andym00

I'm like that with the pulse sound stuff.. Given the number of voices available, I'm thinking a different approach, a more instrument based method, whereby an instrument is defined as a set of 'operators' that modify the various parameters of the sound.. These operators being allocatable at run time, so a single sound might allocate 3 arpeggiators, 2 lfos and 2 EGs and route them where it wants, pitch, level, pulse width note.. I know it sounds silly, but it's easily achievable.. And more like bigger synths the idea would be to drive all the parameters from a normalised set of data ranges so that there's no difference between a control signal and a data signal, as such.. So an LFO might generate a range of +-1 which if applied directly to the note value would give a range of +- one semitone.. The idea being that all frequencies are represented as note values, but with an 8 bit fraction, with a correct lookup/calculation being made when applying the final voice registers.. Scale the LFO range to +-12.0 and it'll go over two octaves.. Similarly with all the other parameters.. The idea being to unify the data representation inside the actual engine.. It's not a new idea, in fact it's the mainstay of the bigger modular software synths, just something I don't think has been done on small things like this before.. Using that system, I (think) I end up with a much simpler actual sequence system, in that the vast majority of data is going to be more traditional note on/off events, with much of the otherwise manually done stuff being automated through the patch descriptions themselves.. That's not to say that those various other units are not accessible in the sequence data, they are, so the sequence can just select a patch, then maybe enable/disable/modify one unit, say an LFO at points in the sequence, or enable an EG applied to the output of an LFO to ramp it in.. But all using simple data driven units that are also very efficient, as in cycles.. The idea being that any objects can be instantiated by anything in the system.. So the final data representation becomes much like a macro music driver, in that a sequence doesn't necessarily contain note data, but contains data that can be applied to anything, the sequence itself determining where that data goes and it's final operater (add/sub/and/eor) and the scaling range of the values.. With regards to Emkays holy grail, I've no idea what kind of parameter tweaking is required of the Pokey voices at runtime.. I'm very confused about what he actually is doing, or wants to do.. All these posts about tweaking this, and then if we did this it'd be perfect leave me no better understanding what exactly it is he wants to do.. Part of this is down to a massive terminology mess, in that things are called the wrong names, and I'm thinking I understand what he's saying, only to find out in a later post he's changed to a different term, and leaves me clueless as to what's actually meant.. When you say "the pontificating whilst walking the dog "calculations" i've done suggest that there'll be more data required per note" what exactly do you envisage as being the other data per note ? Just roughly ? I mean, the type of data.. Assuming this is to do with the POKEY stuff ?

I don't know why he doesn't do it himself.. He's got source code to trackers, he's got all the advanced technology he needs, he's got the entire internet to search for stuff on when he gets stuck.. Most of the work is done for him, and I can't understand why he just doesn't get on with it instead of putting so much energy into saying how no-one listens to him.. Less talk, more code I think was the motto here some time back

I don't get very far with that.. It starts up (with crap all over the screen), does its caching, then just locks up dead, with crap on the screen where it should be clear.. Which is odd because all the screen data is >$E000 and is cleared earlier on, and the appearance of the data isn't particularly random either.. That's running it in 130XE mode, which the later versions of this thing needed.. Ummm, without any debugger this isn't going to be a particular enjoyable task

Which version is this based on ? Atari800 ? Atari800+ ? Atari800++ ? Or whatever other mad naming convention it could be.. And where can I get all the ROMs from since if I recall it needs the ROMs to do anything sensible.. I'll give it a whirl in the evening and see if I can tell you what's up with it..

Other: ACME with some custom additions to it..

lax #imm is opcode $AB Though its behaviour is properly unstable for values other than $00.. http://vice-emu.svn....eneral/ane-lax/ http://noname.c64.or...1&topicid=30951 I'm just guessing that might be the cause of it.. I started using that very heavily in this stuff when I realised I can do fast 16bit negates leaving the result in AX like so: lax #$00 sbx #lo sbc #hi It could well be simply the POKEY emulation..

Just a wild guess, but does Atari800 support the lax #imm instructions ? These are unstable across the 6502 family, but the lax#$00 instruction is stable due to the AND with 0.. Just a thought, since I did other stuff using the POKEY timers in the same way, some time back, and there were no complaints iirc.. And I've recently started (ab)using lax #$00 a lot

Well I've just thrown up the guts of the code on CSDB in case anyone is really interested.. I'm loathe to put it all out because there's lots of embarrassing hackery going on in places, but the code there is the core of the whole thing.. http://noname.c64.org/csdb/forums/?roomid=12&topicid=90296 With that anyone should be able to take this stuff and make lots of funky voices for little CPU overhead, and Emkay should get his dream.. You can now just give the programmer the code and say 'hey add me some software voices!' Good luck..

And it's the instruments that have made it out of key in places then ? No ? And it makes it unpleasant to listen to in my books.. If that's not the case then I guess it's simply not there.. Or maybe youtube ? Or my ears then ? Again.. Stupid stupid ears There's no hidden personal attacks going on here bar the ones you're trying to manifest by acting like a 3 year old.. If you can't hear the tunes out of key in places after the tunes been modified then fine.. Emkay realises this, hell he even said here I think, hence his passion for wanting better music systems.. Why you have to keep jumping in and trying to fan whatever flames you perceive I really don't know..

I've got nothing against your cause, you assume I do, but you've got it wrong.. I honestly don't care either way at the end of the day.. In this particular case you caught my attention with a very nice sounding tune that sounded way better than it should be.. And it turned out that it was.. Anyway, I'm not going through every page, but at no point on the first page of this did you mention they weren't from real machines or say they were from emulators.. My fault for assuming that the grotty quality of the video was down to a shitty capture.. My fault for assuming I guess.. The nice stereo effect, since you still haven't seemed to have grasped it, is present in both the originals and the tweaked versions, it's not some side effect of any 'operator' shenanigans, just down to magic pixies changing a few bits here and there I guess that magically resulted in that lovely phase shift.. Fancy that eh

There's no vague messages at all, neither is there anything subjective about anything I've said.. The only subjective issue is the one you've made with regards to thinking your real machine sounds the recording from post 50 with the lovely stereo effects.. You've certainly got a special machine there then.. I didn't play them on the real machine, because I took it for granted that the recordings had been made to accurately represent what I would hear coming from a real machine.. After all, I thought that was the entire point of this because the emulators and stuff don't do these effects justice.. Hence I questioned if I was listening to a dual-pokey song, because it wouldn't have been the first dual-pokey song in this thread if I recall correctly.. I asked because that's what it sounded like to me when I heard it due to the stereo imagery I was hearing.. End of.. Really...

Okay

Just for reference I took the first part of the above video.. The first 30 seconds is as you've posted it.. The 2nd 30 seconds is converted to mono.. 2nd half mono.mp3 Here's a grab of the spectral phase, of both halves, you can clearly there.. This is taken from the reimported mp3 after converting the 2nd half to mono and then saving, so you can see there's a small phase error in the 2nd half, which is what i'd expect from a true mono signal being fed into just about any halfway decent psychoacoustic compression system these days.. There is a massive difference in the first half.. And it's very very audible indeed when you AB them.. How exactly are you capturing these audio files in the first place ?

The phase effects in the posted version give a lovely depth to the sounds that actually sounds very very nice and a nice spread over the bottom end of the spectrum.. It's how nice it sounds (the phase effects) that made me question the source because it sounded too well defined to be artifacts from compression, although I'm not saying it isn't exactly that.. Lets forget it, there's nothing to argue about here.. All I wanted to clear up was that when I asked if it was 2 POKEYs was because I could hear stereo imagery in there.. Miker said it wasn't, and I put it down to me being tired or having some wacky setting enabled on my sound card somewhere.. It was bugging me, hence I checked again with fresh ears, and I posted what I found..

I don't disbelieve that.. The point is the posted tune sounds considerably better than the true mono version.. That's all I'm saying

Indeed, possibly they are, but they're so pronounced as to be questionable in my opinion.. I mainly wanted to clear up the fact there is in-fact quite clear stereo imagery in those songs and they sound considerably duller when converted to mono.. That.. And, also I obviously wasn't imagining things as intimated..

I couldn't give a fuck what you think (null)

Actually, no ear checking is required, they're functioning exactly as they should be, which is good since they're essential to my job I had a few minutes, so I thought I'd extract the audio and see what you've done to it because it was unsettling me.. The source audio you've put there wasn't Mono.. I knew I wasn't hearing things.. It was at some point, but you've done something to it, a first guess appears to be a slight delay between the left and right.. Anyway.. 2 screen shots.. One showing you the mid/side signal of your audio material.. Clearly not blatantly stereo, but wreaks of post-processing.. And the second, much more telling, showing the relative phase of the 2 channels.. Hmmm, someones been playing with effects on that audio.. Maybe it's time to check your ears

Weird, I thought I was hearing slight stereo effect in there, hence me asking.. In fact I do and I'm not going mad And they're more noticeable in Emkays version.. That tunes a good point of what I actually like about POKEY though.. I know Emkay won't believe it, but I do actually listen to the the SAP music archive stuff a lot, because I do like a lot of the POKEY music and the sounds it makes.. The original one there actually sounds nice, musical and in tune.. A good tune in its own right that can actually be appreciated, and has that POKEY flavour to its sounds that I actually like, which seems to be the thing that is most hated for some reason.. Where as the 2nd one just sounds out of key, as is the common theme to these things.. It's verging on unpleasant at times.. Granted it has it moments, when you think that sounds okay and can relax, and then it has a car running over a cat moment and all enthusiasm vanishes.. Granted, this one manages a bit longer before an innocent cat gets it

Is Mikers original version of that using two Pokeys ?

Just to be clear, when I said I was seeing 1.5:1 compression ratio that was against packed nybbles, hence why I was so enthusiastic.. It was/is a win win scenario, in every possible meaning of that particular phrase.. (null)

Just to be clear, when I said I was seeing 1.5:1 compression ratio that was against packed nybbles, hence why I was so enthusiastic.. It was/is a win win scenario, in every possible meaning of that particular phrase.. (null)

I'm sure the admins have it under control without people pointing and making accusations.. Now.. Where's my Prokofiev ala Pokey (null)

Who cares ? Let the topic stay on target.. Personally I'd also like to hear some classical stuff, see what Pokey can do without getting it all bent out of shape and sounding like an acid casualty from the days of musique concrete.. (null)

Well, if you're using timers it limits your values to ones which have repeating patterns that never overlap NMI's and it requires you to start them with a known scan-line alignment. Not a huge deal but it limits your choices. You also lose NMI's during things like disk loading which have a degree of randomness to them. Some disk loaders with fancy graphics flicker from time to time for this reason. Ah, okay, that makes sense.. I've not tried loading stuff from the disk with masses of DLIs floating about.. Kind of glad I didn't now