Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm
 I ask simple question and get answer from few users (thanx!) but pandy71 is the one who insist that "you can not compare F030 and A1200", start talking about "tricks how to open border", "thing you need to emulate from Amiga on ST"... and post some pictures in post #14 |
But you can't compare Falcon with factory A1200 - they can be compared when at least 68040/40MHz or perhaps even 68060 will be used on Amiga.
Do you agree for such comparison and why NOT?
Yes - most of activities on Atari ST scene is related to recreate or emulate some Amiga native capabilities - why compare something like that?
And pictures are to illustrate that some graphic capabilities are out of scope simply due of differences between hardware - different hardware and direct comparison will be unfair from Atari ST point of view - remain part is well known - 11.3% faster CPU clock for ST will make slight difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm
from my point of view, he start defending (?) Amiga from every aspect, just to prove obvious thing (one that all we already know): that Amiga hardware is superrior to ST.
and thats brings us here.
my bad is that I continue to answer to him but since he obviously have knowledge, why not continue even offtopic. |
Nope - i don't need to defend facts - from HW perspective Amiga is better than ST - this is fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm
anyway, I should disclosure my agenda.
(english is not my frist, not even second language so please have some apprehension )
my final goal is to made website where you could compare Amiga and Atari (and some Macs) computers with PC through achievements in time. it will include birth of today mainstream software (CuBase, Lightwave, 3D Max, Logic, Office...), and live demonstration what you could do with Amigas and Atari back in 80s... and what with PC.
to comapre them and to show how PC manage to slow down computer industries! |
Then why 3D scene demos that are completely not related to applications are mentioned at the start?
You can't compare Amiga to ST as you can't compare Macintosh to ST - HW differences are to big - btw i'm not sure is there demoscene for Macintosh?
You can compare applications and "productivity" but this is completely different thing than you started this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm
yes, very interesting finding.
Atari ST have external ASCI port for almost 2MB/s. Why ASCI? In 1985. SCSI was not finished (specification was not finalize). Atari anyway built in ASCI which is very similar to final SCSI but it is not 100% compatible. Atari produced CD-ROMs, harddisks and laser printer for it (Atari SLM laser printer was the first "windows" printer - printer that has no CPU or memory). |
I know that - i like ST community and ST as a computer so this was my point - it will be unfair to ST comparing it with Amiga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm
|
So this is additional HW - also you showing why im saying that whole topic is not fair - you can't compare peaches to pears - any HW change must have known implications to performance - only with this we can compare incomparable.
As plain Amiga have no HDD interface and A600 first with HDD interface have known limitations (PIO mode + other implications).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm
btw pandy71 do you have some links regarding "noiseshaping"?
|
There is lot links about noiseshaping
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....=Noise_shaping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_shaping
Personally i use SoX
http://sox.sourceforge.net/ which provide quite nice set various flavors of noiseshaping filters.
I think some different technique can be used for PSG used in ST
"In 2006, two
MSX developers created an advanced
encoder that converts a wave file to optimal PSG channel transitions using a
Viterbi search. They replayed a 44.1 kHz wave file on a 23 year old MSX and achieved a higher
signal-to-noise ratio than an 8-bit DAC. The Viterbi search is rather CPU intensive, so even though it would have been theoretically possible to use this method already in the 80's, there were no computers powerful enough to perform the analysis required."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...ced_techniques
http://www.msx.org/downloads/related...cm-encoder-001
http://map.grauw.nl/articles/psg_sample.php
Also 4 bit nonlinear DAC can be used on ST (part of PSG) but i think special tool must be created (ie noiseshaper that work with logarithmic steps not LPCM)
But with modern technology (knowledge and processing speed) should be possible.