Hardware vs. Software?? - by all
io organic industrialism on 18/8/2008 at 15:34
Why is this discussion even occuring in the year 2008? Even when I first played Thief back in 1999, my motherboard had onboard video with a 4MB graphics chip. My friend showed me Thief in software mode on his computer that same year, and it was a freakin slideshow
IndieInIndy on 18/8/2008 at 17:49
Is it possible to play software mode at higher than 640x480? I once tried to get Gold to play at something higher, but every time I'd switch to software mode, it'd lock down to 640x480 as the only available mode. The screenshot above is 800x600 -- is T2 the only one that allows other resolutions?
While I always play in hardware mode, I've wanted to try one playthrough in software mode just to see what it looks like, and the check out some of the software-only things I've heard mentioned over the years, like the heat distortion effect around fire arrows.
Brian T on 18/8/2008 at 17:49
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
Why is this discussion even occuring in the year 2008?
Why do people still listen to vinyl records in 2008? Technology isn't the be all and end of all of computer games, some people like software for nostalgia, a few like me think it gives a different perpspective to the graphics. Or maybe some people just have really old computers.:cheeky:
io organic industrialism on 18/8/2008 at 18:00
Quote Posted by Brian T
Why do people still listen to vinyl records in 2008?
Because vinyl is still the preferred release method for a large majority of electronic/dance music :cheeky: Plus, it can sound sweet as hell on a good setup.
Really, I'm with you though man. When I play emulators, I turn off any filtering options so I can see every crunchy bit of pixelated goodness.
Quake also looked sweet as hell in software mode. When my friends and I got our voodoo 3's, only half of us used GL mode in Quake.. The rest (me included) stayed with software because GL gave me a weird headache. :D
I just have a bad memory of Thief software mode because it was so slideshow back in 1999. They added the support for people who didn't yet have graphics accelerators, but really it wasn't even playable at the time.
BrokenArts on 18/8/2008 at 21:31
Analog for some is far superior than digital.
/me breaks out the ALBUMS..........
Bjossi on 18/8/2008 at 22:10
The last time I heard the sound of a vinyl record was at least 15 years ago. Do they actually sound good (from a technical perspective) compared to CDs or is it just nostalgia coating the eardrums?
jtr7 on 18/8/2008 at 23:01
This is where someone with scientific or technical knowledge should break it down for us, and that ain't me.
The ears and listening habits have a lot to do with it, but analogue can capture the full soundwave, while digital is like the connect-the-dots of a wave. Any vibrations that existed between the dots are gone. Digital also turns amplitude into a series of increments, instead of a smooth transistion. Most cannot hear it, though.
Well-kept and correctly maintained, a vinyl recording can sound more natural, warmer, and the high-end isn't truncated. Obviously, most people cannot hear those higher frequencies, yet many who grew up with vinyl can tell you something is missing. As you know, some tones cannot be perceived as tones by the ear, because the frequencies are too high or low, but they do create a pressure that can be felt.
Personally, I don't enjoy some digital recordings as much as I'd like, because I can still hear the fakery going on at the high-end, and when the amplitude nears zero (such as when a song is fading out to silence). I can hear what I believe is dithering. Sometimes a sound is artificially brittle, metallic, or splintery. Again, all subjective, and most cannot hear it, and frankly, don't care.
A CD's capacity, along with the average person's hearing ability, attention to detail, and importance placed on sound quality, all had an influence on determining the standard resolution of commercial sound quality.
If my knowledge of any of this is terribly flawed, please correct me.:angel:
I can tell you that the sound of crackle and pop is part of the nostalgia, for me, and I really don't like the snik-snik-snik-snik of a skipping CD.
Bjossi on 19/8/2008 at 04:03
If all of that is true, than that is plenty of stuff I never knew.
Though I do know that CDs have to include vastly compressed version of the studio recording in order for the data to fit. Personally I think CD quality is more than good enough for enjoyable listening.
Though I would love to know how an original recording of my fav CDs sound like, to have a comparison. Maybe I'd hate CD quality after that. :p
Neb on 19/8/2008 at 04:43
jtr7 is pretty much spot on as far as I'm aware.
(
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/04253.png) http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/04253.png
My ears aren't so highly sensitive to the difference between analogue and digital but I can kind of hear the difference between 44.1khz (cd) and 96khz - as in the difference between 44,100 samples per second compared to 96,000.
Anyhow. Wouldn't using software mode be equivalent to digital audio in this analogy, since hardware mode seems to smooth the textures and lighting more? :p
Brian T on 19/8/2008 at 06:35
It's true apparently that CDs have an unnatural bar graph type of sound compared to the analog smooth curve. ( I read that in a Brian May interview many years ago) That unnatural method of reproduction can also lead to a sense of fatigue after a while. For me though the conenience and lack of unwanted noise of a CD is enough to outweigh that disadvantage.
Quote Posted by io organic industrialism
When I play emulators, I turn off any filtering options so I can see every crunchy bit of pixelated goodness.
"pixelated goodness." Nice phrase! Very descriptive and now that I think about it oddly true. Sometimes you just crave a bit of crunchiness :)
