raytracing, CD's would be where we're at in like 5-10 years, after it's been available to enthusiasts for a while and has become widely accessible to general users.

While my love of Jim might bias me a little even back in the 60's he knew that fully digital production was just around the corner(Just required digital signal processing improvements so computers could start taking these long established established digital recordings via tape and manipulating them in realtime):


(Off topic but I know lots of people who buy lots of vinyls, most of them don't actually have a record player, modern vinyls are still just digital recordings now lazily mapped to vinyl with a significant loss of fidelity in the process used for modern mass manufacturing of vinyls, they're not really meant for high fidelity playback, more as a physical representation of a medium most people in my generation usually view as exclusively non-tangible in any practical form.)

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 27-03-19, 11:41 AM
trawetSluaP's Avatar
trawetSluaP trawetSluaP is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 520
I notice hardly any difference with DLSS.

That 40% claim is nonsense.
__________________
Enthoo Elite | i9-7900X | Rampage VI Extreme | Dominator Platinum 32GB | RTX 2080 FE | 960 Pro 512GB, 840 Evo 250GB x 2 | EVGA SuperNOVA 1200 P2 | PG279Q, MX27AQ | Custom Watercooling Loop + Aquaero 6 XT

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 27-03-19, 12:36 PM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaapstad View Post
The differences between analog v digital for music reproduction going from vinyl to CD are a huge subject and far far bigger than getting Ray Tracing to work and there are lots of areas that are not obvious to people looking at the subject casually. I am not an expert on the subject but have seen enough technical debates to know that it makes Ray Tracing look like child's play. Weirdly enough back in the 1980s going to digital from analog was sometimes visually demonstrated like the effect DLSS has on graphics lol.

As I say I am not an expert but I know there a couple of people on these forums who do know a lot more than me about the subject.

Have you ever wondered why Vinyl has become popular again, there is a lot more going on than the fact it is a bit distorted being analog. Some people even like old style valve amps and for good reason.
Analog will always win over Digital in Audio. Ask any guitarist and they will opt for valve amps and analogue pedals instead of DSP amps or digital effect pedals. They are night and day when you look into it deeper. And a trained ear can easily tell the difference in sound.


Anyway. Why is this discussion derailing once more? seems like a fight on who is more right now. Completely off the topic.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27-03-19, 12:44 PM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,344
That's more to do with limitations in digital synthesis techniques though, when it comes to storage and transmission specifically any analogue form is inherently more susceptible to noise than a digital form, and this becomes a limiting factor to realistic fidelity achievable sooner than aliasing, quantisation or jitter does for high sample rate lossless digital audio formats, whether that's for radio or compact storage.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27-03-19, 03:35 PM
looz's Avatar
looz looz is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt4g View Post
What!!! I can't use DLSS on my 2080ti / 1440p monitor setup.....
It's because DLSS takes a set amount of time to perform, and 2080 Ti pushes frames faster than DLSS upscale them at 1440p.


But that also means that you don't need DLSS' performance boost.
__________________
i7 8700k - 16GB - 2060 FE - 512GB 970 & 850 EVO - AKG K702
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 27-03-19, 03:55 PM
WYP's Avatar
WYP WYP is offline
News Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 15,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by looz View Post
It's because DLSS takes a set amount of time to perform, and 2080 Ti pushes frames faster than DLSS upscale them at 1440p.


But that also means that you don't need DLSS' performance boost.
^ pretty much this.
__________________
_______________________________
Twitter - @WYP_PC
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 27-03-19, 04:22 PM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by looz View Post
It's because DLSS takes a set amount of time to perform, and 2080 Ti pushes frames faster than DLSS upscale them at 1440p.


But that also means that you don't need DLSS' performance boost.
And its this understanding that makes me wonder how many went for a 20xx card after being swayed by the DLSS feature even though they have a 1440p screen. Does Nvidia state that DLSS is only applicable to 4k resolutions?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 27-03-19, 04:43 PM
looz's Avatar
looz looz is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
And its this understanding that makes me wonder how many went for a 20xx card after being swayed by the DLSS feature even though they have a 1440p screen. Does Nvidia state that DLSS is only applicable to 4k resolutions?
It does work for lower resolutions if the GPU itself is slow enough.
__________________
i7 8700k - 16GB - 2060 FE - 512GB 970 & 850 EVO - AKG K702
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 27-03-19, 04:46 PM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,344
If they have a slower card it's still relevant to them at 1440p because then the time taken to render a frame would become large enough for the DLSS algorithm to work concurrently on the frames but you'd be able to notice blurriness more at lower resolutions too at least with an immature trained algorithm for it since the rendering res drops with it and you can notice resolution differences easier the lower you get.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 27-03-19, 04:46 PM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is online now
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: With the Asguardians of the Galaxy
Posts: 16,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by looz View Post
It does work for lower resolutions if the GPU itself is slow enough.
Yeah and with the amount of poorly optimized games these days that's not uncommon. though it begs the question if they implemented and optimized DLSS well otherwise it won't do jack for you.
__________________
I am Iron Man.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.