steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Jim Howard) (01/05/88)
>From recent postings on the net, I've been led to believe that
some of the major sound digitizers (not naming any names), are
doing their best to conceal their electronics, by use of acrylic
block surrounding the components, to filing the serial numbers
off the chips. Then I ask, why would anyone go to such lengths
to hide the actual workings of a device, except for the possibilty
that the user could build his own for a lesser sum of money by
purchasing the parts himself and hacking together his own digitizer?
You dont see Sony filing off serial numbers because they're afraid
people will steal the patent on the televisions, and Commodore
certainly doesnt seal the motherboard of the Amiga in an acrylic
block!
w3"
UUCP: ....!crash!pro-charlotte!steelie | Pro-Charlotte - (704) 567-0029
ARPA: crash!pro-charlotte!steelie@nosc.mil| 300/1200/2400 baud 24 hrs/day
INET: steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com | Log in as "register"haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/06/88)
steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Jim Howard) writes: >>From recent postings on the net, I've been led to believe that >some of the major sound digitizers (not naming any names), are >doing their best to conceal their electronics, by use of acrylic >block surrounding the components, to filing the serial numbers >off the chips. Then I ask, why would anyone go to such lengths >to hide the actual workings of a device, except for the possibilty >that the user could build his own for a lesser sum of money by Jim, I once looked into doing this. I have a rough design for a 14/15-bit 95khz A-D/D-A board which would cost about $70 ea. to produce. But what is the point, since the Amiga doesn't have the horses to do much with such a beast. Anyway, If you look into various A-D converters you will find that their are a wide variety of 7,8,10, and 12 bit converters aailable, and that they're are wide variations in the way they are set up (in terms of how they work and how they're layed out physically). These parts are somewhat sensitive, so even if the pins are supossedly the same, the design useing them may not be. So, if you don't know the exact chip they're using in the unit, you will probably have to do your own hardware. I don't think they really are trying to keep the individual from copying the design, rather they wish to make a competetor do their own design work. After all, if a rival company has no design costs, they could aquire half the market just by producing the units and selling them at the same price. Thanks, Wade. (oops, used "they're" when I should of used "there", probably misspelled "competetor", etc... Sorry!) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
hedley@cbmvax.UUCP (Hedley Davis) (01/07/88)
In article <2283@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Jim Howard) writes: >>>From recent postings on the net, I've been led to believe that >>some of the major sound digitizers (not naming any names), are >>doing their best to conceal their electronics, by use of acrylic >>block surrounding the components, to filing the serial numbers >>off the chips. Then I ask, why would anyone go to such lengths >>to hide the actual workings of a device, except for the possibilty >>that the user could build his own for a lesser sum of money by > > I don't think they really are trying to keep the individual from >copying the design, rather they wish to make a competetor do their own >design work. After all, if a rival company has no design costs, they could >aquire half the market just by producing the units and selling them at >the same price. > > Maybe they put alot of work into the software too. This way, their dongle is protected, so their software investment is protected. Hedley
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (01/07/88)
Somebody writes: >>>>From recent postings on the net, I've been led to believe that >>>some of the major sound digitizers (not naming any names), are >>>doing their best to conceal their electronics, by use of acrylic >>>block surrounding the components, to filing the serial numbers >>>off the chips. Then I ask, why would anyone go to such lengths >>>to hide the actual workings of a device, except for the possibilty >>>that the user could build his own for a lesser sum of money by Maybe they did it to protect the electronics from damage? Sean -- -- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@UKMA.BITNET -- (the Empire guy) {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean -- University of Kentucky in Lexington Kentucky, USA -- "My feet are wet."
leivian@dover.uucp (Bob Leivian) (01/08/88)
In article <2283@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Jim Howard) writes: >>>From recent postings on the net, I've been led to believe that >>some of the major sound digitizers (not naming any names), are >>doing their best to conceal their electronics, by use of acrylic >>block surrounding the components, to filing the serial numbers > > I once looked into doing this. I have a rough design for a >14/15-bit 95khz A-D/D-A board which would cost about $70 ea. to produce. >But what is the point, since the Amiga doesn't have the horses to do >much with such a beast. > Our user group (in PHX AZ) did a group project to build a digitizer, One EE with a regular day job designed a board, we pooled money to get a local house to do the art work for the board for around $20 per board. Then with about $25 worth of fairly standard parts (and about 6 hours of sodering and snipping) we had a nice sterio digitizer. I spend another 20 bucks at radio shack for a pretty box and knobs, and viola There was nothing secret about it, it is a fairly simple A/D circuit. I don't know what you mean by "not enough horses to use it" it works fine and is compatible with perfect sound software. --Bob -- Bob Leivian Motorola, Dover Shores (CAD Support) 602-994-6778 ...{mcdsun, sun}!sunburn!dover!leivian Mesa, AZ
lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) (01/09/88)
In article <108@dover.uucp> leivian@dover.UUCP (Bob Leivian) writes: > > Our user group (in PHX AZ) did a group project to build a digitizer, >One EE with a regular day job designed a board, we pooled money to get >a local house to do the art work for the board for around $20 per board. >Then with about $25 worth of fairly standard parts (and about 6 hours >of sodering and snipping) we had a nice sterio digitizer. I spend >another 20 bucks at radio shack for a pretty box and knobs, and viola > > There was nothing secret about it, it is a fairly simple A/D circuit. Since there was nothing secret about it, how about posting the schematics?? Or submitting it for a Fish disk? This would make a nice little project for someone to do. (like me....) -- "Truth is false and logic lost..." - Neil Peart (who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU) lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachac
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/10/88)
leivian@dover.uucp (Bob Leivian) writes: > Our user group (in PHX AZ) did a group project to build a digitizer, >One EE with a regular day job designed a board, we pooled money to get >a local house to do the art work for the board for around $20 per board. >Then with about $25 worth of fairly standard parts (and about 6 hours >of sodering and snipping) we had a nice sterio digitizer. I spend >another 20 bucks at radio shack for a pretty box and knobs, and viola > > There was nothing secret about it, it is a fairly simple A/D circuit. >I don't know what you mean by "not enough horses to use it" it works >fine and is compatible with perfect sound software. >--Bob Sure, but you were taking 8-bit samples, probably at 8khz. Take a look at the increase in needed throughput to support 16-bit samples at sampling rates of better than 40khz and you'll see that the Amiga does not have the power to handle it. I have looked at a number of specialized hardware designs to resolve this. I would like to, at some time, build a professional quality audio processing system. I figure I could do it now with the A2000, but the price to the user would be about $1300 above the cost of the A2000, which means the market (musicians, not computer users) would probably not accept it. Still, for $2800 (all hardware, no software) it would be possible to provide a truely open audio processing environment. As a musician I'm dieing to do this. Maybe by summer... Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
bishop@skat.usc.edu (Brian Bishop) (01/20/88)
In article <2320@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > I would like to, at some time, build a professional quality audio >processing system. I figure I could do it now with the A2000, but the >price to the user would be about $1300 above the cost of the A2000, which >means the market (musicians, not computer users) would probably not >accept it. Still, for $2800 (all hardware, no software) it would be possible >to provide a truely open audio processing environment. As a musician I'm >dieing to do this. Maybe by summer... > I've spent the last two days putting together eleven songs using my room- mate's casio keyboard's drum capability (limited, but useful), my portable CD player, the Amiga, the Mimetics sampler, ans my other roommate's four-track recorder (we are obviously a well-matched set of people). Is it professional? No. But the sound quality? Oh Man!! CD straight to the sampler! And that's what I love - the power of a mini-Fairlight for, say...maybe two grand. And I would have bought the Amiga and the CD player anyway. It's 60% icing on the cake anyway!!! brian bishop ---> bishop@usc-ecl.ARPA (uscvax,sdcvdef,engvax,scgvaxd,smeagol) ---> usc-skat!bishop.UUCP "You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature that lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe." - Wilbur Mercer, founder of Mercerism have a nice day fnord.
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (01/04/90)
I have an old version of Perfect Sound for the 2000. The quality of
samples from it is poor. What are other peoples feelings on audio
digitizers for the amiga, which one gives the best quality sound?
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comgt4662b@prism.gatech.EDU (BRANHAM,JOSEPH FRANKLIN) (01/04/90)
In article <1033@crash.cts.com>, uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: > I have an old version of Perfect Sound for the 2000. The quality of > samples from it is poor. What are other peoples feelings on audio > digitizers for the amiga, which one gives the best quality sound? Although I've not much of an ear for digitizers, I've gotten very good results from a digitizer I built myself. It has a few limitations- 1) It is mono only 2) Software to run it is not included. The cost to build it is about $20-$25. I found a file to construct it on a local BBS-which was based on a magazine article-the file also included a nice IFF schematic. Now, as for #2-does anyone know of any PD programs for digitizing? -- BRANHAM,JOSEPH FRANKLIN Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 "I know my familiar is a vampire duck, just don't mess with it." Internet: gt4662b@prism.gatech.edu
fc@lexicon.com (Frank Cunningham) (01/04/90)
In article <1033@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: > I have an old version of Perfect Sound for the 2000. The quality of > samples from it is poor. What are other peoples feelings on audio > digitizers for the amiga, which one gives the best quality sound? I haven't used any of them, but am also curious. Just for general information, what do you consider poor ? 8 bits at some random sampling rate do not a compact disc emulate. 8 bits at some random sampling rate do even a random cassette ". Are you producing sounds for games (music anf fx) or samples to be sent to a synthesizer ? Or do you want to make an audio workstation ? OBTW, has anyone used Synthia-Pro ? Comments ? It claims to generate 16-bit samples for use by real synthesizers. I am unsure if they can be previewed properly on Amy. -- -Frank Cunningham smart: fc@lexicon.com phone: (617) 891-6790 dumb: {husc6,linus,harvard,bbn}!spdcc!lexicon!fc snail: Lexicon Inc. 100 Beaver St. Waltham MA 02174 Real Recording Engineers mix direct to stereo.
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (01/04/90)
In article <1033@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: >I have an old version of Perfect Sound for the 2000. The quality of >samples from it is poor. What are other peoples feelings on audio >digitizers for the amiga, which one gives the best quality sound? I suppose your mileage might vary according to the care & time spent on it, but I get better samples from the digitizer I made from plans in Amazing Computing a few months ago. The designer chose to require a separate power supply than to pull it off the Amy's port since he seemed to think it was a bit too noisy. This little tool along with AudioMasterII is invaluable when showing off the Amy. I hook a little stereo radio into it & just hook a pair of good headphones to the output of the Amy without it being obvious, hand the headphones to them and startup the monitor in AMII. Curious looks are replaced by disbelief when I tell them what's going on. I then record about an 800k (A2500 :^) sample in HiFi, reverse a section on one channel & play it back. Until then they usually refuse to believe me. ==================================================================== Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu Motto : "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing" ====================================================================
stevep@galadriel.bt.co.uk (Steve Paine) (01/09/90)
From article <1033@crash.cts.com>, by uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun): > I have an old version of Perfect Sound for the 2000. The quality of > samples from it is poor. What are other peoples feelings on audio > digitizers for the amiga, which one gives the best quality sound? > -Roger > Roger, I have the Future Sound sampler and I am very pleased with it. As long input levels are correct and the unit is kept away from the monitor, it sounds very good. When I bought the unit I was advised to buy the Future SOund sampler purely because it was the best quality. Combining this hardware with a decent software package (The future sound s/w is not the best!) would it even better. By the way, you dont know anything about the Sonix sample format do you? I have been trying to get a sample into Sonix for a long time with no success. Steve Paine. British Telecom Research, Ipswich England.
colyer@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (01/10/90)
(stevep@galadriel.bt.vo.uk -- Steve Paine) >[... Stuff deleted ...] > By the way, you dont know anything about the Sonix sample format do you? >I have been trying to get a sample into Sonix for a long time with no success. Steve, Sonix uses these special files off of the main boot disk. These files tell Sonix what type of sounds to use and how to use theme. There is one for IFF samples. All you need to do is read in the sample, and then save it back via Sonix. After you save it, reload the new Sonix saved sample and you'll have control over it's envelope and filterings (I think...). To load up IFF samples just leave your Sonix boot disk in df0: and put the disk with the IFF sample into df1:, and go from there. Hope this helps... -- #include <std.disclaimers> #define JAMES_COLYER COLYER@silver.ucs.indiana.edu /* Amiga. One of the finer things in life. */ /* You'd better leave your underpants with someone you can trust -J.Tull */
groo@dsoft.UUCP (Bill Squier) (01/12/90)
In article <562@galadriel.bt.co.uk> stevep@galadriel.bt.co.uk (Steve Paine) writes: > > By the way, you dont know anything about the Sonix sample format do you? >I have been trying to get a sample into Sonix for a long time with no >success. Sonix accepts the standard IFF format (8SVX?). I had a similar problem at one point (when I was running on a one floppy drive 1000). Apparently, in order for Sonix to properly load and play an IFF sample, it must have access to the Miscellaneous directory, OR have accessed an IFF instrument successfully before. One way to solve it is to go to the Score screen, and select "Load" from the menu. When the requester comes up, select the "preload" score. This score contains instruments of many types and allows Sonix to play all varieties of intruments without further disk access. It also may be the way you're saving it from your sampling software. From AudioMaster, for example, you must save it as the "SONIX" type. -- Bill Squier - Stevens Inst. of Tech | // "Only Amiga makes it possible" Bitnet: u93_wsquier@stevens | \X/ Internet: u93_wsquier@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu Temporary Inet (Please use until Jan. 13): ...uunet!tronsbox!dsoft!groo
C503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Baird McIntosh) (01/16/90)
In article <562@galadriel.bt.co.uk>, steve@galadriel.british-telecom.co.uk (Steve Paine) writes: > By the way, you dont know anything about the Sonix sample format do you? >I have been trying to get a sample into Sonix for a long time with no success. In article <36400034@silver>, colyer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (James Colyer) replies: >...IFF samples. All you need to do is read in the sample, and then save it >back via Sonix. After you save it, reload the new Sonix saved sample and >you'll have control over it's envelope and filterings (I think...). > > To load up IFF samples just leave your Sonix boot disk in df0: and put >the disk with the IFF sample into df1:, and go from there. To create samples to be used as 'instruments' in Sonix, you need to first make sure you save the samples in IFF format (rather than DUMP or COMPRESSED). In addition, it wouldn't hurt to use your software to make the sample into an instrument... I know Perfect Sound and Audio Master II are handy for this. Now when you want to read the sample into Sonix (as James describes above), make sure that the file name ends in '.instr' (as in Rad_sample.instr, for example). Otherwise, Sonix won't recognize the sample as an IFF instrument. Ok, now you load it in and Sonix displays it as an IFF waveform. Save it from Sonix and reload it and you will have a Sonix sampled-sound instrument. Note that there are two files related to the instrument now: a '.ss' file that contains the actual sample data and a new '.instr' file that contains the envelope, vibrato, etc. settings. Most of this info is in the Sonix 2.0 manual, but I know it may be hard to make it all connect (it isn't the easiest process). poof! # Baird McIntosh (2nd yr CS/MATH) -- "Sure, *sue* me; you WON'T get Ami!" :-) # # INTERNET: c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> BITNET: c503719@umcvmb.bitnet # # "You can keep your toy soldiers to segregate the black and white, but when # # the dust settles and the blood stops running, how do you sleep at night?" #
stevep@galadriel.bt.co.uk (Steve Paine) (01/16/90)
From article <8261@nigel.udel.EDU>, by C503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Baird McIntosh): > In article <562@galadriel.bt.co.uk>, steve@galadriel.british-telecom.co.uk > (Steve Paine) writes: >> By the way, you dont know anything about the Sonix sample format do you? >>I have been trying to get a sample into Sonix for a long time with no success. > > In article <36400034@silver>, colyer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (James Colyer) > replies: >>...IFF samples. All you need to do is read in the sample, and then save it >>back via Sonix. After you save it, reload the new Sonix saved sample and >>you'll have control over it's envelope and filterings (I think...). >> >> To load up IFF samples just leave your Sonix boot disk in df0: and put >>the disk with the IFF sample into df1:, and go from there. > > To create samples to be used as 'instruments' in Sonix, you need to first make > sure you save the samples in IFF format (rather than DUMP or COMPRESSED). In > addition, it wouldn't hurt to use your software to make the sample into an > instrument... I know Perfect Sound and Audio Master II are handy for this. Now > when you want to read the sample into Sonix (as James describes above), make > sure that the file name ends in '.instr' (as in Rad_sample.instr, for example). I realise that i have to put the .instr extension on the IFF filename and when it comes to reading the IFF file from Sonix , the file is read in OK. The problem comes when trying to play the damn thing. It only plays on the top octve of my MIDI (6 1/4 Octave) keyboard and even then the playback rate is way below what it should be. After looking at the example IFF files on the Sonix Data disk it looks as though the IFF samples needed by Sonix are 5 octave samples and the samples I am saving are only 3 octave samples. I'm almost at the point of giving up now, I realise that my s/w is not compatable and finding out the info needed to write a conversion program is proving too hard. I cant even write to Aegis with a technical enquiry as I didnt get a registration card with my software. (yes i did buy the original!) So if theres anyone out there that can find out the exact format of Aegis Sonix .instr and .ss files please help me. If i'm succesful in completing a conversion program i'm sure that there are a lot of people that would benefit from it being in the Public Domain. Thanks, Steve Paine.
vik@lynx.uucp (Vikram Sohal) (12/05/90)
Any suggestions as to which sound digitizer is best to get? I have seen PerfectSound at my local software store, but have no idea as to how it compares to others. Are there any 16/8 bit digitizers available? how about bundled software? Thanks, Vic Sohal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Lynx Real-Time Systems, Real-Time is our middle name!!!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) (12/05/90)
In Message-ID: <8286@lynx.UUCP> vik@lynx.uucp (Vikram Sohal) said: >Any suggestions as to which sound digitizer is best to get? I have >seen PerfectSound at my local software store, but have no idea as >to how it compares to others. Are there any 16/8 bit digitizers >available? how about bundled software? Look at something besides Perfect Sound. The only software that works with Perfect Sound 3.x hardware is Perfect Sound 3.x and AudioMaster III. Get a different digitizer and maybe AudioMaster software. I don't recommend Perfect Sound because the 3.0 software was not thoroughly debugged before release, and while I've heard there is a 3.1 software version, I have not heard anything from SunRize concerning upgrading. To be fair, they sent me a small upgrade (3.01), but before that they asked me to send them a letter telling how I observed the bugs I reported on the registration card. In effect, I was doing their beta-testing for them! Plus, the 'fixed' version 3.01 is not totally fixed. Finally, while 3.1 *may* be a miraculous piece of code, you can probably do much better software-wise by getting AudioMaster III or QuasarSound. And as I said above, you probably want a different hardware digitizer because there is not much software supporting the 3.x PSound hardware. Aside: Can anyone give me a phone number for SunRize? I want to be sure I can send them my PS hardware without including the receipt. (They have my registration card, after all.) I've noticed that all the samples I have done have little or no negative amplitude. (i.e. the wave graph in Perfect Sound is chopped just below the center-line.) I had a number, but I think I threw it away. The only number I have is on the 3.01 upgrade disk and it's been changed. There is no phone number in my Perfect Sound manual. | Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet | | COOL DRIVING TECHNIQUE #11: No turn signals! That's right... NO SIGNALS! | | Wanna left turn? Right? Lane change? Parallel park? Screw the signals!|
bbs00010@uafcseg.uucp (Don Kennedy) (12/05/90)
Vic: We are developing a 16 bit sampler for the Amiga. SunRize, manufacturers of Perfect Sound, will be manufacturing it under license from us. It will be expensive, as Amiga samplers go, but will compare favorably to CD's and digital audio tape as far as sample quality goes. It will require LARGE amounts of hard disk space for long samples. Don Kennedy Vision Quest Systems (501) 253-5264 mail will be forwarded from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu
faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) (12/05/90)
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) writes: >>Any suggestions as to which sound digitizer is best to get? I have >>seen PerfectSound at my local software store, but have no idea as >>to how it compares to others. Are there any 16/8 bit digitizers >>available? how about bundled software? >Look at something besides Perfect Sound. The only software that works with >Perfect Sound 3.x hardware is Perfect Sound 3.x and AudioMaster III. Get a >different digitizer and maybe AudioMaster software. Another idea is to get an older perfect sound sampler. I have 2.3 (i believe) and it serves me well. It works with most digitizing software that uses the parallel port, including AudioMaster II, (and I), Studio Magic, etc. What exactly did Sunrize do to make the 3.0 incompatible with the older units? (Does it have something to do with the internal volume control?) Other than that, what other improvements have been made to the >hardware< itself? Does it sample better or something? >| Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet | >| COOL DRIVING TECHNIQUE #11: No turn signals! That's right... NO SIGNALS! | >| Wanna left turn? Right? Lane change? Parallel park? Screw the signals!| --bob fahey --faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | ///| a.k.a. NECR0SIS faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu -or- | | \\\///_| faheyr@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | | \XX/ | M I G A "'Ere long done do does did..." - The Smiths | | "...life is seen through the eyes of a dog..." - Skinny Puppy |
faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) (12/05/90)
bbs00010@uafcseg.uucp (Don Kennedy) writes: >We are developing a 16 bit sampler for the Amiga. SunRize, manufacturers of >Perfect Sound, will be manufacturing it under license from us. It will be >expensive, as Amiga samplers go, but will compare favorably to CD's and >digital audio tape as far as sample quality goes. It will require LARGE >amounts of hard disk space for long samples. I'll be waiting to see it!!! But: (just a few questions) - How will sound be outputted? Thru a 16-bit D/A on the hardware? Or, will it also allow for outputting thru the Amiga's sound channels? - How many beans ($$) are we talking about? $300+? >Don Kennedy >Vision Quest Systems >(501) 253-5264 >mail will be forwarded from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | ///| a.k.a. NECR0SIS faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu -or- | | \\\///_| faheyr@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | | \XX/ | M I G A "'Ere long done do does did..." - The Smiths | | "...life is seen through the eyes of a dog..." - Skinny Puppy |
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) (12/06/90)
In Message-ID: <faheyr.660376632@silver>
faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) said:
>What exactly did Sunrize do to make the 3.0 incompatible with the older
>units? (Does it have something to do with the internal volume control?)
>Other than that, what other improvements have been made to the >hardware<
>itself? Does it sample better or something?
I haven't heard anyone claim that it samples better, though SunRize would
probably say it does. The 'software-controlled input gain' feature is the
problem with the 3.0 hardware because most software out now does not know
about it. As to *my* 3.0 hardware, it seems to be broken in that all the
samples I've done have their negative amplitudes chopped off. :-(
| Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet |
| COOL DRIVING TECHNIQUE #11: No turn signals! That's right... NO SIGNALS! |
| Wanna left turn? Right? Lane change? Parallel park? Screw the signals!|C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) (12/06/90)
In Message-ID: <901205.114803.CST.C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) said:
>In Message-ID: <faheyr.660376632@silver>
> faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) said:
>>What exactly did Sunrize do to make the 3.0 incompatible with the older
>>units? (Does it have something to do with the internal volume control?)
>>Other than that, what other improvements have been made to the >hardware<
>>itself? Does it sample better or something?
>
> [I replied with some info.]
Now that I take a look at the PSound Manual, here is what it says about
the Perfect Sound 3.0 hardware (Perfect Sound 3.0 manual, p40):
Your Perfect Sound digitizer is one of the most advanced eight
bit samplers available for any computer. Some of its features
include:
* Two channel audio input
* Track and hold inputs
* Software controlled digital gain
* Software controlled hardware sampling clock stops sample
"jitter"
* Microphone preamplifier
* Power supply filter for low noise operation
* Up to 40,000 sample per second in mono
--
| Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet |
| COOL DRIVING TECHNIQUE #11: No turn signals! That's right... NO SIGNALS! |
| Wanna left turn? Right? Lane change? Parallel park? Screw the signals!|yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) (12/06/90)
How about a CHEAP! sound digitizer..All i want to do is digitize sounds like my dog barking, bugs bunny, ect. and use them with CanDo! and a few other programs. I saw one with a "train-like" name. (SOund-express?) for $60 or so, it looked ok, but i am poooooooor. Any Good (Well Ok) CHEAP ones out there? -- yorkw@ecn.purdue.edu Willis F York ---------------------------------------------- Macintosh... Proof that a Person can use a Computer all day and still not know ANYTHING about computers.
bbs00010@uafcseg.uucp (Don Kennedy) (12/06/90)
I hate to be a killjoy for those who might think that a 16 bit sampler might be an inexpensive add-on to their system, but the target price for our sample-to-disk system is $1200 to $1500. The reason it is so expensive is at least in part because of the DSP chip onboard which does a lot of the work of the sampling process and is capable of MUCH more. It is intended for people who want professional sound quality recordings, much like a DAT. It has very high quality inputs and outputs (16 bit stereo 64x oversampling inputs, 8x oversampling 18 bit outputs). At a 48k sampling rate, this system currently eats 96K of hard disk space per SECOND. As you can see, this is not a system for the memory squeamish. On the other hand, we will all now have the same hardware technology available in the NeXT and in third party boards for both the Macs and PC's, and even now for Atari's. We have been looking at some options that will allow for $300-400 stereo playback only modules (still 16 bit) to allow for more flexibility. The hard disk space requirements will remain the same. Don Kennedy Vision Quest Systems mail will be forwarded from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu
RIDOUT@uservx.afwl.af.mil (12/06/90)
> AudioMaster III or QuasarSound. And as I said above, you probably want a > different hardware digitizer because there is not much software supporting > the 3.x PSound hardware. Does anyone have the specs to build my hardware for the above software? Thanks Brian -- **************************************************************************** * Brian Ridout Internet: ridout@ddnvx1.afwl.af.mil * * wl/scev * * Kirtland AFB NM 87117 My Apple is better than your Orange. * ****************************************************************************
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (12/07/90)
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) writes: >In Message-ID: <8286@lynx.UUCP> vik@lynx.uucp (Vikram Sohal) said: >> Any suggestions as to which sound digitizer is best to get? I have >> seen PerfectSound at my local software store, but have no idea as to >> how it compares to others. Are there any 16/8 bit digitizers >> available? how about bundled software? I picked up an interesting document from SunRize Industries Tuesday at the FAUG meeting. It was a news release for an R&D effort -- vaporware personified -- dated 5 October 1990. The effort was for a "Audio for Video Post production System", with a choice of two sampling digitizers. One was a card for an A2000 or A3000 which "features a 12 bit sampler and player, on-board microprocessor, ram, SMPTE in/out, MIDI in/out, and [adjustable] linear phase low pass filters...Sampling rates of up to 44KHZ are supported." Whatever all that might mean -- I don't do music. "The second card, in the process of being licensed from Vision Quest, supports multiple channel 16 bit in/out. Also featured is on-board ram, digital low pass filters and a Motorola DSP chip (the same one used by NeXT Inc.)" This one is expected to be more expensive, but give CD quality. (!?!) "To support the hardware, modular software is being developed. Modules to record and edit direct to hard disk are well along. A cue list module is also under development. All modules support time code." "With this new Audio Sweetening System, users will be able to record their entire sound track to hard disk along with SMPTE time code. They can edit the sound and specify SMPTE in and out points. A final mixdown can be performed digitally, followed by playback to video tape synced to time code." Folks to whom any of that makes sense and looks interesting might like to contact them at the number below. > Look at something besides Perfect Sound. The only software that works > with Perfect Sound 3.x hardware is Perfect Sound 3.x and AudioMaster > III. Get a different digitizer and maybe AudioMaster software. At the FAUG demo, the presenter of Perfect Sound 3.1 mentioned a couple of other compatibilities which I promptly ignored, and the software and hardware come packed with an ad for Dr. T's Tiger Cub music program, which might or might not indicate some level of compatibility or transportability at least of the sampled sound. Or it might have been stuck in because the styrofoam packing ran short. > I don't recommend Perfect Sound because the 3.0 software was not > thoroughly debugged before release, and while I've heard there is a > 3.1 software version, I have not heard anything from SunRize > concerning upgrading. To be fair, they sent me a small upgrade (3.01), > but before that they asked me to send them a letter telling how I > observed the bugs I reported on the registration card. In effect, I > was doing their beta-testing for them! Plus, the 'fixed' version 3.01 > is not totally fixed. Finally, while 3.1 *may* be a miraculous piece > of code, you can probably do much better software-wise by getting > AudioMaster III or QuasarSound. And as I said above, you probably want > a different hardware digitizer because there is not much software > supporting the 3.x PSound hardware. Well, 3.1 is definitely out, the floppy is in my DF0:. I bought it for a toy, and since I mostly detest music, I'm probably not the right one to do a review. However, the demo at FAUG seemed extremely robust, so probably most of the bugs are gone. The software is still limited. For one example, while you can zoom on a sample in the sound editor window, you can't do any editing while zoomed! Nevertheless, we got to watch and hear sound stretched, reversed, overlaid to create an echo, stretched and overlaid to create some weird effect -- "plange" is what it sounded like he said -- I never heard of such a thing, echoed in a tight loop and that loop lengthened with the mouse while the loop was running. There seems to be an ability to cut and paste among six "slots", or sound sample files, and the software supports a nice Amiga-style interface, with several active graphics and text windows in a "console", gadget buttons to evoke various functions, etc. The drawing speed seemed essentially instant, though the presenter said that you get better sound quality if you don't try to graph it simultaneously with capturing it. I've not even booted it up yet, but whatever its quality as a serious sampling system (it does 30 KHz sampling on a 2000, around 50 KHz on a 3000 or 2030 equivalent system), it is a nice toy to pass the time. For those who haven't seen it, the hardware is a dongle shaped gadget, maybe ten by three by 1.5 centimeters (like a skinny long cigarette pack), that plugs into the printer port in place of the printer cable. It takes either a single microphone or stereo _unamplified_ signals from, e.g. a CD player's audio out jacks. >Aside: Can anyone give me a phone number for SunRize? I want to be sure > I can send them my PS hardware without including the receipt. > (They have my registration card, after all.) I've noticed that > all the samples I have done have little or no negative amplitude. > (i.e. the wave graph in Perfect Sound is chopped just below the > center-line.) Didn't see any such thing in the demo; could be hardware or software, I'd think. > I had a number, but I think I threw it away. The only number I have > is on the 3.01 upgrade disk and it's been changed. There is no > phone number in my Perfect Sound manual. From the flyer for their R&D effort: Contact Anthony Wood, SunRize Industries 2959 S. Winchester Blvd. Suite 204 Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 374-4962 >| Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet | Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- Info only; I claim to know _nothing_ about this product.
mwm@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (12/07/90)
In article <faheyr.660376632@silver> faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) writes:
What exactly did Sunrize do to make the 3.0 incompatible with the older
units? (Does it have something to do with the internal volume control?)
Other than that, what other improvements have been made to the >hardware<
itself? Does it sample better or something?
They changed the sampling technic. You now _tell_ the hardware, and it
does a sample & hold. They use the CIA timer output tied to the
parallel port to trigger the samples, which (in theory) should lead to
better samples due to better sampling rates.
To get all this done, they had to shuffle the bits around. To get an
eight bit sample, you read 6 bits from the parallel port, then 2 bits
from the parallel port _status_ bits, and paste it together to get an
8 bit sample. Everybody else just puts 8 data bits on the parallel
port.
I'd recommend buying someone else's sampler. It's not that the sampler
is bad; it's more that SunRize is more interested in profits than the
Amiga community. I don't know about 3.1, but 3.0 & 3.01 weren't Amiga
software - they didn't run on advanced technology Amigas (thanks to DH
for pointing out what that means).
Worse yet, SunRize is hostile towards people who want to experiment
with the digitizer. They won't tell you how to read the digitizer
unless you're a commercial developer. They provide a shared library
for reading the digitizer. The usefullness of the library can be
determined by the fact that, even though it limits you to interfaces
that look like theirs, they don't use it.
<mike
--bbs00010@uafcseg.uucp (Don Kennedy) (12/08/90)
The 16 bit sampling product alluded to in the SunRize flyer does exist in operational form. SunRize themselves saw it in action for the first time when they flew me out to AmiExpo in Anaheim in October (no magazines picked it up, though). Our company, Vision Quest, has had this board in development for a little under a year. It will be expensive, $1200-$1500, but represents real state of the art audio technology, producing recordings equal to some of the best digital audio tape recorders. It will also be able (either at release time or shortly thereafter) to accept digital input from pro and semi-pro CD players and DAT's. The press releases represent what is known as a "teaser". It is intended to pique interest in those people who have been waiting for such a product. This particular product is on track for a late first quarter/early second quarter 1991 release. More information will be provided to emailers. Don Kennedy Vision Quest (501) 521-0420 (501) 253-5264 email will be forwarded from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/17/90)
In article <MWM.90Dec6220204@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> mwm@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > it's more that SunRize is more interested in profits than the > Amiga community. I don't know about 3.1, but 3.0 & 3.01 weren't Amiga > software - they didn't run on advanced technology Amigas Weird. 2.1 runs just fine on my Amiga 3000. Plus, it comes with source! What happened to SunRize between 2.1 and 3.0? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (12/18/90)
In article <7283@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <MWM.90Dec6220204@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> mwm@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > it's more that SunRize is more interested in profits than the > Amiga community. I don't know about 3.1, but 3.0 & 3.01 weren't Amiga > software - they didn't run on advanced technology Amigas Weird. 2.1 runs just fine on my Amiga 3000. Plus, it comes with source! What happened to SunRize between 2.1 and 3.0? 2.1 won't work with the Perfect Sound 3.0 hardware. The hardware changed. They won't give you source to 3.0. They won't even give you documentation on how to read data from the hardware. From wading around in the 3.0 binaries, it looks like it was rewritten in assembler, and done so in such a way as to lose on advanced technology. As an aside, SunRize doesn't allocate any resources (except memory) before using them, in any of the versions I've seen (2.1, 2.3 & 3.x). This is an accident waiting to happen. <mike --
jdutka@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dutka) (12/19/90)
In article <MWM.90Dec17145811@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > Weird. 2.1 runs just fine on my Amiga 3000. Plus, it comes with source! > What happened to SunRize between 2.1 and 3.0? >>2.1 won't work with the Perfect Sound 3.0 hardware. The hardware >changed. They won't give you source to 3.0. They won't even give you >documentation on how to read data from the hardware. From wading >around in the 3.0 binaries, it looks like it was rewritten in >assembler, and done so in such a way as to lose on advanced >technology. >As an aside, SunRize doesn't allocate any resources (except memory) >before using them, in any of the versions I've seen (2.1, 2.3 & 3.x). >This is an accident waiting to happen. On a similar, yet different note, WHAT IS SunRize's Telephone number? I need to get in touch with them, but the number in my OLD PerfectSound box and in my equally old PerfectVision docs isn't connected any more. -- | husc6!m2c!wpi!jdutka | "Hey, baby - wanna do some HEAT TRANSFER? | | jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu | Heh, heh, heh!" | | John Dutka, Jr. | -Mechanical Engineers On The Prowl |
C503719@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Baird McIntosh) (12/19/90)
In Message-ID: <1990Dec18.180729.7344@wpi.WPI.EDU>
jdutka@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dutka) said:
>On a similar, yet different note, WHAT IS SunRize's Telephone number?
>I need to get in touch with them, but the number in my OLD PerfectSound
>box and in my equally old PerfectVision docs isn't connected any more.
They just keep moving, don't they? As of a week (or two) ago, they were
at the following address and phone number:
SunRize Industries
2959 S. Winchester
Suite 204
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 374-4962
A year ago they were in College Station, TX...
| Baird McIntosh | c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> c503719@umcvmb.bitnet |
| COOL DRIVING TECHNIQUE #11: No turn signals! That's right... NO SIGNALS! |
| Wanna left turn? Right? Lane change? Parallel park? Screw the signals!|xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (12/19/90)
> On another note, what _is_ Sunrize's telephone number?
From a month old flyer:
Contact Anthony Wood, SunRize Industries
2959 S. Winchester Blvd. Suite 204
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 374-4962.
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>