Apple IIGS Sound Capabilities

[Nishicorn]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I still think Paula is better.

This is debatable.

People seem pretty narrow-minded about many things these days, they don't see that there are often two big circles with lots of stuff in them, that overlap each other at some point, where they share some of that stuff.

Paula is good for many things, but it doesn't have a 'natural synth' sound. It's also 8-bit 22kHz, which is not that good these days, and the four-channel limitation is a headache.

I know you can get 14-bit sound out of it, not sure how many kHz, but my point is, Paula is basically nothing but an obsolete sample player chip, and almost any cheap laptop PC sound chip can play samples better, with more channels, better quality, etc.

Paula was amazing for its time (though SID was better in some ways, because it's live synth with analog filter - I SO wish Amiga could've had its own version of SID, some kind of wonderful synth *drool*), but it's the one component of the Amiga that doesn't have anything too 'miraculous' about it anymore. SID still holds up, because it's not sample-based, so it has personality and quirks that will never be matched or 100% emulated (even OPL chips are still not 100% emulated, I was surprised as to how much the real OPL chips differ in sound, and are more 'living' even in a visual capture of the waveform).

Apple's sound chip was designed by the same guy that designed this marvellous SID chip, so it almost sounds like Amiga should've gotten THAT chip and Apple could've gotten Paula - that would've made me happy.

The thing is, synths have PERSONALITY, they're alive. They have distinct sound, so they're revered, and rightfully so.

Samples are all the same on all machines, so if something can play samples, it's boring, it's mundane, it's soulless - and samples are dead. They don't change, they're 100% identical every time. A SID Pulse wave can sound different in 90 000 ways, depending on who the composer is. SID allows a composer to directly express his personality and maybe even persona, but samples are always just the same, it doesn't have the same 'expressivity', if you will.

You can't hone a song until everything is perfect, when you have samples. Samples are a handicap, you have to just 'make do' with what you can with the samples, and your leadsound will be 100% identical to someone that uses the same sample(s) as their leadsound. You can create -some- variation, but it's harder, and it's never going to sound as 'alive' or as 'quirky' as the SID can sound.

This is why I love live synths, and I wish Amiga had had one. Apple IIGS seems to have one, so I am very interested in it, and you immediately trash it by comparing it to a MERE SAMPLEPLAYING CHIP?

No offence, I know this is an Amiga forum, but damn, you don't have to BASH other things just because of that.

I was asking if anyone has any videos or audio captures of how the Apple IIGS's synth side sounds like - it's surprisingly hard to find that stuff, and to get proper information about how this synth chip works. If I understand it correctly, it has 'customizable waveforms' that you can EVEN edit/mold on-the-fly, as the song is already playing? This would give 'PWM' or 'filter sweep' a new meaning!

As we all know, the SID can modulate its pulsewave in myriad of different ways while vibrating and filtersweeping while using osc sync or even combined waveforms.

When I know the abilities of the SID (and I am still learning), I can't wait to know what this supposedly superior chip can do, but it's so hard to figure out. Do I have to buy an Apple IIGS and try to find some music software for it just to find out what it can sound like?

From what I have heard so far, it sounds like a 'souped-up 8580' or something - a bit plastic and dull that way, but its waveform modulation capabilities seem really interesting to me, I would really love to try to see what I could get out of it (I have been able to squeeze pretty interesting sounds out of the ol' SID, but so have many other people).

I really don't like these hostile and insulting generalizations, like 'samples win any day' and 'paula is better'. It's easy to just spew that kind of one line of text and not back it up at all.

At least you could explain WHY you have that kind an opinion, what makes you think that. Have you extensively and excitedly created multiple songs on the Apple IIGS music chip? Have you exhaustively researched the chip and its capabilities? Do you realize it's designed by the same guy that created the SID - a chip _ABSOLUTELY_LOVED_ by millions and yet millions of people, and yet, you categorically just slam it by saying 'paula is better', when Paula can't even do live synth except in software (but that route, almost anything can..)?

Paula is a mere 'low-resolution sample player', whereas this Ensoniq chip that was even used in an ACTUAL SYNTH, is .. well, an actual synthesizer! How can you beat THAT by mere sampleplayer chip?

I am only saying this to put things to perspective a little bit. Fine, YOU are not curious about it, but don't spoil the fun for those of us that are. We all know and love Paula, you don't have to 'defend it' when no one is attacking it. Are we not, as Amiga owners, allowed to be interested in other chips without chanting an endless "Paula is best"-mantra for every discussion forum that DARES mention another chip?

What's wrong with people that think this is a good conduct for a productive discussion about another sound chip? How does it help anyone or anything, what kind of constructive comment is it to say 'Paula is better' or 'samples win over synth any day'? Well, not today, they don't.

[Foebane]

FUCK OFF, Nishicorn. Admins, how can I Ignore this sample-hating LOSER!?!

[no9]

Originally Posted by Nishicorn

This is debatable.

As we all know, the SID can modulate its pulsewave in myriad of different ways while vibrating and filtersweeping while using osc sync or even combined waveforms.

Oh now I see why 99% of C64 demos and games sound like they use same 5 presets...

One can love SID but it can't escape from sound like SID. One can love piano but piano will never sound like violin. Paula can do both, with limited quality, and access to RAM. SID can't. Simple as that .

[Estrayk]

Im with no9. I looove SID chip but the main difference is that a Paula can sound like a SID, but a SID cant sound like a Paula.
[ Show youtube player ]

[Galahad/FLT]

Originally Posted by Nishicorn

This is debatable.

People seem pretty narrow-minded about many things these days, they don't see that there are often two big circles with lots of stuff in them, that overlap each other at some point, where they share some of that stuff.

Paula is good for many things, but it doesn't have a 'natural synth' sound. It's also 8-bit 22kHz, which is not that good these days, and the four-channel limitation is a headache.

I know you can get 14-bit sound out of it, not sure how many kHz, but my point is, Paula is basically nothing but an obsolete sample player chip, and almost any cheap laptop PC sound chip can play samples better, with more channels, better quality, etc.

Paula was amazing for its time (though SID was better in some ways, because it's live synth with analog filter - I SO wish Amiga could've had its own version of SID, some kind of wonderful synth *drool*), but it's the one component of the Amiga that doesn't have anything too 'miraculous' about it anymore. SID still holds up, because it's not sample-based, so it has personality and quirks that will never be matched or 100% emulated (even OPL chips are still not 100% emulated, I was surprised as to how much the real OPL chips differ in sound, and are more 'living' even in a visual capture of the waveform).

Apple's sound chip was designed by the same guy that designed this marvellous SID chip, so it almost sounds like Amiga should've gotten THAT chip and Apple could've gotten Paula - that would've made me happy.

The thing is, synths have PERSONALITY, they're alive. They have distinct sound, so they're revered, and rightfully so.

Samples are all the same on all machines, so if something can play samples, it's boring, it's mundane, it's soulless - and samples are dead. They don't change, they're 100% identical every time. A SID Pulse wave can sound different in 90 000 ways, depending on who the composer is. SID allows a composer to directly express his personality and maybe even persona, but samples are always just the same, it doesn't have the same 'expressivity', if you will.

You can't hone a song until everything is perfect, when you have samples. Samples are a handicap, you have to just 'make do' with what you can with the samples, and your leadsound will be 100% identical to someone that uses the same sample(s) as their leadsound. You can create -some- variation, but it's harder, and it's never going to sound as 'alive' or as 'quirky' as the SID can sound.

This is why I love live synths, and I wish Amiga had had one. Apple IIGS seems to have one, so I am very interested in it, and you immediately trash it by comparing it to a MERE SAMPLEPLAYING CHIP?

No offence, I know this is an Amiga forum, but damn, you don't have to BASH other things just because of that.

I was asking if anyone has any videos or audio captures of how the Apple IIGS's synth side sounds like - it's surprisingly hard to find that stuff, and to get proper information about how this synth chip works. If I understand it correctly, it has 'customizable waveforms' that you can EVEN edit/mold on-the-fly, as the song is already playing? This would give 'PWM' or 'filter sweep' a new meaning!

As we all know, the SID can modulate its pulsewave in myriad of different ways while vibrating and filtersweeping while using osc sync or even combined waveforms.

When I know the abilities of the SID (and I am still learning), I can't wait to know what this supposedly superior chip can do, but it's so hard to figure out. Do I have to buy an Apple IIGS and try to find some music software for it just to find out what it can sound like?

From what I have heard so far, it sounds like a 'souped-up 8580' or something - a bit plastic and dull that way, but its waveform modulation capabilities seem really interesting to me, I would really love to try to see what I could get out of it (I have been able to squeeze pretty interesting sounds out of the ol' SID, but so have many other people).

I really don't like these hostile and insulting generalizations, like 'samples win any day' and 'paula is better'. It's easy to just spew that kind of one line of text and not back it up at all.

At least you could explain WHY you have that kind an opinion, what makes you think that. Have you extensively and excitedly created multiple songs on the Apple IIGS music chip? Have you exhaustively researched the chip and its capabilities? Do you realize it's designed by the same guy that created the SID - a chip _ABSOLUTELY_LOVED_ by millions and yet millions of people, and yet, you categorically just slam it by saying 'paula is better', when Paula can't even do live synth except in software (but that route, almost anything can..)?

Paula is a mere 'low-resolution sample player', whereas this Ensoniq chip that was even used in an ACTUAL SYNTH, is .. well, an actual synthesizer! How can you beat THAT by mere sampleplayer chip?

I am only saying this to put things to perspective a little bit. Fine, YOU are not curious about it, but don't spoil the fun for those of us that are. We all know and love Paula, you don't have to 'defend it' when no one is attacking it. Are we not, as Amiga owners, allowed to be interested in other chips without chanting an endless "Paula is best"-mantra for every discussion forum that DARES mention another chip?

What's wrong with people that think this is a good conduct for a productive discussion about another sound chip? How does it help anyone or anything, what kind of constructive comment is it to say 'Paula is better' or 'samples win over synth any day'? Well, not today, they don't.

Comparing Paula to modern laptops that can play better and more channels is really quite ridiculous, after this many years since Paulas introduction, i'd be saddened if Paula hadn't been bettered by now.

But you're quite wrong to dismiss Paula so readily, whilst playing samples is no big deal today, it absolutely was when the Amiga was released.

ST wasn't good at it, Megadrive was downright terrible for it, majority of 8bit machines had it as a gimmick, PC couldn't even do it at the time.

And because of the memory setup of the Amiga being either 512K or 1meg or even 2meg of chip ram on later machines, mean that the Amiga could play samples of excellent quality for 8bit because compromises didn't have to be made.

The only reason that the Amiga had an 8bit sound chip in the first place was because ram prices were horrific back in the 1980's, the first A1000 having just 256k, then later 512k. 16bit samples would have taken up too much memory, and 512k was precious enough. Had ram prices been a bit more reasonable, no doubt in my mind the Amiga would have had 16bit sound when it was released.

Technically, both Ensonique in the Apple and the sound hardware of the SNES are superior to Paula, no doubt about it.

However, both the Ensonique and the SNES both suffer from the exact same problem..... limited available ram to store samples in the first place.

The SNES is hampered by all of its samples being compressed and being played with a slight muffled sound, the Ensonique is limited because whilst its a great synth chip, when you actually listen to what was released on the machine, it seems there wasn't much appetite to explore lots of new sounds on the machine, musicians seemed quite happy to use the same sounds over and over again, a bit like if an Amiga musician decided the ST-01 samples disk was the only set of sounds they ever needed to use.


So yes, the Ensonique is able to play nearly all Amiga Protracker modules...... it just can't do very much of anything else whilst its doing it, because its constantly having to swap samples to sound ram, and with its slow CPU, it might be able to display a static screen at the same time.... the Amiga will be playing a game at the same time!!

So inspite of the audio hardware being not as good as the SNES and Apple, the limitations of the latter machines, and the way the Amiga can play samples with ease and with a much larger ram mean that even today, the Amiga is compared VERY favourably with other machines that came after it.

And whilst I love the SID chip, the fact is, the Amiga can do what the SID chip did, and not the other way around.

It doesn't matter how the Amiga does it, just that it can.

You can claim you prefer synth sounds from the SID and Ensonique over samples, but that is a subjective opinion, not an objective one.

I couldn't be bothered to tackle the rest of your missive, it came across as meandering nonsense masquerading as a more enlightened opinion.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Rotareneg

Robert Yannes designed the Ensoniq 5503 and the SID, Paula was designed by Glenn Keller.

You are right of course - sorry!

[Adropac2]

Maybe I'm wrong but I recall the music for Zany Golf was originally written for the apple and it sounds better in terms of punch on the Amiga.

A somewhat related comparison if we're talking about sample vs produced sound is the difference between them on sythesisers. I've used both the SY77 and a Roland XP50 for many years now and I find that the rawness of recorded sounds are better than the almost soft type sound produced when being generated. The SY77 had both and it's then you get a perfect marriage of sound but given a choice of one or the other, well it would have to be real sound.

The apple's sound looks to be very versatile in what it can produce from the chip but there's still likely that same flavour you can associate to it?

[Galahad/FLT]

Originally Posted by Adropac2

Maybe I'm wrong but I recall the music for Zany Golf was originally written for the apple and it sounds better in terms of punch on the Amiga.

A somewhat related comparison if we're talking about sample vs produced sound is the difference between them on sythesisers. I've used both the SY77 and a Roland XP50 for many years now and I find that the rawness of recorded sounds are better than the almost soft type sound produced when being generated. The SY77 had both and it's then you get a perfect marriage of sound but given a choice of one or the other, well it would have to be real sound.

The apple's sound looks to be very versatile in what it can produce from the chip but there's still likely that same flavour you can associate to it?

Zany Golf was American, and frankly, the Americans never really got to grips with the Amiga at all, programming or music.

Probably why they got Chris Huelsbeck and Rudi Stember to do the music for Monkey Island

[Foebane]

I don't get this obsession in retro computing and gaming circles for the SID (and synths in general) being above everything else sound-wise, as Nishicorn claimed. Synths are just generally limited in audio regards, as they are severely limited in the sounds they can reproduce. I find samples to be infinitely more versatile, as they have technically been used in PC games from when they first had the ability to play them, and of course the Amiga. Even to this day, most consoles and all PCs can play samples, so why would they be worse?

I've heard hundreds of Amiga demos, both low- and high-end, that used samples to recreate all manner of musical styles, and while the demos are dependent on memory used and the sample quality, I find them much more listenable than 8-Bit computer demos, which are basically bleeps and blops and no distinguishable style, or if it sounds like a type of music, it's just mimicking it.

Put simply, samples (and Amiga music) is much closer to the real thing.

[Adropac2]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Zany Golf was American, and frankly, the Americans never really got to grips with the Amiga at all, programming or music.

Probably why they got Chris Huelsbeck and Rudi Stember to do the music for Monkey Island

ah right. I wonder who wrote the Amiga version as it's extremely good

[Adropac2]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I don't get this obsession in retro computing and gaming circles for the SID (and synths in general) being above everything else sound-wise, as Nishicorn claimed. Synths are just generally limited in audio regards, as they are severely limited in the sounds they can reproduce. I find samples to be infinitely more versatile, as they have technically been used in PC games from when they first had the ability to play them, and of course the Amiga. Even to this day, most consoles and all PCs can play samples, so why would they be worse?

I've heard hundreds of Amiga demos, both low- and high-end, that used samples to recreate all manner of musical styles, and while the demos are dependent on memory used and the sample quality, I find them much more listenable than 8-Bit computer demos, which are basically bleeps and blops and no distinguishable style, or if it sounds like a type of music, it's just mimicking it.

Put simply, samples (and Amiga music) is much closer to the real thing.

some of the fascination for some comes from the awe at what is achieved I think given the slight limitations. And it is very impressive at that level but it could be argued if people are enjoying what they hear in music terms. There's lots of very good music too of course which has both

[no9]

Originally Posted by Adropac2

some of the fascination for some comes from the awe at what is achieved I think given the slight limitations.

I think it's distinctive aesthetic makes it easier to recognize by wider audience, even if one know next to nothing about technical challenges that are embeeded in 8-bit systems. Amiga style (music we are talking here) is much more difficult to grasp because of its versatility and to define what are actual limits. With samples played by Paula it is rather being efficient on memory and smart voices usage, of recorded sounds (in any way possible). It is not about generating sound by the chip itself.

There are tons of legendary synthesizers already which sound contributes greatly to lot's of famous tunes. But nobody wants to listen to a Moog sound (or else) in every single music piece. For me the same applies to 8-bit computers sound.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by no9

I think it's distinctive aesthetic makes it easier to recognize by wider audience, even if one know next to nothing about technical challenges that are embeeded in 8-bit systems.

Amiga style (music we are talking here) is much more difficult to grasp because of its versatility and to define what are actual limits.

I like it when Amiga music is not recognised because it sounds like the real thing. A real-world example was recently, when I played an Amiga demo featuring the music of "Umbrella" by Rihanna on my charity shop boss's phone, and it would've been perfect had the video not had bad stutter towards the end of the demo. He never knew where the recording came from, only that it sounded like the song. If music is realistic, nobody cares where it comes from!

With samples played by Paula it is rather being efficient on memory and smart voices usage, of recorded sounds (in any way possible). It is not about generating sound by the chip itself.

So? CD players don't generate sound. Sound Blasters don't generate sound. AWE32 Sound Blasters don't generate sound. Frickin' GUS cards don't generate sound! They just PLAY IT BACK.

There are tons of legendary synthesizers already which sound contributes greatly to lot's of famous tunes. But nobody wants to listen to a Moog sound (or else) in every single music piece. For me the same applies to 8-bit computers sound.

You're telling me Moog is exclusively synth? I thought it used samples?

[no9]

Originally Posted by Foebane

So? CD players don't generate sound.

When I mention "Paula" I mean the whole environment it is meant to work. It is Amiga hardware. Considering it alone doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by Foebane

You're telling me Moog is exclusively synth?

I refer to the sound that company is widely associated with and praised for.

[Adropac2]

Originally Posted by no9

I think it's distinctive aesthetic makes it easier to recognize by wider audience, even if one know next to nothing about technical challenges that are embeeded in 8-bit systems. Amiga style (music we are talking here) is much more difficult to grasp because of its versatility and to define what are actual limits. With samples played by Paula it is rather being efficient on memory and smart voices usage, of recorded sounds (in any way possible). It is not about generating sound by the chip itself.

There are tons of legendary synthesizers already which sound contributes greatly to lot's of famous tunes. But nobody wants to listen to a Moog sound (or else) in every single music piece. For me the same applies to 8-bit computers sound.

Generally these days I tend to only listen to my most preferred of pieces rather than wishing to hear C64 because it was for me always the standout pieces themselves that I enjoyed more than the sound. I think that's largely the same for Amiga because not all of it's music stands up to the best it had

I think the most important thing in any of this just comes down to how good the music actually is. There's a lot of really super impressive work on these machines that doesn't quite impress in terms of melody say or even sections of structure that doesn't quite pull it off maybe which for me leaves only a good selection of truly great pieces among many the thousands more that exist

[no9]

Originally Posted by Adropac2

I think the most important thing in any of this just comes down to how good the music actually is.

Without a doubt you can create piece of music that touches hearts of millions of people using just a comb. But this doesn't stop anyone to claim that orchestra sounds better in general. I understand your point and what it is based on, but at the same time I never heard complains back in the early '90 "if only Amiga had this ultimately perfect SID chip onboard...".

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by no9

I never heard complains back in the early '90 "if only Amiga had this ultimately perfect SID chip onboard...".

Actually, an Amiga-despising friend of mine once told me flat out that the SID was better than Amiga, at around 1992. I didn't respond because at that time, I'd never heard the SID, so couldn't compare. But I knew it would sound inferior even then, because it came before. But then, he was always berating me about my "crappy Amiga" (he had an Atari ST, ironically).

[Adropac2]

Originally Posted by no9

Without a doubt you can create piece of music that touches hearts of millions of people using just a comb. But this doesn't stop anyone to claim that orchestra sounds better in general. I understand your point and what it is based on, but at the same time I never heard complains back in the early '90 "if only Amiga had this ultimately perfect SID chip onboard...".

Yes I'd agree. I think generally you'll aways be better off with the Amiga in this sense

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by no9

Oh now I see why 99% of C64 demos and games sound like they use same 5 presets...

One can love SID but it can't escape from sound like SID.

So I'm not the only one...

Originally Posted by Foebane

I don't get this obsession in retro computing and gaming circles for the SID (and synths in general) being above everything else sound-wise,

I think it comes from the 8 bit days when people were comparing the C64 to the ZX Spectrum etc. SID sound certainly stood out back then, despite suffering from 'same 5 presets' syndrome.

Then the Amiga came along and there was no comparison anymore. But Paula cheated by simply playing back prerecorded samples at (comparatively speaking) ultrahigh quality. Not fair! You could reproduce any sound with that hardware without even trying! And of course the Amiga was ridiculously expensive in comparison to the 8 bitters too, another reason to dismiss it.

IOW, it was all about envy. We saw a lot of that on the Amiga too, but far more of it was self-deprecating (as in: "Paula is great, but she should have more channels, higher sampling rates, 16 bit... like PCs (mostly didn't) have!").

Put simply, samples (and Amiga music) is much closer to the real thing.

And not just closer to real musical instruments, but to any real-world sound. It's the same reason sampling became popular in the music industry. While Yamaha and others were trying to reproduce realistic instrument sounds in their chips via synthesis, Amiga music made make use of actual sounds from the real world, including sounds that no musical instrument could reproduce.

Getting back to the subject of this thread though, why is GS sound so disappointing? On paper it looks like it could have been a worthy opponent to Paula. Sample hardware limitations are part of the reason, but I think the biggest one is that it has a synth chip, thus encouraging the production of 'synthesized' music (the Amiga didn't, so musicians were forced to embraced sampled sounds and make the most of them).

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

And not just closer to real musical instruments, but to any real-world sound. It's the same reason sampling became popular in the music industry. While Yamaha and others were trying to reproduce realistic instrument sounds in their chips via synthesis, Amiga music made make use of actual sounds from the real world, including sounds that no musical instrument could reproduce.

Getting back to the subject of this thread though, why is GS sound so disappointing? On paper it looks like it could have been a worthy opponent to Paula. Sample hardware limitations are part of the reason, but I think the biggest one is that it has a synth chip, thus encouraging the production of 'synthesized' music (the Amiga didn't, so musicians were forced to embraced sampled sounds and make the most of them).

Agreed.