unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/11/90)
In article <3108.2763b678@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >I thought Amiga had the best sound, even though the new Atari STe has an >even better sound chip than in the Amiga. (This I read in a review) I have >heard the Roland MT-32, and to say the least, it was incredible! If you're still including the GS in this discussion (which I presume you are), the GS blows away the Amiga in terms of sound, and the Amiga (and ST) are advertized as good graphics and sound computers... (graphics and sound? G and S? GS! hey! heh.. just a joke, I've known what the GS stood for all along)... The Amiga has only 4 channels, as opposed to the GS's 15, or through clever programming, 31... (I've seen people on here say it can be done). Seeing (and hearing) Jam Session made my former housemate (an Amiga owner) say "The Amiga can't do that"... The only time he ever said that in reference to the GS. (Meaning the GS did something the Amiga can't).. And he works for Apple and used to work on the GS. (Also was gonna program a GS game for PBI but never finished it... He knew the Alien Mind people though.. Alien Mind was originally gonna be Gauntlet GS!) -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/12/90)
Yes, the IIgs DOES have pretty good sound. There are FEW programs, however
that use it to its potential -- mostly (I think) because in order to do so,
you tie up much of the 65c816.
What the IIgs DOES need is better graphics... Better resolution mostly. If
we still had 4096 colors (what is that, 12 bits?), but could have them ALL
on-screen at one time (WITHOUT interrupts or any other retarted stuff), and
if the processor was fast enough to handle it, THEN we'd be talking!
- Andrew.
(Of course, that's all a lot of wishful thinking, I suppose.)
Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu <-- email here with responses, please.
Bitnet: AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET <-- I suppose here would do, but the other is
HIGHLY preferred. Thanks!tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (12/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU
>The Amiga has only 4 channels, as opposed to the GS's 15, or through
Yep. But, watch out. An acquaintance of mine who is also an Amiga 500 owner
will shoot back with "Yeah, but the Amiga has built in stereo." That's fine
and dandy, but stereo with only 4 channels? I will admit the Amiga sounds
nice, but for a lousy $50, a GS users can go out and get a stereo card and
have stereo sound with 15 channels.
I do have a question, though. How much sound ram does the Amiga have? I have
heard that the GS has only 32k (or is that 64k?) making it somewhat limited
(in the eyes of my Amiga acquaintance.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest
ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc
BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |Knights of the Plex: Reardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------lcline@sequent.com (Larry Cline) (12/14/90)
In article <6292@crash.cts.com> tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU > >>The Amiga has only 4 channels, as opposed to the GS's 15, or through > >Yep. But, watch out. An acquaintance of mine who is also an Amiga 500 owner >will shoot back with "Yeah, but the Amiga has built in stereo." That's fine >and dandy, but stereo with only 4 channels? I will admit the Amiga sounds >nice, but for a lousy $50, a GS users can go out and get a stereo card and >have stereo sound with 15 channels. > >I do have a question, though. How much sound ram does the Amiga have? I have >heard that the GS has only 32k (or is that 64k?) making it somewhat limited >(in the eyes of my Amiga acquaintance.) > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest >ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc >BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |Knights of the Plex: Reardon >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney.... >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Amiga has 4 voices on two channels. The GS has 15 voices on one channel (two if you get the stereo card). These are programmable voice chips and the number is how many sounds it can generate at one time. This is not like a digitized sound which does not need a sound chip at all. The Amiga does not have dedicated 'sound ram'. Since the voices come from a custom chip the available ram to use for sounds is refered to as 'chip ram'. Depending on the model of Amiga you can have as little as 256K and as much as 2MB of chip ram. It is also possible to shuttle data from other ram to chip ram or from disk to chip ram although I don't know how much contention you would get by doing this. I have used a music program on the Amiga while doing other things (got bored with the radio) and only had a few hesitations when I was loading from the hard drive. Before everybody jumps in and says; 'Who let that Amiga guy in here?!?' let me say that I own (and still use) an un-enhanced //e. And I still like it. Direct flames to NIL: or /NIL/ Larry -- Larry Cline lcline@sequent.sequent.com lcline@crg8.sequent.com ".sig! Contractors don't need no stinkin' .sig!!!"
phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) (12/14/90)
In article <9012131556.AA27137@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>, meekins@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (timothy lee meekins) writes: > [Stuff about Amiga sound versus GS sound deleted] > > Huh? The ROM 3 machine simply has a different ROM than the ROM 1 machine. > There are is no major HW differences (except maybe the keyboard stuff). > I have a feeling from your comments that you haven't seen the GS's sound > capabilities unleashed.. Have you heard Diversi-Tune or synthLAB??? > SoundSmith is nice, but it isn't the best.. I really doubt that the > Amiga's sound can take on the IIgs.. (I'm not saying the Amiga is bad, just > that the GS's sound capabilities are far greater than those of the Amiga). > > If you want your Zip Chip to work with your RamFast, call Zip Tech. and > ask for the ROM upgrade... > There is one major difference between the rom03 and rom01 GS that affects sound. On the Rom01 a power rail was too close to the Ensoniq (as I remember it - it is on one of the tech notes). This was fixed on the rom03. The net result is that a rom01 machine will make a low level hum which is quite noticeable when you have your machine connected to decent speakers, and are playing quiet sound or have no sound. I noticed this on my machine years ago, and was very pleased that they fixed it on the rom03 although it is of no use to me. MDIdeas (remember them) at one stage talked about producing a modified stereo board which had a socket for the Ensoniq, ie you pulled it from the motherboard. As far as the other hardware changes go it is a matter of what you define as significant. Personally I agree with you, it was mostly minor bug fixes, and putting more memory that I felt should have been on the rom01. -- Stephen Harker phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Monash University
macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) (12/14/90)
I own a GS and have a friend with an Amiga and most of the games that I've seen that have been ported (i.e. Zany Golf, Marble Madness) to the Amiga don't compare in any way to the GS versions. However, there are many Amiga specific examples which (IMHO) put the GS to shame. The opening sequence for Shadow of the Beast is one of the best examples that comes to mind. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that most of the Amiga demos I've seen use real instrument samples (sampling is something that the Amiga does VERY well). Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth. Btw, does ANYONE know when 'they' are going to officially release SynthLab? If it winds up getting shelved I'm going to be very upset. -- /* Robert MacAusland -> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca */
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (12/14/90)
In article <LCLINE.90Dec13135622@crg8.sequent.comOA> lcline@sequent.com (Larry Cline) writes: > >The Amiga has 4 voices on two channels. The GS has 15 voices on one channel >(two if you get the stereo card). These are programmable voice chips and the >number is how many sounds it can generate at one time. This is not like a >digitized sound which does not need a sound chip at all. [ other stuff deleted ] I read in the Apple IIGS hardware reference manual that it is possible to get up to 15 voices on eight channels if someone would make the circuit. Also, there was a schematic of a little circuit that would give you two channels. It looks pretty simple... a decoder (demulitplexer??) and two other chips (I think they were simple gates). Unfortunately, I know very little about computer electronics and have no idea on what to do with these +5v and ground an all that stuff. Otherwise, I would probably make one myself. > >Larry >-- > >Larry Cline >lcline@sequent.sequent.com >lcline@crg8.sequent.com > >".sig! Contractors don't need no stinkin' .sig!!!" -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/15/90)
In article <ECF8C481D5BFC1BA03@snybufva.bitnet> NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: } The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought }when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips! Though I do not know how extensive they are nor what you want to do in terms of sound on the GS, there are extensive sound tools in the ToolBox. I think that is a VERY VERY VERY unfair complaint saying you want to do things from BASIC! For one thing, BASIC has remained virtually unchanged since 1977. Even if Apple DID want to upgrade BASIC (yeah right), I THINK it would be very difficult for them to do because of copyright agreements with MicroSoft. (That is just speculation on my part, it sounds reasonable because that's what Apple people said in reference to upgrading APW C, since it was originally written by ByteWorks or some other company).. To do anything reasonably complicated on most computers, you have to do it in assembly language or some high level language.. (other than BASIC). } So, for music/digital synthesis/no-extra-hardware voice synthesis, I'll }stick to the best...the GS! At least you believe that! -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/15/90)
As a note to what somebody or other said about 8 channels (this junky system won't let me quote), yes, I also read that. The Ensoniq chip itself is made for 16 channels -- probably for that MIDI stuff. Anyway, on the IIgs, only eight of those are supported. Current stereo cards, such as the MDIdeas card and Sonic Blaster, send all the even numbered channels to one side and the odds to the other. - Andrew. Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu BITNET: AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET
avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Abel Vargas) (12/16/90)
I also still use an unenhanced //e. I need to know: if I buy a 65C02 processor, will be able to just remove the old 6502 and plug the new one into the socket? INET: avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com UUCP: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!avarg ARPA: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!avarg@nosc.mil
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (12/17/90)
In article <m0iklP5-0000EtC@jartel.info.com> avarg@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Abel Vargas) writes: > I also still use an unenhanced //e. I need to know: if I buy a 65C02 >processor, will be able to just remove the old 6502 and plug the new one into >the socket? Yes, it will work with no problems. You can even run ProTERM with that configuration. (Trust me--I've tried it.) Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (12/17/90)
On Sat, 15 Dec 90 02:59:30 GMT The Unknown User said: > > I think that is a VERY VERY VERY unfair complaint saying you want >to do things from BASIC! For one thing, BASIC has remained virtually unchanged >since 1977. Even if Apple DID want to upgrade BASIC (yeah right), I THINK >it would be very difficult for them to do because of copyright agreements >with MicroSoft. (That is just speculation on my part, it sounds reasonable Huh? What copyright agreements? >-- >/Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ >|WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | >\ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King / ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/17/90)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >On Sat, 15 Dec 90 02:59:30 GMT The Unknown User said: >>it would be very difficult for them to do because of copyright agreements >>with MicroSoft. (That is just speculation on my part, it sounds reasonable >Huh? What copyright agreements? Apple licensed a 6502 port of microsoft's CP/M GBASIC and put in ROM. Microsoft owns copyrights to much of AppleSoft -- my ][+'s Applesoft ROMs do say (c) Apple 1980 (c) Microsoft 1977 on them. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/17/90)
In response to MQUINN asking "What copyright agreements?": Applesoft BASIC was not written by Apple. It's a Microsoft thing. (Scarey, hey?) I think it was originally ported from something or other -- bad job, though -- lotsa bugs.
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (12/18/90)
In article <ECF8C481D5BFC1BA03@snybufva.bitnet> NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: | The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought |when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips! I think there's a program out called Sonix (by So What Software?) that will let you do stuff with the Ensoniq from Basic. I'm not sure how much it costs though. -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Hammer T. H.) (12/18/90)
... unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >... NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: >> The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought >>when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips! > I think that is a VERY VERY VERY unfair complaint saying you want >to do things from BASIC! As it is true that one would need to use ML to use GS sound from AppleSoft BASIC, it can and has been done. A+, prior to the inCider takeover, printed a program which could generate 32 voice sound, using 1 simple waveform for all the voices. I remember taking that code and giving it more power. >For one thing, BASIC has remained virtually unchanged >since 1977. Even if Apple DID want to upgrade BASIC (yeah right), I THINK >it would be very difficult for them to do because of copyright agreements >with MicroSoft. Am I the only one who knew about GS BASIC? It was an actual BASIC for the IIgs, which I believe has been discontinued. >To do anything reasonably complicated on most computers, you have to >do it in assembly language or some high level language.. (other than BASIC). Yeah. Hmm, perhaps I should consider sending out BasicPaint II, total rewrite of the program BasicPaint from inCider magazine (prior to the takeover), allowing 256 colors per screen, and 4 screens on the desktop at once. Used a few ML routines, but most of it is coded in BASIC. >-- >/Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ >|WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | >\ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King / -- __ _____________ __ \ \_\ \__ __/ /_/ / How many Sirius Cybernetics Corporation robots \greg@hoss.unl.edu/ does it take to change a lightbulb? \_\ \_\|_|/_/ /_/ "Lights... don't talk to me about lights."
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/18/90)
In reguards to GS sound from Basic:
Yeah, there are programs to do that... I've written one, but like most, it's
nothing to yell and scream about (which is why nobody has). It also does
shires graphics too, but again, not REALLY well and it's not friendly.
I suppose if anybody wants that, they could email me, but I won't be able
to send it until after break (sometime after Jan1), because it's at home.
IF so, email to:
aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu
or
aabenson@mtus5.bitnet
or
aabenson@mtu.edu
Those are listed in order of preference.
- Andrew.seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) (12/19/90)
In article <10128@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >In article <ECF8C481D5BFC1BA03@snybufva.bitnet> NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: >} The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought >}when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips! > > I think that is a VERY VERY VERY unfair complaint saying you want >to do things from BASIC! >[Mass speculation follows] I believe, though, that the original poster has a valid wish. Not everybody is interested in sinking 800 dollars in development tools and investing the time to learn them. One really cool thing about the old Apple II line was that you could turn it on and program simple HIRES graphics in Applesoft. Sure, you're not going to write today's hot arcade game in Applesoft, but not everyone wants that. It's sort of sad that the IIGS moved away from that kind of readily accessible power. If the IIGS had been bundled with a simple animation and sound program with a little enhanced BASIC thrown in for control, more teachers and computer neophytes could have written their own personal applications. Not quick, but THEIRS...letting the computer be the media for personal expression. Remember, Applesoft was the common base of exploration for ALL new Apple II users way back in the 70s. Now there is no common base for the IIGS...just applications. > To do anything reasonably complicated on most computers, you have to >do it in assembly language or some high level language.. (other than BASIC). Now that's a tightly focused guideline to live by! :) I love assembly language and C, but my first love was Applesoft. You don't have to boot GS/OS to get it running, it almost never destroys the machine state no matter how many mistakes you make, and it's interpreted. It used nearly the entire feature-set of the Apple II Plus. It made just about every Apple owner a potential programmer right out of the box. --- Dave Seah | Omnidyne Systems-M | INET: seah@ee.rochester.edu | | "User-Friendly Killing Machines" | America Online: AFC DaveS | ^..^ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ yargh! | University of Rochester, Department of Electrical Engineering |
dzimmerman@gnh-tff.cts.com (Daniel Zimmerman) (12/19/90)
>> Does anyone know when 'they' are going to officially release synthLAB?....
Well, Apple Computer HAS officially released synthLAB, to developers... It's
currently at version 1.0b3, and is available through APDA. It includes the
MidiSynth toolset (and documentation on the MidiSynth toolset), and the newest
version of synthLAB, along with full documentation... Call them for info...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Zimmerman InterNet - dzimmerman@gnh-tff.cts.com
TFF Enterprises America Online - Surak TFF CompuServe - 76407,2246
"Learn reason above all. Learn clear thought; learn to know what is from what
seems to be, and what you wish to be. This is the key to everything: the truth
of reality, the reality of truth. What IS will set you free."
- Surak Of Vulcanjpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec18.195755.2385@ee.rochester.edu> seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) writes: >In article <10128@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >>In article <ECF8C481D5BFC1BA03@snybufva.bitnet> NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: >>} The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought >>}when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips! >> >> I think that is a VERY VERY VERY unfair complaint saying you want >>to do things from BASIC! >>[Mass speculation follows] > >I believe, though, that the original poster has a valid wish. Not everybody >is interested in sinking 800 dollars in development tools and investing >the time to learn them. One really cool thing about the old Apple II >line was that you could turn it on and program simple HIRES graphics in >Applesoft. Sure, you're not going to write today's hot arcade game in >Applesoft, but not everyone wants that. It's sort of sad that the IIGS >moved away from that kind of readily accessible power. Computer users of the late '80s and now the '90s do NOT want to write their own programs. Sure, a few of us (who lived and computed back in the early '80s) do want to do this even to this day. However, making a machine that's hackable, or easy to access things without lots of money, is sure to be a lose situation for the manufacturer. >If the IIGS had been bundled with a simple animation and sound program >with a little enhanced BASIC thrown in for control, more teachers and >computer neophytes could have written their own personal applications. >Not quick, but THEIRS...letting the computer be the media for personal >expression. Remember, Applesoft was the common base of exploration for >ALL new Apple II users way back in the 70s. Now there is no common >base for the IIGS...just applications. > >> To do anything reasonably complicated on most computers, you have to >>do it in assembly language or some high level language.. (other than BASIC). > >Now that's a tightly focused guideline to live by! :) I love assembly >language and C, but my first love was Applesoft. You don't have to boot My first hate was Applesoft too. I learned 6502 about half a year after our school first got computers. If I had owned my own machine it would have been a lot sooner, I'm sure. >GS/OS to get it running, it almost never destroys the machine state no >matter how many mistakes you make, and it's interpreted. It used nearly >the entire feature-set of the Apple II Plus. It made just about every >Apple owner a potential programmer right out of the box. >--- >Dave Seah | Omnidyne Systems-M | INET: seah@ee.rochester.edu | -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (12/20/90)
This is in reply to the message about the pros and cons of Applesoft and why it should or shouldn't take advantage of the GS's sound and graphics... Even though I program in assembly, pascal, and a tiny bit in C, Applesoft is still very useful to me. I can make a quick hack for a routine I'm contemplati ng to see how the logic works and get it straight before I crash the machine or spend to much time compiling, rebooting, etc. Applesoft BASIC would be emanantly more useful if it would access the abilities of the GS. Tool calls would GREATLY help me. I've had the ---===>>>HARDEST<<<===--- time of my life trying to figure out these stupid tools. When I got my GS, I thought that for sure it would have a new enhanced BASIC that took advantage of the GS's power. Then, I nievely bought TML BASIC thinking it was an enhanced BASIC that did, basically (pardon the pun:) what I expected Applesoft to do When I got my GS. The adds in the magazines and the print on the box all led me to that ocnclusion. So, I chucked out my $112 bucks for this and when I got it home, much to my surprise, it was nothing like I expected. I've owned this package for more than 2 years and haven't written my first line of code in it. After I finally figured out what "TOOLS" WERE (which took close to 2 years) I had to figure out HOW to use them with my vague under- standing of what they were. That took several more months and 3 or 4 books. It was harder than getting from a completely computer illiterate in '82 to a machine language programmer in the same year. Also, to even get into the package, I had to boot ProDOS 16, then TML BASIC. Then, when it finally came up, it had an incredibally slow user interface that was hard on my eyes to read (black text on a white background). Not to mention, that I had only one 3.5" drive and 768k of RAM. I started reading through the book on the 'specifics' of TML BASIC as opposed to Applesoft BASIC. I didn't understand a single word it was talking about. I now know what tools are and how to use them, and I stay away from them as much as possible too. Although, I can't write applications with Applesoft BASIC (not uable ones anyway), it's still a great prototyping tool and would be MUCH better if it accessed different banks of RAM, used the SHR graphics and took advantage of the sound capabilities. Another reason I think that it should be enhanced is for schools. There are millions of students in this country that are learning to program on Apple IIGS's and if the BASIC took advantage of the GS, many of the 'future' programmers would probably stick with the GS and all of them would have better programming skills and better understandability of the computer, not to mention, a great prototyping environment when they get into more sophisti- cated languages and they'd probably grasp the concept of a tool early on too. I sure wish I had. I didn't have anyone to ask what a tool was either, until fairly recently. I was the only person I knew that had a GS (or knew what a computer was, for that matter). ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) (01/03/91)
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET writes: >As a note to what somebody or other said about 8 channels (this junky system >won't let me quote), yes, I also read that. The Ensoniq chip itself is made >for 16 channels -- probably for that MIDI stuff. Anyway, on the IIgs, only >eight of those are supported. Current stereo cards, such as the MDIdeas card >and Sonic Blaster, send all the even numbered channels to one side and the >odds to the other. > >- Andrew. I believe that you are confusing oscillators or wave channels with actual output channels. The Ensoniq chip has the capability for 32 oscillator channels, where each channel is capable of outputting a distinct sequence of bytes from DOC memory. These are generally programmed in odd/even pairs (a feature supported by the hardware on the chip). Each oscillator can be sent to one of 8 output channels by programming a 3 bit value (this is based on memory of the GS docs and also from 8 output circuits for the Ensoniq Mirage, which uses the exact same DOC chip). All 32 channels can be sent to one output channel, or they can be programmed to go their own way. Mixing of the oscillators which are sent to any single output channel is accomplished by time multiplexing, but you can't have more than 8 outputs. The 3 bit output address appears on the pins of the DOC hip at the exact moment a particular oscillator is converted from digital to analog. The GS ignores these address bits, which results in all output channels being mixed into one signal by time modulation. Most stereo cards ignore the most significant address bits, but use the LSB to cause all odd output channels to be mixed to the one output channel (i.e. left), and the even output channels go to the right (this could be reversed, but who cares at this point). Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (01/07/91)
I wasn't confusing anything about the DOC chip. Somebody was saying that the Ensoniq chip was capable of 16 output channels. I said that it is, but that the IIgs only supports 8 of them!
crew@pro-harvest.cts.com (Chris Wicklein) (01/10/91)
>I wasn't confusing anything about the DOC chip. Somebody was saying that the >Ensoniq chip was capable of 16 output channels. I said that it is, but that >the IIgs only supports 8 of them!Add message Subject: GS Sound Network message: enter text, end with "." alone. : Oh well.... I thought the DOC chip had 32-ocilators - 2 reserved = 30 left / 2 for working in pairs = 15 *supported* channels. ________________________ _________________________ | ProLine: crew@pro-harvest | | Internet: crew@pro-harvest.cts.com | | UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!crew | | ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!crew@nosc.mil | |_______________ BITNET: crew%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil _________________|
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (01/11/91)
In response to Chris Wicklein: NO NO NO!! You're not understanding what I'm saying. I wasn't talking about "VOICES" or "GENERATORS", as Apple calls them. I was talking about the multiplexed channels that go to the sound expansion connector. When you go to play a sound, you have a choice of a VOICE, and an OUTPUT CHANNEL. Although the DOC itself supports 16 OUTPUT CHANNELS, the IIGS only supports EIGHT, and all stereo cards out right now simply pipe half the channels to the LEFT side, and half the channels to the RIGHT side. Remember, I am talking about OUTPUT channels, NOT VOICES or OSCILLATORS. Channel <> Voice <> Oscillator - Andrew. (aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (01/12/91)
> On Fri, 11 Jan 91 19:18:06 GMT Shawn W Platkus said: > >I'm not sure what you are talking about. If the GS only has eight output >chanels, then it would seen to me that it could only play eight different >sounds at a time. So how can I digitize fifteen different sound and play >them all back simultaneously if there are only eight output channels. > >??? You must be confusing CHANNEL with VOICE. A VOICE is a SOUND. A CHANNEL is more or less like a wire coming out of the computer to a speaker. If you have no external speakers and are using only your internal (1) speaker, you still have 15 voices, but effectively, only ONE channel. In other words, all eight channels are connected to the ONE speaker which is playing all 15 voices. You can play as many sounds as you want, but you can have ONLY eight output channels. In other words, if you were to utilize all eight channels, you would have eight speakers with a different sound coming out of each one but you could have no more than 15 sounds playing at any one time. If you were to use all 15 sounds AND channels, some of the speakers would have to be playing more than one sound, but no other speaker you had connected would be playing those same sounds. ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
meekins@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (timothy lee meekins) (01/12/91)
In article <1991Jan11.191806.27162@en.ecn.purdue.edu> you write: >In article <91010.155439AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET> <AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET> writes: >>In response to Chris Wicklein: >> >>NO NO NO!! You're not understanding what I'm saying. I wasn't talking about >>"VOICES" or "GENERATORS", as Apple calls them. I was talking about the >>multiplexed channels that go to the sound expansion connector. When you >>go to play a sound, you have a choice of a VOICE, and an OUTPUT CHANNEL. >>Although the DOC itself supports 16 OUTPUT CHANNELS, the IIGS only supports >>EIGHT, and all stereo cards out right now simply pipe half the channels to >>the LEFT side, and half the channels to the RIGHT side. Remember, I am talking >>about OUTPUT channels, NOT VOICES or OSCILLATORS. >> >>Channel <> Voice <> Oscillator >> >>- Andrew. (aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu) > > >I'm not sure what you are talking about. If the GS only has eight output >chanels, then it would seen to me that it could only play eight different >sounds at a time. So how can I digitize fifteen different sound and play >them all back simultaneously if there are only eight output channels. > >??? You're definitely confused. The Ensoniq has 32 oscillators. In Apple's Sound Tools, they are paired together into 16 generators for higher quality sound. So that music sequencers can be used as an interrupt driver, one of these oscillators is used to generate interrupts at any defined tempo. Thus, leaving 15 sound generators. Every oscillator or generator can be outputed to a different channel. Typically sounds are sent to either a left channel or right channel. But the GS actually supports 8 separate channels. The ultimate in surround sound! Most stero cards will work with all 8 output channels, but they are split with even channels to right and odd channels to left (coorect me if I'm wrong). I hope I've cleared it up a little. A channel is totally unrelated to an oscillator. I've done quite a bit of music programming on the IIgs and feel free to ask me any other questions. -Tim Meekins -- +---------------------------S-U-P-P-O-R-T-----------------------------------+ |/ Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II \| |> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! <| |\ timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> /| +-------------------------S-H-A-R-E-W-A-R-E-!-------------------------------+
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (01/12/91)
Okay, last time. This is how sound goes on the IIgs: <1> First, you choose a VOICE number (a voice is a paired set of oscillators) that you want to play your sound with. <2> Then, you can ALSO choose which CHANNEL this voice goes out. Unlike most stereos, which have TWO output CHANNELS (left and right), the Ensoniq chip in the GS actually supports SIXTEEN. These are not the same as VOICES or as OSCILLATORS (half-voices). Let's try it this way: ANY of the 32 oscillators can play on any of the sixteen different channels -- except for the fact that the IIgs hardware only multiplexes up 8 of them, therefore, only EIGHT channels are supported. So, what you end up with is "each of the 32 oscillators can play through any of the 8 output channels. Think of this like your stereo (sorta). You have several sources of sound. An AM radio, FM radio, turntable, and a CD player (if you're lucky) -- think of these as your oscillators -- each of them is capable of making it's own distinct sound, and with the proper mixing equipment, all at the same time. Now, you have these 32 oscillators (AM, FM, cassette, etc..) going into your mixing board. BUT, this mixing board has EIGHT output channels on it, so you can make ANY of your sound inputs (oscillators/voices/tape- decks) go to any one of EIGHT different places. Just because you label your CD player "input device #2" (or voice #2, or oscillator #2) doesn't mean that it HAS to go to "output #2" -- it can go to any of the eight. Anyway, what I was trying to say way back when, was that currently, all of the "Stereo cards" for the IIgs just take all of the even numbered channels (0, 2, 4, and 6) and send them to one side (left?), and all the odd ones to (1,3,5, and 7) to the other (right?) side. This way, since you don't always get to choose which voices you want to play the sounds with, you can still control which side the output goes to. I hope this helps a little --- if not, somebody email me at the address below, and I'll try real real super-duper hard to explain it. - Andrew. (aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu or aabenson@mtu.edu)
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (01/12/91)
Todd P. Whitesel: Thank you very much for explaining very well the idea that I managed (very well) to confuse people on. I know what I'm talking about, but I'm pretty terrible at explaining. Thanks! :-) - Andrew.
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (01/13/91)
In article <9101120030.AA08926@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> meekins@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (timothy lee meekins) writes: |In article <1991Jan11.191806.27162@en.ecn.purdue.edu> you write: |>In article <91010.155439AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET> <AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET> writes: |>>In response to Chris Wicklein: |>> |>>NO NO NO!! You're not understanding what I'm saying. I wasn't talking about |>>"VOICES" or "GENERATORS", as Apple calls them. I was talking about the |>>multiplexed channels that go to the sound expansion connector. When you |>>go to play a sound, you have a choice of a VOICE, and an OUTPUT CHANNEL. |>>Although the DOC itself supports 16 OUTPUT CHANNELS, the IIGS only supports |>>EIGHT, and all stereo cards out right now simply pipe half the channels to |>>the LEFT side, and half the channels to the RIGHT side. Remember, I am talking |>>about OUTPUT channels, NOT VOICES or OSCILLATORS. |>> |>>Channel <> Voice <> Oscillator |>> |>>- Andrew. (aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu) |> |> |>I'm not sure what you are talking about. If the GS only has eight output |>chanels, then it would seen to me that it could only play eight different |>sounds at a time. So how can I digitize fifteen different sound and play |>them all back simultaneously if there are only eight output channels. |> |>??? | |You're definitely confused. The Ensoniq has 32 oscillators. In Apple's Sound |Tools, they are paired together into 16 generators for higher quality sound. |So that music sequencers can be used as an interrupt driver, one of these |oscillators is used to generate interrupts at any defined tempo. Thus, leaving |15 sound generators. | |Every oscillator or generator can be outputed to a different channel. Typically |sounds are sent to either a left channel or right channel. But the GS actually |supports 8 separate channels. The ultimate in surround sound! Most stero cards |will work with all 8 output channels, but they are split with even channels |to right and odd channels to left (coorect me if I'm wrong). | |I hope I've cleared it up a little. A channel is totally unrelated to an |oscillator. | |I've done quite a bit of music programming on the IIgs and feel free to ask |me any other questions. | |-Tim Meekins | |-- |+---------------------------S-U-P-P-O-R-T-----------------------------------+ ||/ Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II \| ||> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! <| ||\ timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> /| |+-------------------------S-H-A-R-E-W-A-R-E-!-------------------------------+ And to summarize briefly, and answer the question, the Ensoniq can play 15 sounds at the same time since they can all go to one output channel. It's kinda like hooking 15 tape players to one speaker (with large amounts of y-adapters :-). -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (01/15/91)
Are you sure about that? The GS registers and sound tools support 16 different channels ($0-F). All current stereo cards route to either left or right (odd/even, or even/odd...I don't remember :) but I do recall some people having built stereo cards that support all 16 channels (ie, they can hook up 16 speakers and have a digitized sound coming out of each!). Also, the GS does support 16 generators. Unfortunately when you pair 30 & 31 the frequency is really screwed (you need to compensate for it) so Apple, in their infinite wisdom (no sarcasm!) decided that "Thou shalt use the 15 generator for timing purposes only. PS, we reserve it."
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (01/16/91)
In article <8173@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > > Are you sure about that? The GS registers and >sound tools support 16 different channels ($0-F). >All current stereo cards route to either left or >right (odd/even, or even/odd...I don't remember :) >but I do recall some people having built stereo >cards that support all 16 channels (ie, they can >hook up 16 speakers and have a digitized sound >coming out of each!). The DOC and the sound tools support 16 channels, but there is no way to get at the upper 8. The IIGS hardware reference definitely says that there are only 3 bits available to determine the channel number. So, there are only 8 usable output channels. -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
bazyar@chip (Jawaid Bazyar) (01/16/91)
In article <42561@ut-emx.uucp> ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) writes: >The DOC and the sound tools support 16 channels, but there is no way to get at >the upper 8. The IIGS hardware reference definitely says that there are only >3 bits available to determine the channel number. So, there are only 8 usable >output channels. This is true. However, the 16 generators are multiplexed onto the 2, or 4, or 8 output channels you happen to have hooked up. ONCE AGAIN, this is how GS sound works. 32 oscillators two are set aside for timing leaving 30 which are combined in pairs, and set in swap mode to facilitate interrupt driven sound playback. Thus, there are 15 FIFTEEN sound output generators on the GS. Now can we shut up about this absolutely pointless topic?!?!?! If you'd really READ the Hardware manual, you'd know what I just said. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Being is Mathematics Senior/Computer Engineering | Love is Chemistry bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu | Sex is Physics Apple II Forever! | Babies are engineering
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.223422.26131@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >In article <42561@ut-emx.uucp> ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) writes: >>The DOC and the sound tools support 16 channels, but there is no way to get at >>the upper 8. The IIGS hardware reference definitely says that there are only ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>3 bits available to determine the channel number. So, there are only 8 usable >>output channels. [stuff deleted] > Now can we shut up about this absolutely pointless topic?!?!?! If you'd really READ >the Hardware manual, you'd know what I just said. I did read it. I do agree that this topic is getting boring tho' -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |