analmux

I forgot to put the YouTube video link here (see post 30). But here it is.

Nice edit. It would be nice to improve it further, especially to remove or change the very high short note artefacts here and there. But the rest sounds heavy, stable and in tune.

OK. Indeed, for example the rmtplay code doesn't support 16-bit vibrato and portamento AFAIK. But this here is a new possibility miker wants, and no other previous (original or patched) RMTs contained this possibility.

AFAIK you can do it indirectly. First midi-2-mod and then mod-2-rmt (inside the RMT app).

AFAIK, the newest RMT 128 already contains a PAL/NTSC check and has an extra posibility to switch the rmtplay timers. But it may interfere with critical on screen subroutines. But during export song to xex says: "Playing speed will be adjusted to 50Hz on PAL and also on NTSC systems."

@ thorfdbg I think you see problems that in reality don't exist. For an 8-bit 64/15 kHz voice indeed AUDF+1 is the real pitch number. Thus the maximal AUDF+1 is 256. You can also just ignore an extra theoretical factor of (2*) 28 or 114, what I see in your C code. Also the PAL and NTSC frequencies can be ignored. It is not EQUAL, but it IS EQUIVALENT. See relative error and LOGAPP: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/234282-how-to-improve-the-pokey-note-2-pitch-table-compared-to-rmt/?p=3163185 Again, I programmed simple absolute (LMS1.BAS) and relative (LMS2.BAS) errors. Especially LMS2 takes weight factors into account. I didn't use the frequency space, but its inverse, i.e. time length values, which is linearly equivalent to the AUDF+1 'pitch' values.

I don't think so. I don't exactly know what miker wants, but the advantage of the 64 kHz mode gives possibilies to play at least 2 independent 8-bit high note voices. Then you can add a 16-bit distortion 10 bass if desired. It's only my choice to use 8-bit basses in 15 kHz mode. In theory, IF I would like to write a patch 9, then I think it's an advantage to play (very) high notes instead (not basses), using the 16-bit mode and generator 10.

No, it's exactly vice versa: what makes you (thorfdbg) so unsure about that? But, a few more hints tomorrow.

[double post]

I know what I'm doing, so stay calm please.

@ miker RMT Patch 8 can help you a bit already. See this table: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/234769-rmt-patch-8/?p=3173080 I hope you can understand this not-really-friendly table a bit, but let's continue your questions there. Anyway, the 16-bit 'clarinet' (see RMT distortion 6) at voice 1 (or 3) has a square subharmonic at voice 2 (or 4). Similarly, the 16-bit 'distortion guitar' (see RMT distortion E) at voice 1 (or 3) has a square subharmonic at voice 2 (or 4). Working on patch 8 I already wanted to enable this option. The 16-bit square is controlled with RMT distortion 8! And it's no problem to have a silent clarinet and turn the square on! Now I'm not sure yet what's really the best solution, i.e. LMS vs. "maximum L-infinity relative error". I'd like to study it first now. But in this specific case I'm sure thorfdbg's solution and my solution are equally good. If I don't see the answer yet, I won't put any time into making another patch. And I can't say when I feel it's a good time to make a real square 16-bit patch anyway. Too much priorities. Sorry. @ thorfdbg (& Synthpopalooza) Finding an ideal base frequency of the best 8-bit distortion 10 scale is enough. Then it's quite easy to expand the table for 16-bit notes, and get it more precise. You can find solutions for distortion 2 and 12, but I'm rather sure they will never nicely fit with distortion 10. I still think the plain squarewave table is the most important. Especially distortion 12 is already too low resolution, and indeed a non-homogeneous structure. It's hard to be satisfied.

:thumbsup:

@thorfdbg I think you did it rather more complicated than needed. Again, have a look at my tests: 'absolute least mean square' and 'relative least mean square'. Look here at post 1: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/234282-how-to-improve-the-pokey-note-2-pitch-table-compared-to-rmt/?p=3162403 Especially:

WOW!!!

@ thorfdbg Interesting what you found. Just to compare your result and mine: thorfdbg 255,241,227,214,202,191,180,170 160,151,143,135,127,120,113,107 101,95,89,84,80,75,71,67 63,59,56,53,50,47,44,42 39,37,35,33,31,29 analmux DTA $FF,$F1,$E3,$D6,$CA,$BF,$B4,$AA DTA $A0,$97,$8F,$87,$7F,$78,$71,$6B DTA $65,$5F,$5A,$54,$50,$4B,$47,$43 DTA $3F,$3B,$38,$35,$32,$2F,$2C,$2A DTA $27,$25,$23,$21,$1F,$1D ... See explicit link references: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/234282-how-to-improve-the-pokey-note-2-pitch-table-compared-to-rmt/?p=3162775 http://atariage.com/forums/topic/234282-how-to-improve-the-pokey-note-2-pitch-table-compared-to-rmt/?p=3165401 Interesting that your table and mine are identical, except place 18. There you have value 89 but I have value $5A. I used the linear approximation method, but I started with AUDF+1=256, and then multiply with (1/2)^(1/12). But I used the LMS (least mean square) method and do different try outs to find a better approximation w.r.t. the standard RMT table. Did you also compute the least mean square? Or a least mean absolute linear? Or what else? It could also depend on the size of the table.

I hope this topic helps: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/234282-how-to-improve-the-pokey-note-2-pitch-table-compared-to-rmt/

Just to look back at some parts of this discussion, and how I see it. 1) Not every time I understand emkay's replies, and sometimes I don't like his style of discussion. 2) But when looking at, for example, emkay's posts 87, 88 and 89 I appreciate his efforts. Post 87 shows the first port of that tune BEFORE emkay did any edit. It sounds horrible. His later edits clearly show his progress. Post 88 shows that, even if the tune is not 'out-of-key', it is still rather 'out-of-pitch'. I assume it just needed a better table. Post 89 I hear emkay's progress to remove 'out-of-pitch' as much as possible. However, his instrument quality itself should be better. 3) Post 92 (flashjazzcat): I especially don't like him saying "Nothing "out of tune" about it.". I'm sure I agree it is correctly 'in-key', but surely not 'in-pitch' all the time. Especially listen from 2:40. It hurts my ears. I think emkay agrees, and I think this is, in general, what emkay means when we are discussing the word 'out-of-tune'. 4) Post 100 and 102 (Irgendwer): I especially don't like him saying that 'One man and his droid' is not out-of-tune. Sorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. 5) Anyway, I'm sure that many of emkay's test tunes would be far more interesting and accepted, just turning some of the instruments 'in-key' correctly.

... unfortunately, after trying some short tests I didn't get much interesting combinations ...

The high synth notes get a bit 'out-of-pitch' unfortunately, but you can step over to 1.79 MHz & distortion 2 or 12 distortions. I'm curious how to combine this with the synth filter.

I agree..... But I like the One Man and his Droid atari version.

And here you can listen to my version of the Ocean Loader 2 tune.

Yes, it sounds some better now.

No advanced techniques, but great games. All nice works. Especially, to my opinion: Place 1: Jim Slide Place 2: Toy'Swap Place 3: 3plex

Thus no need for 16 bit mode either. Maybe only some transposes are needed, and fine tuning the instruments.

? No, the Original RMT isn't doing wrong anything. Only: the Original RMT doesn't give the possibility to play 8-bit distortion 10 notes combined with distortion 10 high notes.