Think Its Possible To Run A Emu And A .wav Sound?

[Drak]

Yes I have heard that the GP2X cannot multitask, BUT.
Has any1 seen xbox emulators? They can run mp3s in the background from the emu and it doesnt count as a second process. I was just thinking since .wav take up like 1% system power would it be possible to implement .wav playing into emulators?

My question is:
Do you think its possible to run a .wav sound and a emulator at the same time?

I think it is... since .wav's take up no resources at all. Post what you think!

Thanks! ^.^

Drak.

 

[Ferentix]

I thought that GP2X could multitask? otherwise stuff like that screen capture script wouldn't work...

 

[Prefab]

Even though .wav probably won't use my CPU up, it'll use a lot of bandwidth because of the high uncompressed high bit rate. e.g. 74 minutes is 650mb.

 

[Drak]

Even though .wav probably won't use my CPU up, it'll use a lot of bandwidth because of the high uncompressed high bit rate. e.g. 74 minutes is 650mb.

​

Hmm.. Ive gotten a 6mb mp3 compressed into a 512kb .wav file, and the quality was still the same.. Kind of makes me wonder what you mean by those big numbers.

Anyway im not to keen on the really detailed stuff so fill me in

 

[craigix]

Of course it can multitask! Any system can.

 

[Drak]

Of course it can multitask! Any system can.

​

Damn people lied to us! I saw a post where they said linux could only run 1 thing at a time and whenever u load something else it flushes it down the drain for the new thing loaded

 

[skeezix]

The device can certainly multitask; the built in launcher doesn't do it though, thats all. Who says we're going to keep using that launcher?

jeff

 

[icurafu]

.wav could consume too much memory. makes more sence to use a mp3, or if cpu usage is a real problem, try mpeg layer-1 sound compression.

 

[mr.mirko]

Yes I have heard that the GP2X cannot multitask, BUT.
Has any1 seen xbox emulators? They can run mp3s in the background from the emu and it doesnt count as a second process. I was just thinking since .wav take up like 1% system power would it be possible to implement .wav playing into emulators?

My question is:
Do you think its possible to run a .wav sound and a emulator at the same time?

I think it is... since .wav's take up no resources at all. Post what you think!

Thanks! ^.^

Drak.

​

This depends on how GPH implemented the sound chip in linux.
Is it possible to open /dev/dsp0 twice, at the same time ?

Then you can benefit from a multitasking system (linux) and run 2 things @ the same time. ( This has nothing to do with the second cpu core ).

You can run (under linux) nice things like this :
mp3play song.mp3 &
game

means, that the mp3player is running in the background.
If the /dev/dsp0 is only avaivable one time, you can only listen to the mp3, if the game can open /dev/dsp0 too, you can here mp3 and game sound.

 

[craigix]

I was not really talking about linux.

 

[Yuglooc]

Even though .wav probably won't use my CPU up, it'll use a lot of bandwidth because of the high uncompressed high bit rate. e.g. 74 minutes is 650mb.

​

Hmm.. Ive gotten a 6mb mp3 compressed into a 512kb .wav file, and the quality was still the same.. Kind of makes me wonder what you mean by those big numbers.

Anyway im not to keen on the really detailed stuff so fill me in

​

Lol, how do you do thatm thats pure ninja h34r:

 

[tengen]

i suppose it's possible, but you'd have to make some modifications to the launcher like skeezix said

 

[Flexinoodle]

Even though .wav probably won't use my CPU up, it'll use a lot of bandwidth because of the high uncompressed high bit rate. e.g. 74 minutes is 650mb.

​

Hmm.. Ive gotten a 6mb mp3 compressed into a 512kb .wav file, and the quality was still the same.. Kind of makes me wonder what you mean by those big numbers.

Anyway im not to keen on the really detailed stuff so fill me in

​

Well what your saying is actually impossible so i think you might be mistaken

 

[Drak]

Even though .wav probably won't use my CPU up, it'll use a lot of bandwidth because of the high uncompressed high bit rate. e.g. 74 minutes is 650mb.

​

Hmm.. Ive gotten a 6mb mp3 compressed into a 512kb .wav file, and the quality was still the same.. Kind of makes me wonder what you mean by those big numbers.

Anyway im not to keen on the really detailed stuff so fill me in

​

Well what your saying is actually impossible so i think you might be mistaken

​

Im not lieing I used Soundforge to do it.. I can get em to be even less, but the quality gets ugly

I think the settings were AC94.

 

[Flexinoodle]

OK whatever you say

 

[Drak]

OK whatever you say

​

Want me to make one and send it to you? Its not too hard to do.

 

[Flexinoodle]

No if your happy carry on, You dont need to convince me if it sounds OK to you.

 

[Drak]

No if your happy carry on, You dont need to convince me if it sounds OK to you.

​

Your a wierd one. :angry:

 

[wyefye]

n00000bz!

Rofl.

it depends what your listening too, if the track has alot of different levels of sound, then its going to sound different in a .wav format compared to mp3. if its just a track that has like a banjo or flute or something(monotone sounds), then its not going to differ much.

But of course, it depends on your preference too. why do some people buy a 300.00 sound card when a perfectally good AC97 builtin chip works wonders? cause thier audiophiles.

 

[Flexinoodle]

Well no because the headroom on the 300 card is higher and the AD DA are much higher quality too and 24 bit support would probably be better too, Also the more expensive cards tend to have better drivers for ASIO and so on, If you do any kind of serious audio it makes a huge difference.

It makes no difference what you listen to either, If you take an mp3 and convert it into 44khz stereo cd quality uncompressed wav format it will always be exactly 10 meg per minute, This cannot be any different it is fact, If the 6mb file mentioned earlier is a 6 min 128kbps mp3 and was converted to 44khz wav it would be 60 meg end of story, If however you are using a lower sample rate or even bit depth then it would be smaller, The reason you are probably not hearing any change in quality is because either you have judged the size of the file wrong or you are using a lower bit depth or sample rate and the original mp3 was so bad quality that you cannot here the artifacts that are being added.

Now if you used a compressed wav format then that would totally bust your idea of no CPU use because decompression always uses CPU unless dealt with by a custom chip.