https://maidavale.org/blog/ay-ym-differences/

http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=7571

I think this is where the confusion lies, and I apologise if I've been using the wrong name for the Atari ST chip I've been referring to all this time, but then, I understand the confusion if it's all down to alphanumeric names for these chips, as I continuously harp on about the MOS Technology 8364 R4 (Paula, just in case you didn't know).

If only all computer designs used people's names to easily identify them, we wouldn't have this problem.

Not necessarily - the 6581 and 8580 sound markedly different, despite both going by the name SID!

The Elektor TV Games Computer had two in 1979 too. So it wouldn't have really been a monster sound machine for 1985, but better than what they ended up shipping with.

D'oh! Forgot about the different SIDs. :(

Atari went for off the shelves parts for the ST.
That's the answer.

The sound chip is quite okay imo.

Like the rest of the ST its usefulness is in being a simple workhorse and not a shiny racing horse.

Anyway the ST was a great machine for its time.

https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.co...al-instruments

Not really related to the chip itself, but it's a nice write up about the MIDI side. I didn't know ST was used by so many big pop names of that era and a lot of underground artists.

But to be fair that's their fault for using the same name for two different things. (In their defense I doubt they ever thought lowly computer sound chips would ever be the subject of such near-religious fervour!)


At least the various iterations of Agnus had (somewhat unflattering!) modifiers applied to their name...


(And drifting off-topic, that's my problem with movie remakes - I have no problem at all with movies being remade, but I do wish they wouldn't use the same name as the original!)

Not to mention videogames!

(cough)doom(cough)

But for them it WAS the same thing.
The difference is in the manufacture process and a few bug fixes.
If you compare the latest revision 6581(R4AR) and the 8580, there is very little difference (mostly the filters, which are external to the chip).

I agree. Just compare it to the C64 version, preferably from a non-emulated 6581.

Yes indeed - I'm sure they never anticipated people caring about differences in their sound!




Interesting - I didn't know the filtering was external - thanks for that. But you can't just make one revision sound like the other by swapping the capacitor values? Or can you?

Skills! Thank you.

These days people really examine every little piece of difference that we didn't really care about then, imo.

Not once did I think "Oh, the C64 sounds so amazing, and the ST not" back then. And nobody whom I knew either.

From technical side I'm sure you correct. It doesn't make sense generally liking the sound of a C64, but not of a Atari ST.

I have a subjective reason for that, though:
The C64 was aging, so I accepted it's sound capabilities as given for the time. Outdated, but still nice.
From the Atari ST I expected more, as it competed with the Amiga, but was IMO nowhere near the capabilities in the sound department.
That was disappointing for me. Sound was a main reason I never considered to buy an Atari ST.
(This just happened many years later when I build up a small retro computer collection)

And as I said, I think you find alot more great, catchy songs in the C64 library than in the Atari ST library.

This indeed made me think that C64 sound is good, Atari ST not.

There are programmable filters which are internal to the chip, and external filter capacitors which are different between some of the revisions.
6581 units don't sound exactly the same as eachother, regardless of the capacitors.
With the 8580, these issues were resolved so all 8580 sound the same.

Great article, even if it did have a few mistakes. Actually that whole site has some good articles.

I think part of it is which machine first captured your attention with skilfully created chip tunes. There are brilliant examples and awful examples of music on every sound chip ever created, but if the first piece of chip music that captured your attention was on the SID, subconsciously you'll compare everything else against that.


Likewise if your first exposure was the Spectrum, Amstrad or Atari ST then SID might well sound alien to you. Those who have a particular fondness for the music in 80s arcade machines might well like the sound of the Megadrive more than the Amiga, while those of us used to sample-based music on the Amiga might well consider Soundblaster FM music "tinny".



I think the C64 lent itself more to breaking the mould, creating interesting and novel sound textures.


The other very important thing is the machine on which a tune originated. Especially when thinking of the Masters (Tim Follin, Rob Hubbard, etc) the version of each tune which has the "magic" is the version on the machine they used to compose it. In many cases that was the C64. If they'd composed on the ST and then made a C64 version later I think the ST version would have been the one with the "magic".




Thanks - I wasn't aware that there was so much variation between different 6581s.

I dont personally think the ST sounds much worse than most other soundchips of the day, I think the issue is Paula being so much better and because of its ease at playing samples and heading in that direction because of the plethora of Soundtracker clones, gave it its distinctive sound.

Its a testament to how good Paula sounded when it was still compared favourably with Megadrive and SNES quite some time after its release.

The ST was compared to 8 bit machines, the Amiga was in a class of its own.

Given how nowadays devices are nigh on impossible to repair... that is actually a respectable thing to do!

Doesn't change the fact that when I see game conversion comparison videos the ST version usually sounds like nails on a chalkboard compared to the Amiga version :) There was one game where the ST version actually sounded a lot better but I just can't recall which one that was.