kmr;299592 Wrote: > It's not the sorted order of an individual playlist that is the problem; > I totally agree that rand() is good enough for that. > > What I really dislike is correlation in the successive random number > sequences. For example, I like to use "shuffle songs" on my late 2004 > 4th gen iPod in my car; however, if I don't use the iPod over the > weekend, it resets itself and on Monday morning, I select "shuffle > songs" again. The new "random" playlist is strongly correlated with > the last "random" playlist - I hear largely the same songs in not too > far off from the same order. This is a classic case of correlation in > the RNG. So, I was curious if the SqueezeCenter shuffle algorithm uses > a good, uncorrelated RNG or not (and yes, I'm well aware that > correlation is only one of many tests to determine the goodness of an > RNG).
No. I have the same thing in my car radio. This is usually not a correlation thing, because you don't hear correlations, as soon as the first track is different you are on a completely new trail and don't tell me that you can hear a correlation like in 1 20 4 80 5 vs 2 40 8 160 10 What you describe usually is a bad randseed issue, that is: the same start value is used on consecutive rand sequences instead of using something like time() as a start value. -- pippin --- see iPeng at penguinlovesmusic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=47242 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
