knudsen@ihnss.UUCP (09/10/85)
After several months of playing and listening to Marble Madness
and tinkering with FM music synthesis on my home CoCo,
I've concluded that a large part of the MM game's music
is Frequency Modulation generated. Some questions:
(1) Do you agree?
(2) Someone posted a rumor that the MM arcade game uses the
Amiga's sound chip set. If so, does that imply that Amiga
supports digital FM synthesis? Wow! Actually, an LSI
FM chip should be pretty easy to build.
(3) What techniques ARE used in the newer built-in home computer
sound chips? The old Atari & Commodore chips were mostly
analog, right? Are the new ones using digital filtering,'
AM, FM, or just good old waveform scanning with ADSR?
(4) Has anyone ever managed to record the whole "Marble Madness
Suite," so to speak? I'd pay money to get it all on a 45.
(5) Another possibility for the M.Madness game: Maybe the whole
sound track was just prerecorded in a studio , non-real-time,
with a 16-track tape, etc., and we're hearing just a CD Disk!
Makes sense: sometimes the game "loses" the music and takes a couple
seconds to pick up the track again.
Major argument against the CD theory: Some of the action
sounds (like rolling down the drain pipe) sound a lot like the
music itself, implying real-time synthesis on demand.
Or could those sounds be just stored in a big ROM?
Or does Atari have a *very* fast-random-access CD chassis?
(6) Is anyone out there working/playing/fooling with FM?
Do any commercial synthesizers use it much?
Keep your ears open, mike k.mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) (09/11/85)
In article <2614@ihnss.UUCP>, knudsen@ihnss.UUCP writes: > I've concluded that a large part of the MM game's music > is Frequency Modulation generated. Some questions: > > (1) Do you agree? Yep. All system I and system II game systems use a Yamaha FM sound chip set as well as one of the old "Pokey" sound generators. Paper Boy also has this chip set and has similar quality sounds. > (2) Someone posted a rumor that the MM arcade game uses the > Amiga's sound chip set. If so, does that imply that Amiga > supports digital FM synthesis? Wow! Actually, an LSI > FM chip should be pretty easy to build. Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. > (3) What techniques ARE used in the newer built-in home computer > sound chips? The old Atari & Commodore chips were mostly > analog, right? Are the new ones using digital filtering,' > AM, FM, or just good old waveform scanning with ADSR? The Atari 800 and 400 as well as most of their coin-op video games used a Pokey chip (or several). This is just a counter which generates square waves at different frequencies. For sound effects, the Pokey has a Poly counter which is a cheap random number generator for white noise. > (4) Has anyone ever managed to record the whole "Marble Madness > Suite," so to speak? I'd pay money to get it all on a 45. Call Atari at (408)747-2700 and ask them. Or, talk to your local arcade operator. They can put the game in selftest mode and you can listen to any of the sounds on command. > (5) Another possibility for the M.Madness game: Maybe the whole > sound track was just prerecorded in a studio , non-real-time, > with a 16-track tape, etc., and we're hearing just a CD Disk! > Makes sense: sometimes the game "loses" the music and takes a couple > seconds to pick up the track again. Nope. The losses of sound are cause by a communication break down between the main processor and the processor controlling the sounds.
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (09/13/85)
In article <267@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: >In article <2614@ihnss.UUCP>, knudsen@ihnss.UUCP writes: >> FM chip should be pretty easy to build. >Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha >has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers >didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. Uh -- wait a minute. Exar was making an FM-able waveform generator chip (XR206, I think) fifteen years ago. Aren't you leaving out a significant part of the story? -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
granvold@tymix.UUCP (Tom Granvold) (09/14/85)
-
I have found out some things about the Amiga sound hardware. Basically
the Amiga has four 8-bit D/A converters. This is how all the sound on the
Amiga is generated. Apparently there is a DMA channel, maybe more than one,
that will fetch the digital data and feed it to the D/A, releaving the CPU
chip from doing it. Someplace either in the operating system or one of the
custon chips is support for controlling the envelope. I hope to know more
of the details when I get to see the documentation. By the way, some of
the demo sounds for the Amiga were created by an add on A/D converter.
It doesn't sound like there is any possibility of doing FM
synthesis on the Amiga.
Tom Granvold
ucbvax!allegra!tymix!granvolddr_d@sftig.UUCP (D.Donahue) (09/16/85)
> > (2) Someone posted a rumor that the MM arcade game uses the > > Amiga's sound chip set. If so, does that imply that Amiga > > supports digital FM synthesis? Wow! Actually, an LSI > > FM chip should be pretty easy to build. > Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha > has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers > didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. Mahar, I'm not certain what it is that you are refering to as far as Yamahas ownership with respect to FM sound generation. As far FM patenting is concerned, John Chowing of Stanfords CCRMA is the one who, perhaps didn't conceive of the idea, actively purued and developed the process of Frequency Modulated Sound Generation. The same John Chowning, not Yamaha, is the one who holds any patents having to do with FM Sound Generation. Doug Donahue AT&T Information Systems attunix!dr_d
mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) (09/16/85)
In article <2882@ut-sally.UUCP>, crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) writes: > In article <267@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: > >In article <2614@ihnss.UUCP>, knudsen@ihnss.UUCP writes: > >> FM chip should be pretty easy to build. > >Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha > >has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers > >didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. > > Uh -- wait a minute. Exar was making an FM-able waveform generator > chip (XR206, I think) fifteen years ago. Aren't you leaving out a > significant part of the story? Patenting FM synthesis is a lot like patenting the color blue to my mind. I'm well aware that others were there first. They didn't get that patent however. There exists a feature of patent law which makes an idea unpatentable if "it is obvious to anyone skilled in the art." I think FM qualifys here. Yamaha's lawyers have big teeth however, and Atari didn't want to mess with them.
mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) (09/19/85)
In article <590@sftig.UUCP>, dr_d@sftig.UUCP (D.Donahue) writes: > > > > (2) Someone posted a rumor that the MM arcade game uses the > > > Amiga's sound chip set. If so, does that imply that Amiga > > > supports digital FM synthesis? Wow! Actually, an LSI > > > FM chip should be pretty easy to build. > > Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha > > has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers > > didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. > I'm not certain what it is that you are refering to as far as Yamahas > ownership with respect to FM sound generation. As far FM patenting is concerned, > John Chowing of Stanfords CCRMA is the one who, perhaps didn't conceive of the > idea, actively purued and developed the process of Frequency Modulated Sound > Generation. The same John Chowning, not Yamaha, is the one who holds any > patents having to do with FM Sound Generation. Doug, You are right about Chowning. Yamaha bought exclusive rights to his patents. If you or I wanted to do FM we would still have to talk to Yamaha. Mike Mahar
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (09/21/85)
In article <269@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: >In article <2882@ut-sally.UUCP>, crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) writes: >> In article <267@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: >> >In article <2614@ihnss.UUCP>, knudsen@ihnss.UUCP writes: >> >> FM chip should be pretty easy to build. >> >Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha >> >has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers >> >didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. >> >> Uh -- wait a minute. Exar was making an FM-able waveform generator >> chip (XR206, I think) fifteen years ago. Aren't you leaving out a >> significant part of the story? > >Patenting FM synthesis is a lot like patenting the color blue to my mind. >I'm well aware that others were there first. They didn't get that patent >however. There exists a feature of patent law which makes an idea unpatentable >if "it is obvious to anyone skilled in the art." I think FM qualifys here. >Yamaha's lawyers have big teeth however, and Atari didn't want to mess >with them. This seems to be a good example of a type of incident that one hears about now and then and which usually leaves me with a profound sinking feeling. I am assuming, of course, that Yamaha has a US patent, else much of this will seem rather silly. The operative clause, the one about denying patent protection to any idea ``obvious to anyone skilled in the art'', is clearly designed to prevent unscrupulous moguls (or entrepreneurs, for that matter) from taking unfair advantage of patent laws, since there are obviously many good, potentially marketable technical ideas which have been in the public domain for a long time but have never been explicitly identified as such, despite (or perhaps because of) their familiarity. It often seems that the Patent Office staff is easily snowed where certain kinds of technology are concerned, and of course patent attorneys, like their more generally practicing cousins, seldom miss a trick. But I dimly recall reading about incidents in patent proceedings where legally issued patents have been successfully challenged on the obviousness clause and subsequently thrown out. I also have a general impression that the interests of ethical propriety would be better served if such challenges were more common than they currently are. (Can anyone present a solid statistical case against this opinion? Frankly, I'd like to be proved wrong on that one.) The reason they aren't more common is fairly clear: manufacturers and inventors are in business to make a profit, and legal proceedings are expensive. No one can afford to press a case if there's ``no percentage in it''. Okay; such is life. Them's the facts, warts and all. Eventually, however, we come around to the case that started all this. Now I don't pretend to know all the facts that motivated Atari's decision not to compete with Yamaha, but I can't help observing that Yamaha's patent, if it really is a general patent covering essentially all forms of FM sound synthesis, sounds like a Certified Grade-A sitting duck. Another thing I can't help observing is that Atari surely isn't taking on this particular manufacturing project for the amusement value. The conclusion that forces itself upon me -- and it's a rather unsettling one -- is that Yamaha is successfully using this highly questionable patent to prevent Atari (and probably others) from fairly and legitimately competing in this marketplace, by this simple ploy. That is, Yamaha can't (or doesn't wish to) sell the product at a price that will effectively undercut all the competition, so the patent is raised as an impediment to those who would compete, since although they might easily beat Yamaha's price in an even match, they can't if they have to shell out the cash and take the schedule ``hit'' that challenging the silly patent would necessitate. Now this technique, more generally applied, could lead to some interesting scenarios. Let's set the clock back a little and imagine John DeLorean, still in the automotive business, but starting to flounder big-time. Let's suppose he gets this bright idea: ``Hmmmmm. I wonder who owns the patent on the windshield?'' Checking around, he finds that there is none. So he gets the sharpest lawyer he can find (he's going to need one, anyway, right?) and goes right to the Patent Office and obtains a patent on the windshield. Now, everyone in Detroit (everyone who makes cars, that is) has to make a choice: either pay an outrageous royalty to DeLorean for the privilege of making windshields (assuming he permits that option) or buy windshields from him. Now it turns out that windshields from DeLorean cost just a little more than it used to cost Ford to make them. So what's Ford going to do? (Cocaine? What's that?) Now if I have made a grave mistake in fact, then I sincerely apologize to anyone whom I may have offended. But the way I see it, this (the outrageous DeLorean scenario) is exactly what Yamaha is doing. I can't really deny that such a claim seems pretty far-fetched at first glance. But I keep hearing reports of things that somehow render it increasingly plausible. Anyone remember the reports (some of them well documented) from a year or two ago of Japanese manufacturers ``dumping'' shiploads of consumer products -- mostly TV sets -- in the USA and western Europe? Someone told me that such practices were illegal. (Say, that law is really well enforced, isn't it! If I had to guess, I'd say we've got the Keystone Kops working overtime on it.) And of course, the Japanese government's subsidized-export policy is hardly news. To me, this practice more than casually resembles restraint of trade, and since it was accomplished with the indispensable aid of a legal proceeding (granting of a patent), it may constitute abuse of process, as well. If my perception is correct, then what I want to know is, why aren't we doing anything about it? Maybe this case is just a grain of sand in a vast dessert; we have to start somewhere. Maybe Atari alone can't afford to fight the bullies, but surely some kind of consortium could. Am I the only person in the world who sees it this way? Am I totally off the wall? What is happening, anyway? -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
sinclair@aero.ARPA (William S. Sinclair) (09/24/85)
Since we're on the subject of patents, Stanford U has the basic patent on
the FM process, as applied to music. Yamaha bought it from them after several
american companies had declined the option. Chowning did the research for
Stanford; as far as I know, he didn't get a very large chunk of the royalties,
if any.
Bill Sinclairdoc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (09/24/85)
> >Patenting FM synthesis is a lot like patenting the color blue to my mind. > This seems to be a good example of a type of incident that one hears > about now and then and which usually leaves me with a profound sinking > feeling.... > The conclusion that forces itself upon me -- and it's a rather unsettling > one -- is that Yamaha is successfully using this highly questionable > patent to prevent Atari (and probably others) from fairly and > legitimately competing in this marketplace, by this simple ploy. That > is, Yamaha can't (or doesn't wish to) sell the product at a price that > will effectively undercut all the competition, so the patent is raised > as an impediment to those who would compete, since although they might > easily beat Yamaha's price in an even match, they can't if they have > to shell out the cash and take the schedule ``hit'' that challenging the > silly patent would necessitate. Now this technique, more generally > applied, could lead to some interesting scenarios. Let's set the clock > back a little and imagine John DeLorean, still in the automotive > business, but starting to flounder big-time. Let's suppose he gets > this bright idea: ``Hmmmmm. I wonder who owns the patent on the > windshield?'' Checking around, he finds that there is none. So he > gets the sharpest lawyer he can find (he's going to need one, anyway, > right?) and goes right to the Patent Office and obtains a patent on the > windshield. Now, everyone in Detroit (everyone who makes cars, that is) > has to make a choice: either pay an outrageous royalty to DeLorean for > the privilege of making windshields (assuming he permits that option) > or buy windshields from him. Now it turns out that windshields from > DeLorean cost just a little more than it used to cost Ford to make them. > So what's Ford going to do? (Cocaine? What's that?) > > Now if I have made a grave mistake in fact, then I sincerely apologize > to anyone whom I may have offended. But the way I see it, this (the > outrageous DeLorean scenario) is exactly what Yamaha is doing. I can't > really deny that such a claim seems pretty far-fetched at first glance. > But I keep hearing reports of things that somehow render it increasingly > plausible. > > To me, this practice more than casually resembles restraint of trade, > and since it was accomplished with the indispensable aid of a legal > proceeding (granting of a patent), it may constitute abuse of process, > as well. If my perception is correct, then what I want to know is, why > aren't we doing anything about it? Maybe this case is just a grain of > sand in a vast dessert; we have to start somewhere. Maybe Atari alone > can't afford to fight the bullies, but surely some kind of consortium > could. > > Am I the only person in the world who sees it this way? Am I totally > off the wall? What is happening, anyway? To begin with, Jim, an FM synthesizer is a little more esoteric than a windshield. I'm sure that, to a bright young genius like yourself, every little detail of an FM synthesizer is perfectly "obvious", at least as much as a windshield is "obvious". However, patent law has to make a determination as to when something is or is not "obvious" and, well, frankly, the courts just don't have time to poll to every hot young genius in the country to get their opinion on the obviousness of something. Before flaming about "Yet Another Insidious Invasion of Our Sacred Rights", or whatever, why don't you sit down and READ the actual patent? You might be surprised to discover that it isn't so much concerned with the "idea" of an FM synthesizer, but several minute design details that make the chip economically viable to produce, or something. Patents usually focus on the minute details of a design, not the grand concept. And yes, if someone wanted to challenge the patent's validity, the odds of prevailing are in their favor. (about 75% of patent challenges are successful). That does not mean, however, that 1) the patent office is staffed by incompetents, 2) obtaining such a patent in the first place is "abuse of process", or 3) the patent attorney who wrote the original claim and secured the patent is an unsrupulous slime-ball. The patent office is woefully understaffed (we already have too many of those over-paid gummint workers, you know, feeding at the public trough in these proto-libertarian times), for one thing. If a company sinks a lot of money into developing a product, why shouldn't they obtain a patent on it to protect their investment? Why is this unscrupulous? Your DeLorean example is patently (you'll excuse the pun) absurd, as even an overworked patent examiner could probably figure out that a windshield is nothing new. An FM synthesizer chip is a different matter, so the patent office relies on the industry itself to do part of the "obviousness" determination by challenging a patent once its granted. Atari isn't stupid; if the FM synthesizer is obvious to a CS student, it would probably be obvious to Atari's engineers sufficiently enough to warrant a challenge. That Atari prefers to pay the royalty indicates that the cost of the challenge is greater than the long-term cost of the royalty (which is probably pretty low), or that Atari feels the patent is valid. In either case, I see no evidence of dirty-dealing by the patent office, patent lawyers, or by Yamaha. If the patent is so absurd, let Atari challenge it. If it's so obvious to someone like yourself who hasn't even read the terms of the patent that it's a sham, I'm sure Atari would have an easy time of demolishing it in court.
rlh@sfmag.UUCP (R.Hamilton) (09/26/85)
> In article <269@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: > >In article <2882@ut-sally.UUCP>, crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) writes: ... > >Patenting FM synthesis is a lot like patenting the color blue to my mind. > >I'm well aware that others were there first. They didn't get that patent > >however. There exists a feature of patent law which makes an idea unpatentable > >if "it is obvious to anyone skilled in the art." I think FM qualifys here. > >Yamaha's lawyers have big teeth however, and Atari didn't want to mess > >with them. > > This seems to be a good example of a type of incident that one hears > about now and then and which usually leaves me with a profound sinking > feeling. I am assuming, of course, that Yamaha has a US patent, else > much of this will seem rather silly. The operative clause, the one > about denying patent protection to any idea ``obvious to anyone skilled > in the art'', is clearly designed to prevent unscrupulous moguls (or > entrepreneurs, for that matter) from taking unfair advantage of patent > laws, since there are obviously many good, potentially marketable > technical ideas which have been in the public domain for a long time > but have never been explicitly identified as such, despite (or perhaps > because of) their familiarity. ... > > Am I the only person in the world who sees it this way? Am I totally > off the wall? What is happening, anyway? > -- > > Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin > {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell As has already been amply mentioned, the patent was issued to John Chowning and Stanford U. (the latter presumably because of Chowning's affiliation with Stanford). The point I want to make, however, is that it is not at all clear to me that the idea of using FM for music synthesis was not patentable, at least at the time the patent was issued. I am not a patent attorney, so take this with a grain of salt (it is backed up by a perusal of our corporate reference book on patents): there are four requirements for an invention to be patentable. It must be in a class of inventions defined as patentable, it must be useful, it must be novel, and it must be non-obvious. The first two are straightforward in this case. Novelty most likely also passes because it is only concerned with whether others were publicly using the invention or already had a patent on it. The real question is non-obviousness, and I think that if you look at what was going on at the time Chowning "invented" FM synthesis, you will see that no one had done anything like it. We now have the perspective of a lot of development in computer music, but at that time, I don't think that it was at all obvious that FM could be anything more than an oddity at audible levels. Even so, I agree that FM being patented does put a crimp in the plans of those who would like to make their own chip or otherwise capitalize on the technique. Dick Hamilton attunix!rlh
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (09/28/85)
>> >Patenting FM synthesis is a lot like patenting the color blue to my mind. >> >I'm well aware that others were there first. They didn't get that patent >> >however. There exists a feature of patent law which makes an idea unpatentable >> >if "it is obvious to anyone skilled in the art." I think FM qualifys here. >> ... >> This seems to be a good example of a type of incident that one hears >> about now and then and which usually leaves me with a profound sinking >> feeling. I am assuming, of course, that Yamaha has a US patent, else >> much of this will seem rather silly.... [I love a self-fulfilling prophecy. But much as I admire my own flames, I really think everyone's seen enough copies of this, thanks partly to people who followup without bothering to edit the quote. :-) ] > As has already been amply mentioned, the patent was issued to >John Chowning and Stanford U.... The point I want to make, >however, is that it is not at all clear to me that the idea of using >FM for music synthesis was not patentable, at least at the time >the patent was issued. You're not alone. >There are four requirements for an invention to be patentable. It >must be in a class of inventions defined as patentable, it must be >useful, it must be novel, and it must be non-obvious. The first two >are straightforward in this case. Whoa, not so fast. Useful? No argument. ``In a class of inventions defined as patentable''? Not so easy. One of my correspondents made the bold concession that FM was a ``mathematical formula'' (I might have said ``theoretical concept''), and is therefore ineligible. Appealing as that line of reasoning may be, I reject it not only because it invites the question whether the application of the formula/concept is the new, patentable entity (FM itself demonstrably isn't), but because it's unnecessary. I have been familiar with software implementations of digital FM synthesis, some of which I've written, for over a dozen years. (No, that sentence doesn't contain a typo.) Actually, the time frame is irrelevant. The fact that FM synthesis is realizable via writing programs for ``general purpose'' computers implies that at least for some purposes, digital FM synthesis is really just a computational problem for which there exists a family of algorithms and is therefore not patentable. Neither are any of those algorithms, as I assume we all know. A practical consequence of the same phenomenon is that you might find that your market-cornering, one-of-a-kind FM synth chip suddenly has to contend with some competitor's custom ROM pattern in, say, a TMS32020. (Before you flame, please note that I haven't actually said that there IS a program for a 32020 that will emulate the Yamaha FM synth chip. Okay? I just want to be sure everyone's straight on that. [:-)]) Now it's quite true that certain legal eagles have been kicking around the notion of patent protection for programs for several years, but they haven't gotten very far with it. One of the reasons is a widespread agreement that patents are intended to cover fairly tangible things, like black boxes. For most legal purposes, software is considered intangible. But let's face it, the ``idea of using FM for music synthesis'' is about as intangible as you can get. > Novelty most likely also passes >because it is only concerned with whether others were publicly using >the invention or already had a patent on it. Another very ``iffy'' one, actually. Definition of ``publicly using'' is crucial. > The real question is non-obviousness, and I think that if you look >at what was going on at the time Chowning "invented" FM synthesis, you >will see that no one had done anything like it. Perhaps. I'll take you up on the challenge at any rate; I'm currently working to acquire a copy of the patent. In terms of the theroretical concepts involved -- well, we'll see. I have been told, however, that the actual scope of Chowning's patent is essentially limited to certain hardware implementations. Yes, that's hearsay. (And yes, this is USENET. Caveat lector.) > Even so, I agree that FM being >patented does put a crimp in the plans of those who would like to make >their own chip or otherwise capitalize on the technique. At least. Actually, it's potentially worse than that, because if company X has the exclusive legal right to design, make and sell all forms of any device that does Y, then if you need a device that does Y but has some little wrinkle which X happens to feel would render it unmarketable, then you're fresh out of luck. Make no mistake about it -- lots of people are injured when an overly broad patent is successfully granted; it's a matter that legitimately concerns all of us. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell