Why did the Atari ST designers use such a CRAPPY sound chip?

[Pyromania]

I had to save up for three months to buy an A500 so I didn't mind it costing more. The Amiga did the things I wanted to do. The ST my friend showed me did not.

[Keops/Equinox]

That's good for you. On my side, I was a kid, it took years of savings and I was happy to be able to get an affordable ST before getting an Amiga later on.

Anyway, your question is now answered.

[drHirudo]

Back in the early 2000's I was given an Atari 1040ST with PC Emulation card and 20 MB HDD, together with B*W monitor. I was pretty unamazed by the machine, even if it had some crappy PC emulation inside. I was wondering how 16 bit machine can sound so crappy, but the main turn off for me was that in order to play games on the machine, I had to find separate display, because the one I used was not compatible with most of the games, except for some silly simulation games. Needless to say I passed the machine to a colleague in the next days and never ever felt sorry about it.

[khph_re]

Originally Posted by Pyromania

I had to save up for three months to buy an A500 so I didn't mind it costing more. The Amiga did the things I wanted to do. The ST my friend showed me did not.

This is true, and exactly why I moved to Amiga as soon as I could. But for those who couldn't afford an Amiga, the ST was a great machine. And in the US in the 80's you had a lot more disposable income than most of us in Europe.


While I always tell people the Amiga helped pay for my house (which is true),
It was the ST that sparked my creativity first.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by drHirudo

Back in the early 2000's I was given an Atari 1040ST with PC Emulation card and 20 MB HDD, together with B*W monitor. I was pretty unamazed by the machine, even if it had some crappy PC emulation inside. I was wondering how 16 bit machine can sound so crappy, but the main turn off for me was that in order to play games on the machine, I had to find separate display, because the one I used was not compatible with most of the games, except for some silly simulation games. Needless to say I passed the machine to a colleague in the next days and never ever felt sorry about it.

I think most people in the early 2000s would be "unamazed' if you gave them Amiga too. I also don't quite understand your "separate display" complaint, and simulation games are anything but silly.

I think the initial OP question has been answered many times over, so if this thread now only exists as a thinly veiled excuse to dump on the ST, perhaps it's time to pull down the curtains.

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

I think most people in the early 2000s would be "unamazed' if you gave them Amiga too. I also don't quite understand your "separate display" complaint, and simulation games are anything but silly.

I think the initial OP question has been answered many times over, so if this thread now only exists as a thinly veiled excuse to dump on the ST, perhaps it's time to pull down the curtains.

If you have read the thread, including my posts before, you will notice that I provided technical details in some aspects where the Atari ST did better, because of it's simpler design.
But anyway, if you don't have anything to contribute, but instead prefer to slam on random people, just go ahead, I don't mind much.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by drHirudo

If you have read the thread, including my posts before, you will notice that I provided technical details in some aspects where the Atari ST did better, because of it's simpler design.
But anyway, if you don't have anything to contribute, but instead prefer to slam on random people, just go ahead, I don't mind much.

If you actually read my my post, you'd see it disagrees with particular things you have said in yours, which frankly do not make sense to me, and not something you might've said before. That's hardly "random", and regardless of the fact that not all conversations about old hardware always have to be of the X versus Y variety.

And if you read the thread you'd see that I did in fact contribute as well, in a rather positive fashion. There were some interesting parts in it, unfortunately eclipsed by the recurring "omg it's so crappy" theme.

[Foebane]

After reading about how so many people like the sound chip of the Atari ST, I would like to change that word in the topic title that is likely offensive and would cause friction. What would be a good word to describe it instead?

[chip]

Synthetic ?

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by chip

Synthetic ?

Basic?
Simple?
...
Redundant?

I was thinking, why use a word to describe it at all? Just remove the C word.

[Nishicorn]

Originally Posted by Foebane

So what happened with the choice of sound chip? Did the engineers not have time to design a 16-bit version of the SID, if that was their plan?

The SID is already 16-bit. It has 16-bit registers, and an analog filter. Atari Pokey (of the Atari 8-bit line) is an eight-bit sound chip, which is why the notes often sound distorter in pitch, that chip can't quite hit the notes due to not enough accuracy.

So please get your facts straight.

The second point I want to make, is that although the YM-2149F might seem inferior to SID in many ways, and even to Paula in other ways, it can still do samples and quite interesting things.

As the musicians have proved, Atari ST's sound chip can do things SID can't reach (the 'sharp' basslines and other wondrous effects), it can mimic the SID's PWM (with the aid of the ST's relatively powerful CPU), it can do very impacting drums that SID has to envy a bit.

(I know SID can pack quite a punch in itself, but SID is a bit 'soft' in sound compared to the YM-2149F, and I have grown to appreciate the difference between the 'softness' of the SID and 'impactful sharpness' of the YM-2149F - I love them both, but SID can't do things as 'sharply' as the YM-2149F can)

Before you make your FINAL assesment / judgment, please listen to Tao's super long 'Ultimate Muzak Demo 8730", Timbral's "Junkie 2149" (it even features speech!), and Scavenger's "Primus". Oh, while you are at it, you might check Cube's work, like the melodic 'Back to Basics'.

If you listen to these and STILL think YM-2149F is crap (or 100% crappier than SID), then there's no helping you. Just be fair and give it a chance - it may seem a 'crappy' sound chip, but it can do things Paula and SID can't quite reach.

Oh, and please use the captured-from-REAL-ST-versions, instead of some emulation stuff for authentic and more beautiful sound.

Wouldn't be fair to judge a sound chip based on emulation, now, would it?

You can find those captured songs here:

http://sndhrecord.atari.org/

When it comes to 'making an 'advanced version' of SID', I always dream of eight-channel SID with individual filter for each channel, that still sounds like 6581 and NOT 8580 (this has its uses, but it sounds so mainstream, like any old synth, instead of unique - it can't play samples properly, it is plastic and boring, without personality)

P.S. Give these songs a chance, that Tao-song starts slowly and primitively, but it advances in sound, energy, feeling, atmosphere and melody as it goes, so please let it play for a few minutes before starting any kind of hatred, ok?

[Nishicorn]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Basic?
Simple?
...
Redundant?

You seriously think this is less insulting?

I was thinking, why use a word to describe it at all? Just remove the C word.

It's not about semantics, it's about being misinformed and not having experienced the wonderful side of Atari ST - it CAN do very cool and interesting things, but it's just not as obvious as it is with the Amiga with its more powerful special chips.

Atari ST's sound chip is by no means redundant, simple, obsolete, or crappy. This is not about semantics, it's about information and experience. I used to think like you before I familiarized myself with what the chip can actually do, and now I am really loving its quirky sound that you can't ever hear anywhere else, as any other chip can't really do what the YM-2149F does.

I mean, of course there are similar chips, that could -technically- pull of some of those things, but my point is, you don't usually get those chips combined with Atari ST's other capabilities, which make the unique sound possible.

If you follow my humble suggestion and give it a chance, you might actually be surprised as to how good that chip can sound.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Nishicorn

The SID is already 16-bit. It has 16-bit registers, and an analog filter. Atari Pokey (of the Atari 8-bit line) is an eight-bit sound chip, which is why the notes often sound distorter in pitch, that chip can't quite hit the notes due to not enough accuracy.

So please get your facts straight.

Wouldn't be fair to judge a sound chip based on emulation, now, would it?

I mean 8-bit as in address bus, as the C64 is 8-bit.

Yes, it would be adequate to judge sound chips based on emulation, if that's the only option open to someone.

[jizmo]

A good question is then what off-the-shelf sound chip should've they chosen that would've fit the budget for it to be more adequate? I'm not familiar with the sound chip markets of the mid-80s, but I'm confident Atari didn't pass on a better option with the same cost base.

And about the semantics Foebane was worried of; despite my previous defence talk I do think that YM2149F was, if not exactly crappy, maybe vanilla: it did the job but didn't exactly turn any heads at the time. But, it was the community and few talented artists that really made the best out of the chip –– Even so that I posthumously fell totally in love with the characteristic sound and the sweet basses!

The same thing kinda happened to me with Adlib as well: I found the soundscape tinny and plastic at the time, but these days I really enjoy a song that does not shy away from the characteristic Adlib sound, but rather embraces it to the maximum!

If there was no Amiga, (or Soundtrackers, more specifically), Atari would've probably done adequately with their chosen chip, compared to the competition at the time.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Nishicorn

The second point I want to make, is that although the YM-2149F might seem inferior to SID in many ways, and even to Paula in other ways, it can still do samples and quite interesting things.

As the musicians have proved, Atari ST's sound chip can do things SID can't reach (the 'sharp' basslines and other wondrous effects), it can mimic the SID's PWM (with the aid of the ST's relatively powerful CPU), it can do very impacting drums that SID has to envy a bit.

I'm far from a SID expert, but this statement surprises me. The YM is just generating square waves (plus one white noise voice), and the SID can also do square waves as well. Thus, it should be relatively easy for the SID to reproduce the output of the YM. Only set the oscillator to square wave, and select the frequency accordingly. The only reason why the output is not identical is probably due to the analog part of the computer system.

Originally Posted by Nishicorn

If you listen to these and STILL think YM-2149F is crap (or 100% crappier than SID), then there's no helping you. Just be fair and give it a chance - it may seem a 'crappy' sound chip, but it can do things Paula and SID can't quite reach.

Frankly, I'm not impressed by the chip. Certainly Paula can do the same. Easy: Just record the output of the YM and play the result as the sample. (-:


But seriously: Square wave output is not a problem for Paula (or SID) and white noise is neither a problem for SID or Paula. Even Pokey can generate a square wave, though its frequency resolution is limited (unless you combine two timers to get 16-bit precision).

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Frankly, I'm not impressed by the chip. Certainly Paula can do the same. Easy: Just record the output of the YM and play the result as the sample. (-:

Joking aside, the YM is less resource-hungry than Paula - a particularly important factor for 8 bit computers, but also an advantage on lower powered 16 bit machines too. No sample memory is required, no DMA slots required or interrupts generated that could conflict with other needs, and its simple bus interface makes for easy interfacing to practically any architecture.

Yes, Paula can produce much better sound, but it comes at a cost. When you need the lowest possible memory usage etc. the YM2149 is hard to beat.

[Juz400]

It would be interesting to know what the prices were for say 10K units of the YM chip and MOS produced Paula.

Probably another reason for CBM demise, as the 8bit market slowly died off, the sales for MOS produced 6502 killed another revenue stream.

[Nishicorn]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

I'm far from a SID expert, but this statement surprises me.

Why does it surprise you? Did you not listen to the songs I recommended?

I have been trying to re-create some of the 'sharp bass-sounds' that sound so cool in those and many other Atari ST songs, both with SID chips and OPL3, and it's not very easy at all. There's also this 'pulse effect' that I can 'somewhat' reproduce, but it doesn't sound as sharp and nice on SID or OPL3, I can't get it to sound identical.

Maybe you have spoiled your ears by emulation and not really delved deep into what Atari ST's sound chip can do on real machine..? Please listen to the real Atari ST-captures from the site I showed, maybe you can hear sounds you won't be able to hear on SID or OPL3, no matter what do you think you know about the YM2149-F.

The only real reason for your surprise can be your ignorance, no offence. Try to recreate Timbral's song on C64 or OPL3 - including the sounds to a tee, and you'll see why many Atarists say that SID chip is "always too soft". I recognize the validity of that point and realize the reason why they say this - why can't you?

[Nishicorn]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Yes, Paula can produce much better sound, .

This is at least debatable.

What does 'better' mean? If you want four channels of sample-filled extravaganza, sure, Paula wins.

If you want quirky realtime 'personalized' synth composing and sound, Paula doesn't quite compete, as it has to be either stuck with the samples or the cold, manufactured synth sound that's not the same as a real synth chip, like YM2149-F.

Why is it so hard pill to swallow for many to appreciate and recognize this marvellous chip as a 'good sound chip for music and interesting sounds'? Anyone doubting YM2149-F's abilities have clearly not listened to the songs that are captured from the real Atari ST.

Don't be prejudiced and judge a good sound chip based on some streamlined emulation that cuts some corners and removes some details, subtleties and energy of the original.

Paula is also limited to being 8-bit (although I know it can reach at least 14-bit these days, not even sure how that's done) and 22kHz basically, whereas YM2149F, being a real synth, doesn't suffer from this kind of limitation. This means good-sounding high-pitched sounds, for example.

Samples are good for many things, but they're always a bit inflexible and static compared to a 'living synth sound' that can move in quirky ways as the song plays.

I do love Paula, SID, OPL chips and YM2149F, so I don't really have hatred for any of these chips, I think they complement each other. Samples are good for drums and maybe 'adding channels' by using chords in one channel, and such, but try to give me a good, 'living leadsound' in a regular Amiga 500 Protracker song.. it either requires a long sample, or lots of tiny ones that you switch between and modify and it's still never gonna sound as organically and instantly good as, let's say a filtered PWM on a real SID chip. You have to really work hard for that.

You can't just sample some 'nice lead sound' sample and make a melody with that and expect it to be competitive. So samples are not 'better' for everything.

In any case, my point is, YM2149F deserves its place in computer music history, it can do amazing sounds that SID and Paula can't really compete with (well, Paula can of course sample that, but it's not quite the same, and it would degrade in quality anyway - playing high-pitched sounds in 8-bit 22kHz samples isn't going to sound as good as the original high-pitched sound on a real Atari ST), and I stand by that statement.

Of course SID can perform miracles that YM2149F can't reach or even dream of, but the same is true on the other direction as well. Only someone that hasn't heard the songs (and some others) that I recommended earlier, can claim otherwise. Don't just listen, but listen analytically, listen to the bass-sounds, the drum sounds, and for example, Timbral's quirky effects, where the pitch is moved while the volume is rapidly cut that sounds so cool. Easy to do on SID and OPL3 in theory, very hard to make sound as good and cool in practice.

My statements are not just statements, they are based on my experience and my painstaking experiments in trying to re-create this stuff. I must've created like 30 different 'Atari ST Bass'-instruments on my SID and more on OPL3, none of which sound even close to as cool, sharp and good as just the simple saw-like bass in Timbral's song, let alone Tao's masterpieces.

Learn some humility, learn to listen, receive, experiment for yourself, use authentic sound, and start to appreciate instead of just simply bashing based on your faulty and incomplete understanding of what the Atari ST's sound chip really is.

[Nishicorn]

About those semantics.. if you must have some kind of qualifier to elevate other things above it, maybe you can use a word like 'relatively basic and quirky' or something like that. Sure, it's relatively basic compared to SID, but it has quirks that together with the CPU power of the ST, can be made to reach things SID has no business ever touching.

SID DOES have a very 'soft' sound compared to the YM2149F, this is not even debatable, it's so obvious, clear and anyone can hear it. When you listen to Tao's, Timbral's and other composers' work, you can hear the kind of sharp bass that you never hear on the SID, and the drums also sound a bit different. Then there are the numerous effects, like 'filtered saw-wave-sounding instrument' that I don't even understand how it was done..

The chip is WAY more expressive and capable than many quickly dismissive people give it credit for. I am not saying it's better than SID or Paula in all possible ways - certainly it isn't - but it has it's OWN personality that I think should be appreciated and recognized as such.

People here seem to think it's just 'generic wave generator' that anything can mimic or replicate, but Tao, Timbral, Scavenger, Cube and others have proved otherwise - why don't you all just listen to those songs analytically and then try to find SID songs with as sharp bass sounds etc.. if you really want to retain your bashing rights, that is.

Otherwise, just please.. let all chips live and let people enjoy marvellousness of the YM2149F, okay?

P.S. Just for your convenience:

http://sndhrecord.atari.org/mp3/Tao/..._Demo_8730.mp3
http://sndhrecord.atari.org/mp3/Timbral/Junkie2149.mp3
http://sndhrecord.atari.org/mp3/Scavenger/Primus.mp3
http://sndhrecord.atari.org/mp3/Cube/Back_To_Basics.mp3

If you can listen to these analytically and focusing on each songs thoroughly, hearing all the instruments, sounds, effects, and quirkiness of the YM2149F chip, and STILL think it's just some basic, crappy chip that deserves no special mention and can't produce any kind of good-sounding sound, then there's absolutely no hope for you, and no one can help you.

If after all these songs, you still don't realize that YM2149F can produce 'sharper sound' (hard to explain with words) than SID can dream of, you're no longer basing (if you ever did) your assesment on reality, but some kind of lie, illusion, stubbornness or ego that gets in the way of observing what is, as it is. Again, there's then no help for you, as the problem is within you, not in the world and definitely not in YM2149F.