Which Amiga computer technically has the best audio quality?

[stx2199]

The A1200 sound output is far louder than the A500
so you will get better audio quality

[TuRRIcaNEd]

Originally Posted by Calabazam

There are differences in filters, hence the difference between A500 sound and A1200 sound that some can perceive.

That may be the case, however was it not essentially almost always the case that game and demoscene coders would disable the hardware (Butterworth) filter in order to achieve the best mid- to high-end clarity?

They may be differences in how caps behave and type of caps.
Old damaged caps will alter the sound. Tantalum caps as i have in an A600 are theoretically possibly altering the linearity of the sound output.

Cards on the table - I am at most an amateur, self-taught audio engineer - but I feel confident enough to state that (presuming the caps are functioning as they are supposed to) one might just be able to pick up an audible difference in that respect if you have the ears of a bat.

A very sensitive bat.

If anyone can actually hear a difference, i guess it is just a matter of preferences to say which is the best.

Correct. The joy of audio is that everyone's preference is subjective.

For decades now, there has been an ongoing debate amongst C64 aficionados as to which revision of SID sounds "best". What's very important to understand (aside from "best" being subjective) is that SID, unlike Paula, generated its tones internally, and due to the nature of chip manufacturing processes, literally no two SID wafers - even of the same revision - were likely to sound exactly alike, if one were to go deep enough into that rabbit hole.

Paula does not generate her own tones - she literally takes data from Chip RAM, is able to process that data through many functions that are useful in terms of audio and musical reproduction, and feeds the processed data to a DAC setup which converts the signals to an analogue audio signal pumped out of the stereo phono sockets. The only part of that system that might affect the final output is the character of the DACs - and the whole point of a DAC is that they're supposed to be generic and predictable.

Case in point - the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis used a YM2612 FM sound chip which in basic terms is a 6-channel version of the 8-channel YM2151 used on Sega's 1980s arcade games. However, the YM2612 was designed to be a low-cost component and - unlike the YM2151 which required an external DAC - had a basic DAC on the chip die itself, which is why FM music on a real Mega Drive tends to sound somewhat tinny compared to the arcade equivalent (a shortcoming that no longer exists as far as emulators are concerned).

Back in 1991 I rescued my family's old Marantz hi-fi amp and speakers from the garage, set it up in my bedroom and hooked it up to my A500 (which made everything sound *epic* for that time... ). Two years later when I got my A1200 for Christmas, I naturally swapped it out and could perceive zero audible difference.

Many years later when I started trying to get my head around audio engineering and music production, I went full-nerd and spent a day comparing the output from my "real" A1200 to that of the modern emulators, and observed that the analogue output from the A1200 had a very slight, but (just about) perceptible bias towards the low-end and mid-range - meaning that OG Paula + DAC has slightly more low-end "oomph" and mid "presence" compared to the raw dump from WinUAE.

So what does that mean? In all honesty, not all that much. The likelihood of any noticeable variance in audio clarity between different iterations of Amiga hardware is beyond negligible. If your intent is to stick your Amiga's audio output through a hi-fi for a more immersive experience it doesn't matter in the slightest which model you use, and if your intent is to capture Amiga audio output to use in your own musical productions, chances are you're going to run it through EQ settings tailored to your own tastes anyway, so the same applies.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by TuRRIcaNEd

A very sensitive bat.

It would be interesting in a 'blind test' to see if people can even hear the difference between real hardware and emulation.

[TuRRIcaNEd]

Originally Posted by TCD

It would be interesting in a 'blind test' to see if people can even hear the difference between real hardware and emulation.

Back in the day (we're talking about 1997-ish), having reluctantly switched to Wintel for Uni, I had a feeling that the output of Fellow/WinUAE sounded a bit "flat" compared to the real thing - but I had no idea how to express it or understand why that might be. This is why I did a nerdy A/B test many years later.

[Pyromania]

Sound chip in the Vampire V4 is quite advanced and it blows Paula away.

[TuRRIcaNEd]

Originally Posted by Pyromania

Sound chip in the Vampire V4 is quite advanced and it blows Paula away.

On paper, of course; that said it's hardly surprising given we're talking 2020 FPGA vs. 1985 NMOS, no? What remains to be seen is whether those capabilities are ever used.

Anyways, as far as I can tell that wasn't the aim of the original question, which seemed to be whether any of the "classic" Amiga models had inherently superior audio fidelity despite every single one of them using Paula.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

A600 were cheaper, smaller, easily expandable and have the same soundchip than every Amiga.
Seems logical to me to use them.

Nope, there are different Paula revisions and later (PLCC) are better - probably CSG improved on all those years also Paula layout...

Originally Posted by Henryk Richter Amiga Paula vs. System Theory

It’s worth noting that the ECS revision of Paula got significant
improvements wrt. DAC accuracy. The ECS Paula can be found in SMD Amigas as standard
configuration (8364R7PL). A500+ usually also has the ECS Paula equipped (8364R7PD). By
my experience, the ECS Paula is less commonly found in A3000 sytems. If you can get a hold of
an ECS Paula for A500/2000/3000, I’d recommend to install it.

Secondly Paula is not everything - there is many factors involved in audio quality - for example virtual ground circuitry used in Amiga to allow Paula DAC's emit/sink current that is later converted to voltage, also filters are different. PCB layout is important, decoupling is important.
Seem CD32 was designed around same Paula as A600 but overall audio signal path is simply better.

So despite Paula didn't changed (we know that this is untrue as mentioned earlier) since 1984/85 there are differences sometimes more important, sometimes less so you can have Amiga that has higher audio quality.
In half of 80's high quality audio from DAC's was just at the beginning of popularity, 5 years later at the beginning of 90's this was quite common knowledge and this know how is visible in Amiga circuitry evolution.

[chip]

Paula rulez !

[TuRRIcaNEd]

Originally Posted by pandy71

sometimes less so you can have Amiga that has higher audio quality

I hate to be a pain in the bum, but is it OK to ask you to explain how?

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by TuRRIcaNEd

I hate to be a pain in the bum, but is it OK to ask you to explain how?

Many small things, for example how power supply traces are laid on PCB, sometimes they can deliver cleaner power to analog circuitry, sometimes less, if there is no proper grounding then this will affect audio quality, analog signal lines laid close to noisy signal, replacing resistors in power supply with more efficient ferrite beads - there is no audiophile voodoo here - nowadays this is standard practices and you can easily find whole chapters in for example IC datasheet how to properly design PCB layout, how to place components, what should be avoided.
And important remark - this knowledge evolved in decades - i bet if in 1984 such knowledge exist with same level of "popularity" as today then overall audio circuitry will be better since first design - CD32 is last Amiga, also it was designed with at least cooperation with application engineers dedicated to CD audio DAC implementation so such knowledge propagate down to Paula circuitry.

Some topic is currently going on this how much A600 can be improved:

https://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=86880

also this thread can be interesting: https://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=109051

It can be nice to see if someone offer those retro PCB's for various projects with changes addressing all those small things - this not ruin legacy heritage of Paula...

[8bitbubsy]

Originally Posted by Karlos

The A1200 has a much brighter sound as the cutoff filter is tuned much higher.

This. It sounds way less filtered than all the other Amigas!
Every other Amiga has a fixed low-pass whose cutoff is around 4-5kHz (depending on model). It really does remove the high fidelity from the sound.

[chb]

Originally Posted by TuRRIcaNEd

For decades now, there has been an ongoing debate amongst C64 aficionados as to which revision of SID sounds "best". What's very important to understand (aside from "best" being subjective) is that SID, unlike Paula, generated its tones internally, and due to the nature of chip manufacturing processes, literally no two SID wafers - even of the same revision - were likely to sound exactly alike, if one were to go deep enough into that rabbit hole.

Paula does not generate her own tones - she literally takes data from Chip RAM, is able to process that data through many functions that are useful in terms of audio and musical reproduction, and feeds the processed data to a DAC setup which converts the signals to an analogue audio signal pumped out of the stereo phono sockets. The only part of that system that might affect the final output is the character of the DACs - and the whole point of a DAC is that they're supposed to be generic and predictable.

A bit off topic: I think there's a misunderstanding how the SIDE works. It indeed features, in contrast to Paula, oscillators and noise generators to create sounds - but they work in the digital domain, their output is fed through a DAC (one per channel, there's actually a lot of DACs in the SID for different tasks...). Now, those exact DACs are partly responsible for the unique sound of the SID, more precisely the older 6581, because they are quite non-linear (due to manufacturing limitations) and introduce distortions.


But the issue that's responsible for most variations between SID chips is filter variation; AFAIR they use a FET on the chip as a voltage-controlled resistor (voltage provided by a DAC, ofc), and that method is very sensitive to manufacturing tolerances and even operating temperature. If one disables the filter, SIDs sound more similar across different revisions. They also fixed that behavior with the 8580...

[CCCP alert]

Originally Posted by TuRRIcaNEd

Correct. The joy of audio is that everyone's preference is subjective.

Not when talking about max/min frequency range, distortion, humm hiss. I am talking about Amstrad vs Kenwood tape deck 'audiophile' style tests on the output of a reference signal not stuff like bass bias/missing mid-range or 'warmth' of output sound etc which is different and personal sure.

To be fair, after adjusting the volume control on a TV/monitor you're not going to hear much difference really, or even a budget midi-hifi etc, stuff you would only notice on a decent amp and decent large hi-fi speakers I suspect.

My friend had an A500 with a slightly better Kenwood hifi with proper Dolby Pro Logic and better speakers etc than mine and I couldn't really tell the difference from my machine using a slightly less sophisticated Pioneer at home 10 minutes drive away. Probably have to test them side by side

Would be interesting to compare 1000/2000/3000/4000 as these were expensive machines. The 1000 motherboard has a lot going on with the most components and that riser to the daughterboard.