Audiophile

Thanks for all replies, I still think the atari 8 bit is a wonderful machine...I like it much more than the c64.

I have again started learning asm programming on the 800xl and I am reading this topic about colours on screen. Can somebody tell me if it is possible to have more than 4 colours in 160*192 mode? I accept the fact that 320*192 has only 1 colour. I have read many topics about the 80*192 resolution, but my opinion is that the picture on screen will be too rough, I know in 80*192 you can have many colours but for me 160*192 looks like a nice resolution. Thanks.

Great! I enjoyed this very much, thanks for giving the link!

Hmmm well fine to me.

Well I for one have never said POKEY is "nothing" compared to SID. It's just a different beast entirely. SID was built specifically for music (it's basically a synth on a chip) whereas POKEY happens to be able to play sound (not sure if it's by clever design or accident, I don't know as much about the history/design process of POKEY) and that's not a diss, it's more of a multi-function chip whereas SID is dedicated (and came later). It can certainly do a lot more than a lot of people would expect and so far it's probably got the best sound effects (C64 gamers weren't really interested in FX anyway) and combining waveforms as you say can produce some better sounds but I still wouldn't say SID was thin, and it doesn't have to combine waveforms. If you think so that's ok, I have zero problem with that, as has already been discussed, people hear things differently. There's also the difference with what you can hear on SID because of the filters (that was a really bad design problem) and then fixing that but going to the 8580 which can produce even fatter sounds. You may have also noticed my on my first reply to you ie I'm having a little joke about differences of opinion on subjective things like what sounds best to you or what looks best to DimensionX. Pete Sorry I have to make things more clear to you and set things straight. The SID chip does not sound mega thin or something, it is not that I mean blehhhhhhh bad sound Noooooo. It just sound not as powerful as the pokey does. You say : The SID is younger as the pokey, well let me tell you that that doesn't matter at all. Why you shall ask? As I said before I owned a Roland Juno 60 and Roland JX3P, the juno was built in 1981/1982, the jx3p in 1983 and includes MIDI which the juno doesn't have. So you can say that the jx3p with new stuff will sound better but unfortunately it doesn't. The JX3P sounds thin, really thin, BUT has more possibilities like having one voice more to combine two sawtooths. The Juno cannot do that, it cannot combine two sawtooths. Even more ridiculous, the models after the JX3P like the JX8P I have programmed a lot in a shop doesn't even come close to the Juno. So what does a later time says according to quality? I learned : Nothing!

Hmmmm more thin than pokey, or are you telling me my stereo amplifier is damaged? And no I do not use cheap speakers. Can you give some examples of things you're using to compare? The thing with SID is it's capable of a huge variety of sounds and is well know for being fatter (or is that phatter) for bass sounds. It all depends on what envelopes are used, what waveforms, what filters etc. I think POKEY sounds a little more powerful and more "machine like" but I wouldn't say SID is thin unless that's what the musician wanted. Pete Well okay, I have to say to the best in following way : The SID just sounds not as powerfull or thick as the pokey does. I know the basssounds of the SID are good, very good!, but when you combine the soundchannels of the pokey you also can get fat sounds (bass). And I do not believe what many people say that pokey is NOTHING compared to the SID...pokey is capable of so many sounds many people just do not know. I have both the c64 and atari xl and I compared games, demo's and also simple programming those machines a bit and I notice the difference I said. Yes Indeed the c64 does have amazing bassounds, but I already learned from the Roland Juno 60 and JX3P that more possibilities (before looking any further with programming) not always mean fatter or thicker or more professional sound.

I worked with apple in the 90s in a computer company and I learned a lot in that time. Apple could do some amazing things. I also know that many many records in the housemusic scene in the 90s had a carton cover drawn on the apple. Also many musicians swear by apple. For what I have seen and discovered those machines were great!

Hmmmm more thin than pokey, or are you telling me my stereo amplifier is damaged? And no I do not use cheap speakers.

Reading about the sid vs pokey stuff I have to put some words on this vs talking. I always made music, started only serious when the Atari Falcon came. Sorry the Amiga could not handle my wishes at that time. Nowadays I use the PC with professional soundcard and professional software, but STILL I am 8 bit computerlover and honestly more Atari 800xl lover than c64. About the sid vs pokey stuff I see a link to the studiosynthesizers I owned. I owned a Roland Juno 60 and Roland JX3P. Both are studioequipment. The JX3P had more possibilities and one more voice, so I always thought that's better then the Juno 60, but boy I was wrong. The Juno 60 sounds much more powerfull and richer. I always connected computers to stereo amplifiers and I noticed the Pokey chip has more richer sound (combine the channels and you will be amazed even more) then the sid had. The Sid sounded more thin and lacks power even when it had basically seen more possibilities (or one more voice).

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there... In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either. A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics. Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model. I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800. I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari. Because of this... http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series. Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl. BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area. Because old Atari 800 was to expensive to make. They had to come up with a cheaper model to be able to compet with Commodore. Else gamers would by the cheaper computer. The old models was VERY expensive to buy. The price for the orginal Atari 800 in Sweden was almost was about 650 euro. Well I never had problems with my 600 and 800xl and I never have seen strange things on screen so hmmmmm.

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there... In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either. A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics. Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model. I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800. I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari. Because of this... http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series. Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl. BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there... In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either. A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics. Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model. I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800. I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered. It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases. Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities. Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible. The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done. For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think. I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot. I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.

It's nice to see and read that there are still a lot of people spending time on the atari xl and c64. I think things according to graphics and sound will become even more interesting, because of more knowledge of both machines. Maybe you find me stupid, but the 8 bit I like more to discover as the 16 bit ST and Amiga. I hope I will be a good Atari xl coder someday, I am glad I already learned a lot in the past. Maybe we can do some more peace talking between each other about which machine is the best, in my opinion already said both are about the same in possibilities, you just have to know how to code things.

I think the problem is Atari gamers are happy with ANYTHING new for their machine. As Atarigmr said, Spectrum owners are more forgiving, probably because they're sensible about the machines limitations. C64 gamers don't mind something that doesn't look so great but kind of expect things that DO look and sound good. Atari it's kind of a middle ground. There's been so little new stuff over the past 20 odd years (including pro stuff to the end of it's actual sales life) compared to some other platforms that anything playable is great, but at the same time I think everyone wishes there were more impressive looking games. It's simply time constraints for people working on them for a lot of games. eg ports of Space Harrier, NRV's APAC 256 colour Wolfenstein clone, IK+ etc some of this stuff has been in dev for 5 years! Pete Maybe it is my problem, but for what I have seen and learned (machinecode) in the past and seen on youtube I am convinced that both machines are about the same in possibilities. I just cannot believe that some games of the c64 cannot be done on the atari XL. If you can see what some coders did on ST, really everybody said it is impossible. But as I said before some coders did the job. Unfortunately there are not enough coders (like those st coders) on the atari XL. I do not know what is is, people just do not like to programm the atari or there are simple not enough coders around like the c64 has. A part of my opinion comes from the words of Atariski in a thread like this on this website, he seems to be a advanced atari 8 bit programmer and I just believe what he said, but again this is only a part of what my opinion is. You can pull a conclusion out of my words : There is no better machine between these two (atari xl and c64.