3 ms·

I never did and never will understand why an ATARI ST family, meant to compete directly with Amigas, had a three channel sound chip on the level of the C=64 SID

by Annatar 10y ago

I never did and never will understand why an ATARI ST family, meant to compete directly with Amigas, had a three channel sound chip on the level of the C=64 SID. What were they thinking? The AT&T DSP was light years ahead of the rest of personal computers' sound capabilities, and is in fact still competitive today. Amazing piece of work.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
The Atari ST was released (in 1984) before the Amiga 1000 (in 1985) and was designed around being a low cost 16-bit computer. The Amiga 500, which was a much closer competitor to the Atari ST in terms of target market, was released in 1987. Back at that time, 2 to 3 years was a big jump in terms of the processing performance you could get for your money. Sadly (I say this as an Amiga fan), the Paula sound chip was never upgraded, I believe it's the same in all Amigas, even the AGA ones. In some ways it's a testament to the capabilities of the Paula sound chip, but it's also just another example of Commodore squandering their technological lead. There were plans to go down the DSP route with the A3000+, but that machine never materialised, leaving the Atari Falcon as the best sounding 16-bit computer (IMO, of course).
walkingolof 10y ago
The C64 SID is generally considered the best soundchip made. But with a DSP you can do not only sound, but this (Atari Falcon demo) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cKRZ8QgH5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cKRZ8QgH5o
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "The C64 SID is generally considered the best soundchip made." Best for the time, I'd agree, but I'd suggest it's been surpassed since. Of course the SID still has its charm, when I say surpassed I mean in terms of flexibility. IIRC the designer of the SID went on to design some of the early high-end PC sound cards.
  - walkingolof 10y ago
    It was a quantum leap, just like the iPhone was to phonemarket, nothing before or after comes close. And Bob Yannes went on to found Ensoniq after designing the SID at Commodore.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "or after comes close." What do you base that on?
      - walkingolof 10y ago
        I refer to the leap in it self, not the actual chip with that comment. There is for sure better things today :)

by Annatar 10y ago

ZenoArrow 10y ago

The Atari ST was released (in 1984) before the Amiga 1000 (in 1985) and was designed around being a low cost 16-bit computer. The Amiga 500, which was a much closer competitor to the Atari ST in terms of target market, was released in 1987. Back at that time, 2 to 3 years was a big jump in terms of the processing performance you could get for your money. Sadly (I say this as an Amiga fan), the Paula sound chip was never upgraded, I believe it's the same in all Amigas, even the AGA ones. In some ways it's a testament to the capabilities of the Paula sound chip, but it's also just another example of Commodore squandering their technological lead. There were plans to go down the DSP route with the A3000+, but that machine never materialised, leaving the Atari Falcon as the best sounding 16-bit computer (IMO, of course).

walkingolof 10y ago

The C64 SID is generally considered the best soundchip made. But with a DSP you can do not only sound, but this (Atari Falcon demo) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cKRZ8QgH5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cKRZ8QgH5o

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "The C64 SID is generally considered the best soundchip made." Best for the time, I'd agree, but I'd suggest it's been surpassed since. Of course the SID still has its charm, when I say surpassed I mean in terms of flexibility. IIRC the designer of the SID went on to design some of the early high-end PC sound cards.
- walkingolof 10y ago
  It was a quantum leap, just like the iPhone was to phonemarket, nothing before or after comes close. And Bob Yannes went on to found Ensoniq after designing the SID at Commodore.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "or after comes close." What do you base that on?
    - walkingolof 10y ago
      I refer to the leap in it self, not the actual chip with that comment. There is for sure better things today :)