The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Quantum computing and the benefits for studio work DAW Software
Old 18th December 2016
  #1
Gear Addict
 
Fergies Watch's Avatar
Quantum computing and the benefits for studio work

Hi,

Having read up on the basics of what quantum computing is this morning, I'm left wondering if this massive potential technological advancement would benefit the studio world.

I can imagine software emulations of hardware moving from fairly good to indistinguishable using this tech. How about daw improvement in the computers ability to be able to do what Hd pro tools latency can do, but on say 100 simultaneous live inputs?

Maybe I'm off the mark a bit as I certainly do not have the knowledge to know if this may be possible, but it's certainly an exciting concept of what quantum computing might do for the studio world alone.

I'm hoping more scientifically educated amongst us may be able to shed some light on what the future may bring in terms of quantum computing and the potential benefits associated within the world of audio recording and sound processsing.

How about the sounds that a synth designed to run on a QC, with so much processing power could create?


It may well feel like this tech is light years away, but is it really that hard to imagine the amazing things that could be achieved by tapping into its power?

Thanks

Stu
Old 18th December 2016
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
OwDU7's Avatar
 

Seems to be a long way to travel to be able to bring this type of HW to work in a studio...

What would be the interest in having a DAW and plugins that would be much more expensive than a desk and real HW?
Old 18th December 2016
  #3
Gear Addict
 
Fergies Watch's Avatar
well i suppose eventually the quantum models will become scaleable to the masses and mass manufactured to take moderm home computing to the next level, cost is relative to demand? and history states that it would be a matter of time before the giants of the computing world will make this a viable step towards the public consumer
Old 18th December 2016
  #4
Gear Addict
 
Fergies Watch's Avatar
a little google and I found this.. more interesting relationships to music / software and associated uses for quantum.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/quantu...e-makes-music/

Quantum Computing: Everything You Need to Know | Digital Trends


below quotes are taken from the above site.. probably not good news for current world protection devices.
“If a full-scale quantum computer could be built, it would mean that that computer could break almost all the cryptography used out there.”

size of the technological advancement..
"Hensinger compared its potential to the jump from the typewriter to a PC."

it seems IBM are the frontrunners and spending much time devoted to the evolution of the tech.

"We’re now seeing a race toward the first large-scale universal quantum computer."
Old 19th December 2016
  #5
Gear Maniac
 
OwDU7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergies Watch View Post
well i suppose eventually the quantum models will become scaleable to the masses and mass manufactured to take moderm home computing to the next level, cost is relative to demand? and history states that it would be a matter of time before the giants of the computing world will make this a viable step towards the public consumer
Each one costs $10,000,000 and operates at 459 degrees below zero. And nobody knows how it actually works.”

The cost can go down, but the fact that it needs to be as close as possible to absolute zero temperature is a real problem...
This is like the 'analog computers' tested in the 80's and 90's...
This said, there will be a replacement to the current silicone tech. that is quickly reaching its limits. QC is (IMO), unlikely to ever go mainstream, but who knows...
Old 19th December 2016
  #6
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Make-believe science. There's a lot of it. Consider the amount of money that is required to "research" this sort of thing. Entire careers and branches of industry are built on little more than promises.

"Just give us 5 more years and there will be a breakthrough". I could give dozens of examples.

Old 19th December 2016
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwDU7 View Post
Each one costs $10,000,000 and operates at 459 degrees below zero. [...]
I think I'll double my RAM first and see how that goes.

How much energy is consumed in taking a computer down to almost absolute zero (459.67°F or –273.15°C -- or, you know, 0°K), I wonder?

I do guess they've gotten some materials down to very, very close.
Quote:
NEW DELHI: Scientists at an Italian institute have set a world record of the lowest temperature ever achieved in the universe. They cooled a copper vessel with a volume of one cubic meter to -273.144 degrees celsius. This is stunningly close to 'absolute zero', which is equal to -273.15 degrees celsius.Oct 22, 2014
Lowest temperature ever in universe recorded at Italian lab - Times of India
Old 19th December 2016
  #8
That all doesn't work for audio.
Audio requires lots of cycles per voice, and as long as that is not offered it is not going forward with lower latency, higher sample rates and heavier algorithms.
We can have larger projects done, 100 live inputs is no issue - we can do 128 inputs @ 96k at a 64 samples buffer - but doing live native mixing on those channels is challenging unless the core speed gets boosted. With the current trend to add cores instead of cycles this is not going to change. Cores are fine as tracks/channels are added, but not when plugins are stacked on individual channels.

So, we don't need quantum computing, but "qualitum" computing...
Old 20th December 2016
  #9
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergies Watch View Post
below quotes are taken from the above site.. probably not good news for current world protection devices.
“If a full-scale quantum computer could be built, it would mean that that computer could break almost all the cryptography used out there.”

size of the technological advancement..
"Hensinger compared its potential to the jump from the typewriter to a PC."
I didn't read the articles, but the quotes are telling. First of all, a quantum computer is not like a massively parallel classical computer on steroids. The main idea behind quantum computing is to leverage the exponential power of quantum superposition and entanglement. Basically, an n-bit classical computer can be in one of 2^n states, while an n-qubit quantum computer can be in a superposition of 2^n entangled states. The idea is that, for certain very specific types of problems, an algorithm that would normally require 2^30 (a billion) steps on a classical computer, requires only 30 steps on a quantum computer.

This sounds fantastic, but it's still theoretical at this point. There has not been a single accepted demonstration of this so-called quantum supremacy (the engineering is really hard). Most experts believe it is coming, at least on a small scale. But more to the point, all experts agree that quantum computing will be far slower than classical computing for most types of problems.

In order for quantum speedup to be feasible, the problem you're dealing with has to have a certain intrinsic structure. One example of this is prime factorization, i.e., breaking integers down into their prime factors: 10 has prime factors 5 and 2. It's trivially easy to pick two big prime numbers p and q and multiply them to make a huge number n: n = pq. But it's exponentially hard to start with n and find p and q. This asymmetry in difficulty is the basis of RSA, which is the most common form of public-key cryptography (when you connect to your bank online, you're using RSA behind the scenes). But the integers have lots of intrinsic structure. Specifically, prime numbers are not randomly distributed, and with some clever modular arithmetic, divisibility can be shown to be periodic. Shor's algorithm takes advantage of this by using quantum Fourier transform to find prime factors of large numbers in polynomial time (e.g., n^2 rather than the much larger 2^n). This makes RSA theoretically breakable, though we're a long way from actually building a computer can that do it. And if/when we do, there are other ciphers that are not susceptible to quantum speedup -- including, if necessary, quantum ciphers.

As for music production, I don't see the application for quantum computing, even if the technology becomes mature enough for home use. Dispel yourself of any notions that a quantum computer will allow more audio inputs, or lower latency, or anything like that. Far from it! A classical DAW would run circles around any quantum DAW by several orders of magnitude. And for real-time audio processing, the quantum computer will be useless.

All that said, the theory behind quantum computing is fascinating. If you're interested in more, google Scott Aaronson, an expert in quantum computing who makes the difficult subject accessible (his book is a hoot).
Old 20th December 2016
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
Ganglion's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui View Post
Make-believe science. There's a lot of it. Consider the amount of money that is required to "research" this sort of thing. Entire careers and branches of industry are built on little more than promises.

"Just give us 5 more years and there will be a breakthrough". I could give dozens of examples.

This is not make believe science.
I could give dozens of examples of things that people never thought possible but are now. Technology is advancing exponentially. Quantum computers might not be here in the near future, but it will eventually leapfrog classic binary computing.

Is there some kind of thread notification that can be set for 20 years?
Old 20th December 2016
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
I didn't read the articles, but the quotes are telling. First of all, a quantum computer is not like a massively parallel classical computer on steroids. The main idea behind quantum computing is to leverage the exponential power of quantum superposition and entanglement. Basically, an n-bit classical computer can be in one of 2^n states, while an n-qubit quantum computer can be in a superposition of 2^n entangled states. The idea is that, for certain very specific types of problems, an algorithm that would normally require 2^30 (a billion) steps on a classical computer, requires only 30 steps on a quantum computer.

This sounds fantastic, but it's still theoretical at this point. There has not been a single accepted demonstration of this so-called quantum supremacy (the engineering is really hard). Most experts believe it is coming, at least on a small scale. But more to the point, all experts agree that quantum computing will be far slower than classical computing for most types of problems.

In order for quantum speedup to be feasible, the problem you're dealing with has to have a certain intrinsic structure. One example of this is prime factorization, i.e., breaking integers down into their prime factors: 10 has prime factors 5 and 2. It's trivially easy to pick two big prime numbers p and q and multiply them to make a huge number n: n = pq. But it's exponentially hard to start with n and find p and q. This asymmetry in difficulty is the basis of RSA, which is the most common form of public-key cryptography (when you connect to your bank online, you're using RSA behind the scenes). But the integers have lots of intrinsic structure. Specifically, prime numbers are not randomly distributed, and with some clever modular arithmetic, divisibility can be shown to be periodic. Shor's algorithm takes advantage of this by using quantum Fourier transform to find prime factors of large numbers in polynomial time (e.g., n^2 rather than the much larger 2^n). This makes RSA theoretically breakable, though we're a long way from actually building a computer can that do it. And if/when we do, there are other ciphers that are not susceptible to quantum speedup -- including, if necessary, quantum ciphers.

As for music production, I don't see the application for quantum computing, even if the technology becomes mature enough for home use. Dispel yourself of any notions that a quantum computer will allow more audio inputs, or lower latency, or anything like that. Far from it! A classical DAW would run circles around any quantum DAW by several orders of magnitude. And for real-time audio processing, the quantum computer will be useless.

All that said, the theory behind quantum computing is fascinating. If you're interested in more, google Scott Aaronson, an expert in quantum computing who makes the difficult subject accessible (his book is a hoot).
Thanks for a helpful explainer, bogosort! Once again, you've shown the merits of actually knowing what one is talking about before starting to talk.

Too bad our international culture seems headed the other direction at breakneck speed, rejecting facts and science because we're not emotionally comfortable with their fundamental truths, instead making up pretty -- or ugly depending on the person and agenda -- lies to fit our mood and our motives.
Old 20th December 2016
  #12
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post

Too bad our international culture seems headed the other direction at breakneck speed, rejecting facts and science because we're not emotionally comfortable with their fundamental truths, instead making up pretty -- or ugly depending on the person and agenda -- lies to fit our mood and our motives.
Indeed. Aren't we lucky that the likes of Facebook and Snopes are going to band together to protect us from "fake news"? Personally, I'd much prefer governments and scientific institutions to tell me directly what I need to know, think and believe. I don't want to be confused by diverging opinions. Cut out the middleman, tell me directly what the truth is via an approved truth-website. Imagine how much time I could save by not having to think for myself. I could spend more time on something useful, like playing computer games.

Old 20th December 2016
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui View Post
Indeed. Aren't we lucky that the likes of Facebook and Snopes are going to band together to protect us from "fake news"? Personally, I'd much prefer governments and scientific institutions to tell me directly what I need to know, think and believe. I don't want to be confused by diverging opinions. Cut out the middleman, tell me directly what the truth is via an approved truth-website. Imagine how much time I could save by not having to think for myself. I could spend more time on something useful, like playing computer games.

Responsible journalism, scientific, and academic research that adhere to rigorous ethical and procedural standards are actually a bulwark against propaganda, disinformation, and outright lies, whether from a government or a political group or a politician.

And properly performed and presented, those disciplines contain their own fact-checking/self-correction mechanisms -- unlike the agendized disinformation campaigns of those who attempt to manipulate the credulous and uninformed against their own legitimate self-interest.
Old 20th December 2016
  #14
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Responsible journalism, scientific, and academic research that adhere to rigorous ethical and procedural standards ...
... none of which is happening in real life. The topic of this thread is a fine example. "Facts", like most things, are bought and paid for.

How many scientific papers just aren’t true?
Old 20th December 2016
  #15
The Spectator is an OPINION journal of the UK's right/far right and is intimately connected to the Conservative Party -- and the writer of that opinion piece works for the climate-change denying Global Warming Policy Foundation -- a political lobbying group which lost its tax-free charity status because it was shown to have violated impartiality rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spectator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation
Old 20th December 2016
  #16
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Good example of attacking the messenger while ignoring the message.

Are you disputing the *facts* mentioned in the article?

"Last year, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, admitted that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Here's a direct link:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...?rss%25253Dyes
Top Mentioned Products
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump