English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04 December 2013, 18:37   #61
Akira
Registered User

Akira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 18,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
Indeed but you can't play them other than resampled at 44.1kHz
I'm not really sure how it works, you know that I am no coder
I would love for the dev of Chipsounds to come have a go at his view on this matter.
Akira is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 04 December 2013, 18:44   #62
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
We're splitting hairs here, it's only a word game to argue about whether it's a "sample" or not if the data has been procedurally generated rather than recorded. Anyway what if it was synthesised on another computer and sampled onto the Amiga? I can see no point in this line of argument.
You can form complex sound by Amiga HW without CPU load (almost) complex as complex can be AM/FM modulation of sample by sample...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
The Amiga's sound generation is purely digital up until the DAC. It is not possible to generate any analogue wave. That's all that matters. Of course, square waves are easy.
Same as for example on 6581 which is not analog but digital sync build around NCO concept. 6581 have only digitally controlled analog filter but you can add this to Amiga too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
But I gather some emulators and mod players "interpolate" the samples, reducing aliasing and giving what is in theory a higher-quality sound, but losing something in the translation.

In addition, Paula doesn't run at the 44.1kHz that a modern sound card resamples everything to, so there is bound to be a difference. Perhaps this is noticeable?
So most of the soundcards use 48ksps instead 44.1ksps - and Paula can run with such speed but it need to be externally clocked (28.224MHz) and in fast mode (ie H sync faster than in normal TV mode) - AUDxPER $50.

Oer perhaps you are lucky one and your Amiga will work with SysCLK 43.7472MHz

And resampling is not as bad as audiophile people says...

I forgot to add that You can keep perfect shape of original signal only you need to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window...angular_window in your resampler.
pandy71 is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 18:52   #63
john1979
Registered User
john1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy71 View Post
And resampling is not as bad as audiophile people says...
That depends on the algorithm. Creative have thankfully got their act together on this front now but in the past it wasn't transparent at all.

Resampling these days with modern tools (like SSRC) is quite safe though.
john1979 is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 19:01   #64
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by john1979 View Post
That depends on the algorithm. Creative have thankfully got their act together on this front now but in the past it wasn't transparent at all.

Resampling these days with modern tools (like SSRC) is quite safe though.
Yes, also we learn many things from Amiga (half of 80's) about digital audio - probably Paula designer never hear about dither, noise shaping etc in this times - even small trick like panning (so each channel can be placed arbitrary between Left and Right) and linked or combined mode where channel DMA slots can be allocated to form twice faster one channel can be very useful today...
pandy71 is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 19:19   #65
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
In addition, Paula doesn't run at the 44.1kHz
It can actually run much higher than that using the CPU. You mean that the audio DMA normally doesn't do 44.1 khz. On systems that allow double scan screen modes (AGA) the speed of the audio DMA can be doubled to around 56 khz.
Thorham is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 19:25   #66
Mrs Beanbag
Glastonbridge Software
Mrs Beanbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edinburgh/Scotland
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
It can actually run much higher than that using the CPU. You mean that the audio DMA normally doesn't do 44.1 khz. On systems that allow double scan screen modes (AGA) the speed of the audio DMA can be doubled to around 56 khz.
No I mean that Paula decrements its internal counter at 3,579,546 Hz.
Mrs Beanbag is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 19:32   #67
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
No I mean that Paula decrements its internal counter at 3,579,546 Hz.
Okay, sorry about that Pretty insane rate, though, 3.5 mhz
Thorham is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 19:35   #68
Mrs Beanbag
Glastonbridge Software
Mrs Beanbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edinburgh/Scotland
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy71 View Post
You can form complex sound by Amiga HW without CPU load (almost) complex as complex can be AM/FM modulation of sample by sample...
Yes you can modulate, but not by an analogue waveform, only by tables of period/volume data. There are no built in waveforms.

Quote:
Same as for example on 6581 which is not analog but digital sync build around NCO concept. 6581 have only digitally controlled analog filter but you can add this to Amiga too.
6581 has built-in wave forms. Amiga does not have any built-in wave forms. Amiga cannot produce ANY SOUND unless some non-zero data is present in chip RAM.
Mrs Beanbag is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 20:35   #69
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
No I mean that Paula decrements its internal counter at 3,579,546 Hz.
Nope, Paula decrement SysCLK/8 and SysCLK can be provided different than original i.e. different than 28.37516 MHz for "PAL" or than 28.63636MHz for "NTSC".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
Yes you can modulate, but not by an analogue waveform, only by tables of period/volume data. There are no built in waveforms.


6581 has built-in wave forms. Amiga does not have any built-in wave forms. Amiga cannot produce ANY SOUND unless some non-zero data is present in chip RAM.
I think you are confused by analogue, waveform and built-in - 6581 is hardcoded HW design where HW in Amiga is "less" hardcoded.
6581 is digital chip (NCO, hard coded wavetable) with analog filter and digital ring modulator.

More about 6581 internals http://sid.kubarth.com/articles/inte...ob_yannes.html

Last edited by prowler; 04 December 2013 at 22:10. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged.
pandy71 is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 21:10   #70
daxb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,751
Every pc soundcard resample to 44,1kHz (or higher but fixed)? I only know that in the past (`90) they were so stupid to have only one fixed frequency. Thought todays cards support variable (e.g. 11kHz to 96kHz) frequencies.

About the topic:
For classic 8 bit sample stuff you will more or less have small differences in quality (emulation <> original). If you use tracker like DigiboosterPro/OctamedSoundStuio or Sequencer like HD-Rec with 16 bit 44,1kHz Samples on Amiga and play the same on emulation on pc you shouldn`t here differences. Ok, the most know this already.

I wouldn`t call an Amiga is something like an synthesizer. I own a roland MC-303 (groovebox) what I wouldn`t call it a synths too because its is sample based with sound manipulation.
daxb is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 21:41   #71
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by daxb View Post
Every pc soundcard resample to 44,1kHz (or higher but fixed)? I only know that in the past (`90) they were so stupid to have only one fixed frequency. Thought todays cards support variable (e.g. 11kHz to 96kHz) frequencies.all it a synths too because its is sample based with sound manipulation.
It depends but probably no -they are fixed frequency so they expect to have audio sampled with particular frequency and they support other sample rates trough some sample rate conversion (or performed by HW or by CPU - AFAIK for example Vista and higher Windows versions not use sound HW at all - all tasks are CPU based)

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxb View Post
I wouldn`t call an Amiga is something like an synthesizer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairlight_CMI - i would say that Amiga is comparable to Fairlight CMI and Fairlight CMI is named "digital sampling synthesizer"
pandy71 is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 21:52   #72
Mrs Beanbag
Glastonbridge Software
Mrs Beanbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edinburgh/Scotland
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy71 View Post
Nope, Paula decrement SysCLK/8 and SysCLK can be provided different than original i.e. different than 28.37516 MHz for "PAL" or than 28.63636MHz for "NTSC".
Well ok, I thought that was the case but I could only find the one number. Anyway I think you get the point.

If the emulator mixes the sound into a buffer, whatever frequency the buffer plays at it is resampled from 28.x MHz.

Given that, a little interpolation during the periods in which Paula ticks over its counter, would produce a slightly more accurate result. The question is, could anyone hear such a difference? Or is nearest neighbour good enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy71 View Post
I think you are confused by analogue, waveform and built-in - 6581 is hardcoded HW design where HW in Amiga is "less" hardcoded.
6581 is digital chip (NCO, hard coded wavetable) with analog filter and digital ring modulator.

More about 6581 internals http://sid.kubarth.com/articles/inte...ob_yannes.html
Ok so SID produces digital wave forms but not from an internal wave table.

Quote:
SID had to be entirely self-contained and there was no room at all for a wavetable on the chip.

The Sawtooth waveform was created by sending the upper 12-bits of the accumulator to the 12-bit Waveform D/A.

The Triangle waveform was created by using the MSB of the accumulator to invert the remaining upper 11 accumulator bits using EXOR gates. These 11 bits were then left-shifted (throwing away the MSB) and sent to the Waveform D/A (so the resolution of the triangle waveform was half that of the sawtooth, but the amplitude and frequency were the same)

The Pulse waveform was created by sending the upper 12-bits of the accumulator to a 12-bit digital comparator. The output of the comparator was either a one or a zero. This single output was then sent to all 12 bits of the Waveform D/A.

The Noise waveform was created using a 23-bit pseudo-random sequence generator (i.e., a shift register with specific outputs fed back to the input through combinatorial logic).The shift register was clocked by one of the intermediate bits of the accumulator to keep the frequency content of the noise waveform relatively the same as the pitched waveforms. The upper 12-bits of the shift register were sent to the Waveform D/A.
I would call this a synth.

I would not call Paula a synth because it cannot produce any output without any input wave data.

Last edited by prowler; 04 December 2013 at 22:12. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged.
Mrs Beanbag is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 22:40   #73
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
Ok so SID produces digital wave forms but not from an internal wave table.


I would call this a synth.

I would not call Paula a synth because it cannot produce any output without any input wave data.
SID is not able to produce any sound without CPU - same as Paula...

Synth mean you not limited to play but also to create (for example in algorithmic way).
pandy71 is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 23:11   #74
chaos
Registered User

chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 133
But if you look at it like that, couldn't then every sound card be considered a synthesizer?
chaos is offline  
Old 04 December 2013, 23:16   #75
Mrs Beanbag
Glastonbridge Software
Mrs Beanbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edinburgh/Scotland
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy71 View Post
SID is not able to produce any sound without CPU - same as Paula...
SID able to produce sound without access to RAM (no DMA). CPU is only needed to set hardware registers (period, volume &c).

Quote:
Synth mean you not limited to play but also to create (for example in algorithmic way).
Synth means acting as a source of waveforms. SID is a source of waveforms. Paula gets waveforms from RAM that CPU has initialised. CPU may run a software synth but Paula is just output device able to modulate the waveforms but not create them.
Mrs Beanbag is offline  
Old 05 December 2013, 00:41   #76
Akira
Registered User

Akira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 18,304
Yeah what Beanbag is saying... Calling the Paula a synth is really, really far-fetched.
With this definition, my laptop is a synth, and so is my iPad :P
Akira is offline  
Old 05 December 2013, 01:12   #77
commodorejohn
Shameless recidivist
commodorejohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Duluth, Minnesota (USA)
Age: 32
Posts: 169
Paula isn't a synthesizer; it's just a playback device with some wave-munging capabilities (FM & AM.) You can use it as the output device for a software synthesizer, if you like, but it's not inherently a synthesizer unless any sample playback device is a synthesizer.
commodorejohn is offline  
Old 05 December 2013, 05:37   #78
Loedown
Precious & fragile things

 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,927
This has been one of the best threads I have read in a long time, excellent comments too and fro and no one has gotten heated about it. I have also been forced to do some heavy reading which I don't do enough of these days.

Synthesizer is something that can use wavetables or analog oscillators or additive synthesis etc. but a sampler would be something that can only use samples. Throughout the years I have been fascinated by the manner of how these machines worked and indeed their strange idiosyncracies, each instrument having its own unique sound.
Loedown is offline  
Old 05 December 2013, 08:24   #79
xArtx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 637
Yes, and I get to casually walk away whistling, totally innocent like...
xArtx is offline  
Old 05 December 2013, 11:58   #80
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Once again - 6581 can't produce sound without CPU, Paula can't produce sound without CPU, CPU is absolute must.

Did ZX Spectrum can be considered as synthesizer? - YES!
[ Show youtube player ]

Synthesizer is defined by functionality not by particular HW implementation as even for digital synthesizers with analog modeling like for example older Roland JP-8000 or modern Roland SH-201 they require to use samples, buffers, DAC's to produce sound.
I would avoid to define functionality in freely programmable systems and Amiga have freely programmable system thanks to CPU+Paula.
Anything can be synthesizer [ Show youtube player ]

Btw there CSound for Amiga (quite old but anyway).
pandy71 is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shadow of the Beast 2 longplay (Amiga).. much better quality laffer Retrogaming General Discussion 8 06 February 2008 22:09
High quality scans of Amiga CD (32) game covers viddi request.Other 0 21 November 2006 14:24
Better quality graphics?? SHU support.WinUAE 12 09 May 2005 20:34
low quality sound icewizard2k5 support.Hardware 10 14 March 2005 14:05
winuae sound quality test released Toni Wilen support.WinUAE 30 29 April 2002 09:23

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.34011 seconds with 11 queries