Amiga questions you've always been too embarrassed to ask

[Supamax]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

you can get some specialist SSDs with PATA, described as Disks On Modules (DOMs), which should work fine in Amigas.

Yes, but those have very low capacities.
I was meaning real SSDs, with 120+ GB capacity.

EDIT 1: ok, 120GB is probably too much for Amiga
EDIT 2: wow, I see that they are still making them, though they are not cheap. I just saw them on eBay while searching for 'pata ssd'.

[daxb]

Yes, they exists. From Transcend for example.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Raion-Fox

Are plipboxes the best/cheapest option for internet usage on an Amiga?

Neither. For some cases, it is nevertheless the best combination of both.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Supamax

Yes, but those have very low capacities.
I was meaning real SSDs, with 120+ GB capacity.

EDIT 1: ok, 120GB is probably too much for Amiga
EDIT 2: wow, I see that they are still making them, though they are not cheap. I just saw them on eBay while searching for 'pata ssd'.

Don't forget there's also the option of using an IDE-SATA adaptor, which is a cheap and easy way of adding a SATA drive (including SSD). Power connections might need to be sorted out depending on the adaptor.

[demolition]

Originally Posted by Supamax

This is not exclusively Amiga-related but:
does it exist a SSD with EIDE/PATA interface?
Perhaps some old model?

Or are they all SATA?

There are many IDE SSDs, however nowadays they are mainly designed for industrial use where IDE interfaces are still used. Here they are commonly known as disk-on-modules (DOM) like this one:
http://www.fortasa.com/products/pata...isk-module-adm
Here's a bunch on ebay:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=disk+on+module+ide

Before SATA, flash memory was still very expensive, thus SSDs were not very common and SSDs never took off until after SATA became standard. You could get CF cards though and they are basically an SSD with IDE interface.

Alternatively, there's also the option of using a SATA SSD together with a SATA-IDE converter. In my experience, they usually won't work with the simple IDE controller of an A600/1200, but should work in most 'real' IDE controllers, e.g. those that can also handle DMA modes.

Edit: Looks like my page wasn't updated before I replied, so most of this was already covered.

[ajk]

PATA SSDs do exist, eBay has lots of different kinds.

EDIT: Oops! Many replies already, somehow the latests posts didn't load

EDIT2: Something is funny with the forum, now I got my own post listed as an unread post.

[demolition]

Originally Posted by ajk

EDIT: Oops! Many replies already, somehow the latests posts didn't load
EDIT2: Something is funny with the forum, now I got my own post listed as an unread post.

I guess it wasn't just me then that suddenly saw a bunch of older posts show up while I was typing my post.

[Daedalus]

Nope, I got some database errors earlier as well. Glitches in the matrix

[Supamax]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Don't forget there's also the option of using an IDE-SATA adaptor, which is a cheap and easy way of adding a SATA drive (including SSD). Power connections might need to be sorted out depending on the adaptor.

Yes, but I was thinking to old notebooks with IDE 2.5" slot.
You cannot use one of those adapters, since they take up space and the HDD wouldn't fit any more into the notebook .

Originally Posted by demolition

There are many IDE SSDs, however nowadays they are mainly designed for industrial use [...] commonly known as disk-on-modules (DOM)

Ok, but SATA drives have features to preserve memory cells and extend their life, like wear leveling etc.
Do these DOM have them? I don't think so...
The same for CF cards, SD cards etc...
(But I would like to be wrong here )

[Jope]

Yes, you can get various kinds of IDE SSDs, mainly for industrial applications.

eBay has some Kingspec branded ones.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Supamax

Ok, but SATA drives have features to preserve memory cells and extend their life, like wear leveling etc.
Do these DOM have them? I don't think so...
The same for CF cards, SD cards etc...
(But I would like to be wrong here )

All solid state media have some sort of wear leveling in-built, some better than others of course.

[nogginthenog]

Another option is mSATA. I have a mSATA to IDE adapter which works great in my A4000. It is mountable in a zorro slot too.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00J3XT7E0

[lordofchaos]

Q. Can Fast RAM give a speed boost for Amiga's like A500,A500+,A600?

I know having Fast RAM can make a big difference on the A1200, is this the case with the other Amiga models?

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

Q. Can Fast RAM give a speed boost for Amiga's like A500,A500+,A600?

Again it depends on what you are using it for. Some stuff does get a bump from Fast RAM speed.

[ajk]

The CPU and chipset on an A500/A600 are about on par in terms of speed so the CPU using chip memory isn't a big bottleneck. The faster the CPU is, the more having no RAM it can freely access will hold it back.

[TroyWilkins]

I've got a question that will no doubt seem like a dumb one to many, but I'll ask it anyway.

I understand the difference between 8 and 16 bit sound samples, but how does that relate to sound quality? I mean, I don't have golden ears and the 8 bit Amiga sound always sounded pretty good to me.

Can anyone provide an example where there is a clear difference between 16 bit and 8 bit sound samples? Or even let me know what sort of sounds it would be best heard on?

Thanks in advance.

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by TroyWilkins

I don't have golden ears

Shame, you definitely lucked out there

...they are standard issue these days, all the cool kids have them

<sorry for the off topic; GMs can have fun too you know>

[Daedalus]

The "bits" of sound is basically the resolution of the amplitude. 16 bits give you 65,536 possible levels of sound data in a waveform, whereas 8 bits gives you only 256. This will allow much finer detail to be defined, as the resulting waveform can more closely resemble the original sound. So similar in principle to viewing a photo on a 256-colour screen in comparison to a HAM-8 screen - the image is the same, but the colours will be much finer and closer to the original on the HAM-8 screen (ignoring HAM artefacts). However, some things can be tailored to look well on a 256 colour screen, minimising the visible difference between them (e.g. Amiga games), and the same applies to sound. If you use the full resolution and are careful enough to keep your sound data clean and sample rate high, it will sound pretty good. But if you don't take care of the sample, you quickly suffer far more of a degradation in quality. For example, say you have a waveform that's 256 steps high, so the full 8 bits. But if part of the sample is quieter, say 1/8 amplitude, this leaves you with 5 bits to work with - that's just 32 steps to define the wave. Doing the same to a 16-bit sample leaves you with 13 bits to work with, and that's 16,384 steps. So the more subtle parts of the audio are still clear, just like the finer colour gradients in the photo analogy.

There's a bit more to the audio theory than that (I've simplified quite a bit), but it should give you a general idea anyway.

[TroyWilkins]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

The "bits" of sound is basically the resolution of the amplitude. 16 bits give you 65,536 possible levels of sound data in a waveform, whereas 8 bits gives you only 256. This will allow much finer detail to be defined, as the resulting waveform can more closely resemble the original sound. So similar in principle to viewing a photo on a 256-colour screen in comparison to a HAM-8 screen - the image is the same, but the colours will be much finer and closer to the original on the HAM-8 screen (ignoring HAM artefacts). However, some things can be tailored to look well on a 256 colour screen, minimising the visible difference between them (e.g. Amiga games), and the same applies to sound. If you use the full resolution and are careful enough to keep your sound data clean and sample rate high, it will sound pretty good. But if you don't take care of the sample, you quickly suffer far more of a degradation in quality. For example, say you have a waveform that's 256 steps high, so the full 8 bits. But if part of the sample is quieter, say 1/8 amplitude, this leaves you with 5 bits to work with - that's just 32 steps to define the wave. Doing the same to a 16-bit sample leaves you with 13 bits to work with, and that's 16,384 steps. So the more subtle parts of the audio are still clear, just like the finer colour gradients in the photo analogy.

There's a bit more to the audio theory than that (I've simplified quite a bit), but it should give you a general idea anyway.

Thank you. I understand that, but can anyone provide an example of where there is a clear difference we can hear or see on a waveform?

I remember years ago people saying that 16 bit was more suitable for particular sounds, was it higher pitch sounds and not the low bass sounds?

[Rotareneg]

The simple explanation: 8 bit is noisier than 16 bit, this noise is called quantization noise.

It's most obvious when comparing quiet audio, like when the audio in this sample fades out:

[ Show youtube player ]