Comment by nkmnz
4 days ago
And they accidentally made it 1.003713731707 times faster? They chose a number that contains only the digits 0, 1, 3, and 7? C'mon, this cannot be a coincidence!!!
4 days ago
And they accidentally made it 1.003713731707 times faster? They chose a number that contains only the digits 0, 1, 3, and 7? C'mon, this cannot be a coincidence!!!
It's a good thing we're jumping to conclusions instead of exhaustively evaluating all of the places values exactly like this one appear when dealing with swing and quantization on, and especially when mixing 8, 12, 16 bit samplers and sequencers. Nevermind all of the little nudges from byte window mismatches when reading, playing back, or manipulating samples at varying bit depths and sample rates.
> It’s a good thing we’re all jumping to conclusions
I wholeheartedly agree. This thread would have been a lot less fun to create if I’d had to apply rigorous methodology and proper hypothesis evaluation practices. I’m really glad someone else appreciated that too :D