Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[PeteD]

No one to attack?

Interesting that you think in terms of attack.

 

Especially as the most confrontational/personally attacking person is the one complaining about it.

[potatohead]

I suspect #3 is using the "newer shinier" platforms "look how much better it is on Amiga or ST!" as a diversion when the discussion isn't even about them.

 

That's actually a much better example than mine.

 

I'll explain that list just a bit. On some other venues, I engage in some very spirited P&R discussion. These are small places, lots of regulars, and a good spirit, and very open moderation. Let's just say there is CARNAGE, but we may often meet at a local bar and shake hands, where possible. A good thing.

 

Over the years, I started tagging the dodges. At first, it was a curio, then it became useful as everyone learned to recognize them, the discussion quality shot up, and god help the newbie, thinking any of that crap would fly. They get hit with a #15, with a dash of #3, and it's WTF??? LOL??? time huge.

 

It's topped out a shade below 20, with some not being appropriate here, and very, very useful for debunking BS, which occurs regularly with P&R, where there is opinion, defensible opinion, supported by facts, and supported by BS. Only one of those quadrants is really useful, meaning the fight is over the other three, and a third dimension where people struggle with acceptance on an opinion contrary to theirs actually being defensible. (love those actually)

 

Being the programmer type, and knowing some of you other programmer types well enough, I thought the list would be fun, and so there it is.

 

And it's one sentence for you know who.

[potatohead]

Hmmm... I might have to side with DimX. It could be taken either inclusively or exclusively.

agreed - since English isn't his native tongue, he most likely didn't realize that the way he wrote it was ambiguous.

 

Agreed.

[PeteD]

No one to attack?

Interesting that you think in terms of attack.

 

It the first thing i come to think of when several people trying to really annoy a single person. Like you did in your first reply today.

 

SEVERAL and YOU DID are plural and singular. Not really grounds for complaint. I think your conduct within your first few posts has been the problem.

[Bryan]

Hmmm... I might have to side with DimX. It could be taken either inclusively or exclusively.

 

I'm pondering but I do actually think before I made a reply and pointed out what he "might" mean there was a distinct possibility it was the "other" way.

Considering all the other silly things that have been proclaimed in this thread, a simple math error seems trivial.

 

There is one way in which you can use a Pokey channel after it's been lost as the silent half of a 16-bit channel. The output stage is still available as a 4-bit DAC.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Bryan

[PeteD]

Hmmm... I might have to side with DimX. It could be taken either inclusively or exclusively.

agreed - since English isn't his native tongue, he most likely didn't realize that the way he wrote it was ambiguous.

 

Misunderstandings happen very easily.

 

I watched a video yesterday of a BNP (basically a racist UK political party) member and his cronies beating up some asian youths. To me what I originally heard which is what I believe the kids heard was the BNP guy saying "how many of you are robbers?", which kicked off all the trouble. After listening again I heard "how many are there of us?" as he pointed out to the youths that they were somewhat outnumbered.

[DimensionX]

@SpiceWare

 

I haven't said anything bad to you.

 

So why this kind of behaviour?

[potatohead]

Hmmm... I might have to side with DimX. It could be taken either inclusively or exclusively.

 

There is one way in which you can use a Pokey after it's been lost as the silent half of a 16-bit channel. The output stage is still available as a 4-bit DAC.

 

I did not know this! See? That's why these threads are cool, if we can keep the bitings to a sane level.

[Bryan]

I think he just stuck up for you.

[PeteD]

Hmmm... I might have to side with DimX. It could be taken either inclusively or exclusively.

 

I'm pondering but I do actually think before I made a reply and pointed out what he "might" mean there was a distinct possibility it was the "other" way.

Considering all the other silly things that have been proclaimed in this thread, a simple math error seems trivial.

 

There is one way in which you can use a Pokey channel after it's been lost as the silent half of a 16-bit channel. The output stage is still available as a 4-bit DAC.

 

Like a SID volume sample player SID's up to 4

[DimensionX]

No one to attack?

Interesting that you think in terms of attack.

 

Especially as the most confrontational/personally attacking person is the one complaining about it.

 

Suddenly persons i don't even know post personal attacks in this thread.

[potatohead]

I think he just stuck up for you.

 

Yes he did. This looks like semantics to me, plus a nice bailout on the 4th channel DAC thing.

[Bryan]

I did not know this! See? That's why these threads are cool, if we can keep the bitings to a sane level.

When you link two channels both outputs can be turned on, but the result is generally funky sounding. So the usual method is to turn the lower one down to 0, but you can just as easily set it to Volume-only mode where the output is locked 'ON' so the volume bits set the voltage.

[potatohead]

Another interesting bit. So then, with all three SID voices playing, a fourth can get mixed in there with volume modulation, like the POKEY direct mode?

 

So then, with the SID, is it just modulating the volume a bit to make the 4th sound appear, or what?

 

On the POKEY, modulating the DAC actually gets mixed in with the other sounds, without really impacting them, so long as the total doesn't exceed the output limit. 32, or something, I believe. Will have to look that up. Anyway, the two are different, though the resulting sound effect could well be very similar, depending.

 

Which is it?

 

 

Hmmm... I might have to side with DimX. It could be taken either inclusively or exclusively.

 

I'm pondering but I do actually think before I made a reply and pointed out what he "might" mean there was a distinct possibility it was the "other" way.

Considering all the other silly things that have been proclaimed in this thread, a simple math error seems trivial.

 

There is one way in which you can use a Pokey channel after it's been lost as the silent half of a 16-bit channel. The output stage is still available as a 4-bit DAC.

 

Like a SID volume sample player SID's up to 4

Edited May 7, 2010 by potatohead

[Bryan]

Like a SID volume sample player SID's up to 4

 

This has confused me. Can SID play 3 voices plus a DAC voice?

[PeteD]

Another interesting bit. So then, with all three SID voices playing, a fourth can get mixed in there with volume modulation, like the POKEY direct mode?

 

 

 

Yeah, it's basically a bug they "fixed" it on the 8580 chips When the volume changes it produces a click at that volume, so dumping 4 bit sample data into it gets you a sample playing using only the volume.

 

*edit*

I'm sure "click" is oversimplifying whats actually going on, but that's the basis of it.

Edited May 7, 2010 by PeteD

[PeteD]

Like a SID volume sample player SID's up to 4

 

This has confused me. Can SID play 3 voices plus a DAC voice?

 

See above

[potatohead]

(edited)

 

Ok, so I think I get it. All three SID voices are playing something. That's the three.

 

Now, on one revision of the chip, a click on volume change is heard. Got it. I would assume the click is in proportion to the volume step chosen.

 

Now, if the three are playing, you can't just go hammering the volume right? It's gotta be modest steps, or the other voices are impacted, or...

 

Help me get that part.

Edited May 7, 2010 by potatohead

[Bryan]

Another interesting bit. So then, with all three SID voices playing, a fourth can get mixed in there with volume modulation, like the POKEY direct mode?

 

 

 

Yeah, it's basically a bug they "fixed" it on the 8580 chips When the volume changes it produces a click at that volume, so dumping 4 bit sample data into it gets you a sample playing using only the volume.

I remember the click problem. Wouldn't that cause the DAC-effect to screw with the regualar audio, or does it appear to mix cleanly?

[DimensionX]

Okey, to make things clear.

 

If 2 channels on the pokey chip plays the same note?

 

The bit will not change?

 

And the sound will be fatter on that particular note?

 

And you still have two more channels?

 

That means that you can get a fatter bass sound using double channels on the pokey chip and still have 2 channels left to make music with.

 

That was my point, and that's because pokey have one channel more then SID.

 

Then if SID sounds better or not, is irrelevant in this case.

Edited May 7, 2010 by DimensionX

[+SpiceWare]

No one to attack?

Interesting that you think in terms of attack.

 

It the first thing i come to think of when several people trying to really annoy a single person. Like you did in your first reply today.

You thought that was an attack? Wow.

[PeteD]

Another interesting bit. So then, with all three SID voices playing, a fourth can get mixed in there with volume modulation, like the POKEY direct mode?

 

 

 

Yeah, it's basically a bug they "fixed" it on the 8580 chips When the volume changes it produces a click at that volume, so dumping 4 bit sample data into it gets you a sample playing using only the volume.

I remember the click problem. Wouldn't that cause the DAC-effect to screw with the regualar audio, or does it appear to mix cleanly?

 

It sounds fine surprisingly and it's used in lots of games and demos. Then you get the usual "we can mix X samples into 4 bits" eeek! Not so great. There are newer techniques for playing pseudo samples using the voices as well, which means samples with filters etc. Sounds really impressive IF you want your C64 to sound like an Amiga mod player

[DimensionX]

No one to attack?

Interesting that you think in terms of attack.

 

It the first thing i come to think of when several people trying to really annoy a single person. Like you did in your first reply today.

You thought that was an attack? Wow.

 

It was. Then you posted another reply to tell me that i only caused trouble here.

 

Everything was sooo nice when i wasn't here.

 

Don't take me for stupid, please.

Edited May 7, 2010 by DimensionX

[Bryan]

Okey, to make things clear.

 

If 2 channels on the pokey chip plays the same note?

 

Here's what happens when you do that...

 

You get two voices and some sort of phase effect depending on how you time the register writes. If they are in phase, the sound will simply be louder. If they are out of phase, the sound will be very quiet. What usually happens is you get them somewhat out of phase and the sound actually gets 'thinner' sounding.

 

Here's a fun trick: Set one voice to frequency X and set another to X+1. You'll hear them drift in and out of phase.

[GroovyBee]

LMFAO!

 

You said (emphasis mine) :-

When you use two channels for bass, Pokey can sound very fat too, and if you do, you still have three channels to make music with.

 

And now you say (emphasis mine) :-

 

That means that you can get a fatter bass sound using double channels on the pokey chip and still have 2 channels left to make music with.

 

So where is your apology for hurling insults when it was pointed out to you numerous times?