Atari Falcon.... it's success or failure...

[Clint Thompson]

I had the chance to take a look at some Falcon-related magazines and read through them for a change instead of just the normal skimming and looking.

 

Atari ST User - July 1993.

 

It's an article over Multimedia but compares the falcon with the

amiga 3000, pc and mac.

 

Just some highlights I would like to point out coming from a Atari

magazine that I'm sure didn't help, right? Here goes:

 

..."No matter how impressive a micro's specifications first appear, it will never be remotely close to even the lowliest second-hand Matsui VCR in terms of ability to display graphics in motion."

 

Wait it gets better!...

 

..."Nor could even the most expanded Falcon match a simple CD Walkman's talent for playing hours of CD quality sound."

 

What in the HELL are they talking about?

 

..."Again, many will seek to draw your attention to the superb 16bit sound and the DSP chip's use as everything from a reverb unit to a speech synthesizer. Ignore them. Digitised speech is a ludicruosly expensive exercise in terms of RAM, and 16bit sound is really only of use in a recording studio."

 

Wow... I must be missing something here. Heh...

 

It goes on and talks about the Amigas ability to do GENLOCKING.

Um.. what? Doesn't the FALCON have Genlocking capabilities too?

 

Ya know ... for a minute there I was starting to think they were trying to say the Falcon can't do all that stuff.. maybe I misread something?

 

What do you guys think? Heh, how about how it possibly turned people away from buying a Falcon?

 

[atarian1]

..."No matter how impressive a micro's specifications first appear, it will never be remotely close to even the lowliest second-hand Matsui VCR in terms of ability to display graphics in motion."

 

Graphics cards probably were not that sharp yet compared to today's cards. So yeah, a VCR's picture would look sharper than a computer's.

 

..."Nor could even the most expanded Falcon match a simple CD Walkman's talent for playing hours of CD quality sound."

 

Note it said HOURS. It was definitely true back then. In 1993, a 1 (that's one) GB hard drive went for $1000. That could store about 1.5 hours of CD quality sound. I doubt anyone would spend that much just to store 1.5 hours of their CD collection on a hard drive. Plus you can't carry it around like a Walkman. With today's 200 GB hard drives for under $200, many people today can store hours of music on their hard drives.

 

We also didn't have MP3 back then. Computers were not powerful enough to do that type of real-time decompression, processing and playback of compressed audio files, such as MP3. So you had to settle with large uncompressed audio file formats such as WAV, AIFF, etc. that take up 10MB per minute at stereo CD quality.

 

..."Again, many will seek to draw your attention to the superb 16bit sound and the DSP chip's use as everything from a reverb unit to a speech synthesizer. Ignore them. Digitised speech is a ludicruosly expensive exercise in terms of RAM, and 16bit sound is really only of use in a recording  studio."

 

Same thing here. 16MB RAM cost $500-$600! I remember sticking with 4MB in my Falcon for a long time because that's just too much. I eventually bought a 16MB SIMM when they were down to $50. (Today, you can buy 512MB for that much )

 

And again, hard disks were still expensive back then, so even doing direct-to-disk recording was costly. I remember using a Syquest 270MB removable hard drive ($500 back then) because of the unlimited storage capability even though cartridges cost $60-$70 each back then.

 

It goes on and talks about the Amigas ability to do GENLOCKING.

Um.. what? Doesn't the FALCON have Genlocking capabilities too?

 

I've seen a Falcon genlock. Sounds like the author was skeptical someone would ever come out with a Falcon genlock.

 

Ya know ... for a minute there I was starting to think they were trying to say the Falcon can't do all that stuff.. maybe I misread something?

 

Maybe.

 

What do you guys think?  Heh, how about how it possibly turned people away from buying a Falcon?

 

Because cheap PCs were destroying the market.

 

My guess, Clint, is that you haven't been into computers (especially Ataris) for that long. I'm sure many old geezers like me remember how incredibly expensive things were back then. I'm going to sound like your parents for saying this, but I think you young people are spoiled!

[+Sauron]

I certainly remember back then, as I was salivating over the Falcon the moment I first heard it's announcement. Not all of the things that article stated are true. Depending on the context of the article, the Falcon could certainly playback CD quality (actually, slightly better than CD quality) audio. Sure, it was quite expensive to do so, but it was certainly possible. Let's not forget that the Falcon was mainly aimed at the recording industry, despite Atari's claims about it being a consumer computer.

 

Out of all of that, though, I'd have to say the most asinine quote is this:

 

..."Again, many will seek to draw your attention to the superb 16bit sound and the DSP chip's use as everything from a reverb unit to a speech synthesizer. Ignore them. Digitised speech is a ludicruosly expensive exercise in terms of RAM, and 16bit sound is really only of use in a recording studio."

 

Talk about being short-sighted! One of the benefits of the Falcon was that it enabled people to do audio manipulation that was simply not possible on a home computer before then. The genlocking statement was also pretty ignorant, as that was one of the Falcon's features that was highly touted.

 

As for not having MP3s back then, that is correct. However, didn't someone eventually write an MP3 player for the Falcon?

[Clint Thompson]

..."Nor could even the most expanded Falcon match a simple CD Walkman's talent for playing hours of CD quality sound."

 

Note it said HOURS.  It was definitely true back then.  In 1993, a 1 (that's one) GB hard drive went for $1000.    That could store about 1.5 hours of CD quality sound.  I doubt anyone would spend that much just to store 1.5 hours of their CD collection on a hard drive.  Plus you can't carry it around like a Walkman.  With today's 200 GB hard drives for under $200, many people today can store hours of music on their hard drives.  

 

The question wasn't about how expensive a setup would be for being able

to do so, it was about it being possible! He stated even the most expanded Falcon? Sure, it's not as simple and as far as hours are concerned... last time I checked CDs were no more then 74-80 mins,

roughly 1hr 14mins. and yes, it would've been expensive, but not impossible. Of course the friggin computer isn't portable, heh.. it wasn't meant to be. And it's not a walkman!

 

We also didn't have MP3 back then.  Computers were not powerful enough to do that type of real-time decompression, processing and playback of compressed audio files, such as MP3.   So you had to settle with large uncompressed audio file formats such as WAV, AIFF, etc. that take up 10MB per minute at stereo CD quality.

 

Your right about MP3.... back then. However it's ridiculous that you say computers were not powerful enough to do that type of real-time decompression. It wasn't that the Falcon wasn't powerful enough... it was because the software was not available. However, it is now!

 

Falcamp!

 

http://deunstg.free.fr/sct1/falcamp/index.html

 

You also have to remember that the program is free of charge and no one got paid to do it, so if someone offered some serious $$ for example its possible it could be better. We all know Atari was too cheap for that... even if it WOULD have been an option back then. (which it wasn't)

 

..."Again, many will seek to draw your attention to the superb 16bit sound and the DSP chip's use as everything from a reverb unit to a speech synthesizer. Ignore them. Digitised speech is a ludicruosly expensive exercise in terms of RAM, and 16bit sound is really only of use in a recording  studio."

 

Same thing here.  16MB RAM cost $500-$600!    I remember sticking with 4MB in my Falcon for a long time because that's just too much.  I eventually bought a 16MB SIMM when they were down to $50.  (Today, you can buy 512MB for that much   )  

 

What does that have to do with it having 16bit sound, a reverb unit and speech synthesizer? A 4meg Falcon could do all that just well (I'm not talking about recording direct to disk either, I'm talking about the functions of what they are calling out) You could always output the audio

to any source currently available then.

 

And again, hard disks were still expensive back then, so even doing direct-to-disk recording was costly.  I remember using a Syquest 270MB removable hard drive ($500 back then) because of the unlimited storage capability even though cartridges cost $60-$70 each back then.    

 

Sure... that may be the case, but if you were serious about your music and say you wanted to do a full CD of 74 minutes even at uncompressed that's only a couple of carts. Overall, at the time, a PC would still have been much more expensive at matching the audio capabilities of the Falcon.

 

It goes on and talks about the Amigas ability to do GENLOCKING.

Um.. what? Doesn't the FALCON have Genlocking capabilities too?

 

I've seen a Falcon genlock.  Sounds like the author was skeptical someone would ever come out with a Falcon genlock.

 

It sounds like the author was skeptical of the Falcon in general!

 

What do you guys think?  Heh, how about how it possibly turned people away from buying a Falcon?

 

Because cheap PCs were destroying the market.  

 

Actually I was referring to the article and the negative feeling I got from reading it. I dont remember PC's being really too cheap around 92/93 , at least, not multimedia capable ones. For some reason, the Falcon just also appeared to be superior to me then until the pricy Pentiums started popping up. That didn't stop me from wanting the Falcon instead.

 

My guess, Clint, is that you haven't been into computers (especially Ataris) for that long.  I'm sure many old geezers like me      remember how incredibly expensive things were back then.     I'm going to sound like your parents for saying this, but I think you young people are spoiled!      

 

I've been into computers since 1986, my first one being a 3rd or 4th hand )haha( TRS-80. I got into Atari's around '88 and have been into them every since. I remember how they were expensive, that's why I could never afford anything Unlike many rich kids, I grew up with the el'cheapo stuff as my family and I were not very wealthy. TRS-80 was a prized possesion for me in 86. I always wanted those nice, color *newer* game/app computers but could never afford one. I eventually got a Tandy Color for a good price after my TRS-80, then got a wonderful Atari 800 which lead me into almost everything else Atari. I couldn't afford a Falcon back then either, though I gazed over the articles for days many a'time! Toad Computers... man... I'll never forget those days.

 

I'm far from spoiled my friend! However, I would have loved to been spoiled back in the day with all the stuff they had out then. I ended up finally getting a ST once it was all nice and pretty much outdated (for it's time) in like 92 I think. ( It was, but wasnt , ya know?)

 

I've owned 2 Falcons in the past, both tricked out and I hated it. I'm getting one in the mail (stock) in a week or so, get to relive 1993

 

As far as computers go, I currently work at HP Had Atari still been in business (not infogrames) I'd probably be working there now!

 

Overall, I just thought all the things they said was pretty negative for an Atari-orientated magazine.

[Tyrant]

I'm sure many old geezers like me      remember how incredibly expensive things were back then.     I'm going to sound like your parents for saying this, but I think you young people are spoiled!    

Umm.... arnt Facons still incredibly expensive? I was under the impression that Falcons still cost about as much as they did when released.

[+Sauron]

Umm.... arnt Facons still incredibly expensive? I was under the impression that Falcons still cost about as much as they did when released.

 

Up until fairly recently, they were. However, the last few Falcons I've seen for sale either on eBay or otherwise have gone for much cheaper, generally within the $200 to $300 range. Hopefully they'll stay that way so I can FINALLY get ahold of one myself!