Why is it so hard to generate true RANDOM? (winamp)

LOLyourFace

Banned
Jun 1, 2002
4,543
0
0
1. Winamp random blows big goat nuts. Out of 1000~ songs, it only plays a set of 80-90 songs.
2. So I install this 3rd party randomizer called RoboDJ. They play a different set of 80-90 songs.

GAHHHHHHH, when I manually select certain songs, I am amazed how I've never heard it for years...
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness
 

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,374
741
126
good point. i have over 8000 songs and all of my mp3 players play only 100 or so of the same songs over and over. if i wanted to hear an older song, i would have to manually play them.
 

LOLyourFace

Banned
Jun 1, 2002
4,543
0
0
Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks
 

johnjbruin

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2001
4,401
1
0
Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks

its not hard mathematically but computers are teh dumb when it comes to complete randomness.

edit: yeah... winamp's pseudo-randomness sucks also
 

LOLyourFace

Banned
Jun 1, 2002
4,543
0
0
Originally posted by: johnjbruin
Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks

its not hard mathematically but computers are teh dumb when it comes to complete randomness.

well? wtf? implement that formula into the dumbass progs!
 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
You wanna know what's REALLY funny? Take a ton of brand new TI-83+'s. Their 'random' integer generators are in sync - so long as you pass all of them the same arguments, you'll get the same answers on every one of them. Found this out on the first day of my statistics class.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks

i suppose it depends on your definition of randomness...

but anyways, here's a nice overview:

random number generation

but yes winamp could probably do a better job... i don't know why it doesn't
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Wow you guys own that many albums ?! ;)

Actually I only have a couple hundred mp3s... never even get the time to listen to those... thousands is crazy...
 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
pretty much every random generator is based on system time.
 

dmurray14

Golden Member
Feb 21, 2003
1,780
0
0
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
You wanna know what's REALLY funny? Take a ton of brand new TI-83+'s. Their 'random' integer generators are in sync - so long as you pass all of them the same arguments, you'll get the same answers on every one of them. Found this out on the first day of my statistics class.

WEIRD - how does that work? What are they generating these numbers on that is globally synced?
 

Crappopotamus

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2002
1,920
0
0
yeah... i have a list of 500 songs or so. i NEVER hear some of them... and sometimes i hear one song twice in one day. RETARTED!
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
You wanna know what's REALLY funny? Take a ton of brand new TI-83+'s. Their 'random' integer generators are in sync - so long as you pass all of them the same arguments, you'll get the same answers on every one of them. Found this out on the first day of my statistics class.

that's true of any pseudorandom number generator... given the exact same input parameters (not just the ones the user passes in), you'll get the same number.
 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Originally posted by: dmurray14
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
You wanna know what's REALLY funny? Take a ton of brand new TI-83+'s. Their 'random' integer generators are in sync - so long as you pass all of them the same arguments, you'll get the same answers on every one of them. Found this out on the first day of my statistics class.

WEIRD - how does that work? What are they generating these numbers on that is globally synced?

Traditional random number programming uses what's called a random number table. This is a list of integers 0-9 generated either through a random experiment (10-sided die?) or some clever people like myself create them by looking up the first 400 bajillion digits of pi and copying and pasting some of that. This list is then read to create the random numbers. For example, if you have a random number table

5473859473564369218730954783745

and would like a number from 0-400, you take 3 digits at a time, determine if the number you just created is in range, and if it is, keep it, if it's not, throw it out. For example, the first result here would be 547. This gets thrown out, because it's out of range. The next is 385. This is in range, and would be returned as a valid result.

The TI-83+ only increments forward in it's list when a command utilizing it is used, so from the factory, they're all at the beginning of the list.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: aves2k
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: Eli
Try Sonique.

link for the lazy?


REALLY Lazy :p
Heh. Sorry. :p

I've always used it instead of Winamp. I don't use the Random feature, so I honestly don't know how good it is.. but maybe it's better?

It's MP3 decoder has better fidelity than Winamp's, and it's EQ is better.
 

Alternex

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
531
0
0
you know there's an option in winamp (v3) to increase the shuffling range.. the default won't shuffle too much
 

Alternex

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
531
0
0
Computers can be pseudorandom at best.. but no human being should be able to discern the difference between computer generated random numbers are true ones