Looking for the most accurate Paula audio emulation

[no9]

Originally Posted by ross

Obviously n9

Congrats! Even the first version, which was crappy encoded, didn't stop you from recognizing the true smell of Amiga sound! I've taken a little delay before including descriptions in the video for those who prefer to listen without any preconceived notions. They are there now, for those who are interested.

[ Show youtube player ]

[ross]

Originally Posted by no9

..the true smell of Amiga sound!

[Bren McGuire]

just when i thought you couldnt dig your grave even deeper you doubled down on this you are completely lost paul1891BC

how can you sleep at night having made a fool of yourself so hard in here? you're deaf as a brick that much we are clear of

Originally Posted by paul1981

Your video sounds terrible, I couldn't bring myself to choose one.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by no9

You weren't. Yet you did plug in your opinions again. And these were commented by me.

Erm...yes I was (apparently): See your post #55 reply which goes like this:

Originally Posted by no9

The question was dead simple: which one is better. You didn't answer that at all.

So it seems you are not being honest here - why do you have to lie?

Originally Posted by no9

So why you even ask for this if you are unable to hear a thing in the video? Don't answer, just asking rhetorically.

The rest of your post is equally misleading and helpless, so there is not a point addressing it.

But I will answer it: this is yet another lie from you - I never did ask for your 'lossy video', which by the way self-evidently rules out any form of true comparison regarding Paula, emulated or real.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by Bren McGuire

just when i thought you couldnt dig your grave even deeper you doubled down on this you are completely lost paul1891BC

how can you sleep at night having made a fool of yourself so hard in here? you're deaf as a brick that much we are clear of

Would you like to answer my question in post #48 which you plain ignored? Maybe you need more time to research your answer?

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by paul1981

Regarding subjectively 'better' sound, how can anyone deny that sound and vision senses are subjective experiences? I know exactly what I said on the previous page and it was not in opposition to this.

The perception of sound can be subjective, but sound itself is measurable and can be objectively compared. When the goal is to reproduce something else, e.g. Paula, you can objectively state which produces the closest sound.

Originally Posted by paul1981

I should mention here that I never said 44.1KHz was bad, or that WinUAE emulation sounded bad, I just said that the 48KHz setting sounded better, and I stand by that statement.

It might sound better to you, but it doesn't mean that it is more accurate. At some point if you up the frequency beyond what Paula natively achieves, then an emulator has no choice but to perform interpolation to attempt to approximate the sound, which will be less accurate. Unlike, say, a recording of a live orchestra there is an inherent digital aspect to the sounds Paula creates which is a function of the sample rate and bit depth.

[no9]

Just as an aside, instead of chasing the perfect sound emulation, which is already pretty good in WinUAE, it might have been better to make the sound output slightly more adjustable by implementing an EQ or injecting even more imperfections with third-party VST effects like [ Show youtube player ]. It would be an equivalent to the Filter menu for video output. Ok, that was a bit of fantasizing there

[TCD]

Originally Posted by no9

Ok, that was a bit of fantasizing there

Not a bad bit though I wouldn't mind having an EQ in WinUAE

[vulture]

I think a windows eq (like the excellent and free Equalizer APO) is just as good since winuae simply outputs wasapi or dsound. It would be more flexible to have it built-in winuae tho.

I mean, in an unusual scenario where you've got winuae and another program outputting sound at the same time, the built-in eq would be useful, but otherwise, it's not *really* needed.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

WinUAE allows >48000Hz frequencies. Just type something in the frequency box that Windows accepts. (Note that normally WASAPI mode only accepts frequency that is configured in Windows Sound control panel)

No comments to other topics..

I've tried this today and had a critical listening session with headphones. The results are good...very good indeed.

96KHz sounds much better than 48KHz, which in turn sounds much better than 44.1KHz (which I had already stated). So I deduce from this that audio processing in WinUAE is not locked at 48KHz, but is indeed giving more accurate Paula timings, all processed at the higher rate that I had typed in (96000).
My sound card can't go beyond 96KHz on this computer, so that's where I end the testing.

I used the music from the game No Second Prize - the intro music or the initial opening screen music is a good test. I used the opening screen music today as it's a very busy and full sounding piece with some very fine instruments. The 44.1KHz setting is comparatively mushy, and to be honest quite ghastly when compared with the 96KHz. The difference is night and day. The choir sample on the right hand side was particularly impressive. There's increased frequency response and sweet nuances (listen to the hi-hats for one), better timing and dynamics and clarity all round for everything. It's more solid sound, and less fatigue inducing, less broken. More pleasant by far, and a more accurate mix of those four Paula channels. Thank you Toni!

P.S. In WinUAE, emulated audio filter and interpolation were disabled (I don't think NSP uses the filter anyway in the music). My sound card was set to 96KHz (locked rate) throughout the testing.