Leaving Amiga - Need PC emulation / music recording advice.

[amigaksi]

by ferrellsl on 2008/8/8 19:02:44

>What about using WinUAE? Emulated Amiga and you still get to use all of your familiar Amiga software.

>Any modern PC has the horsepower to emulate the Amiga and its custom chips.

That would be illogical.  If someone is going to start all over with a new system that assuming can do better then the Amiga in all respects, then it would be better to use the PC program rather than an emulated program since emulator is going to involve remapping stuff to affect performance whereas native PC program would not involve that.  

Of course, you can't perfectly emulate the Amiga and custom chips so other issues will be factors as well.

Didn't people use Atari ST music stuff even while Amigas were around?  

[amigaksi]

>by ferrellsl on 2008/8/9 14:34:03

>It isn't illogical at all. Have you considered what it will cost this man to buy all new PC software and learn all new software? I'm sure it's a rather expensive option in both time and money do this. And no one said the PC stuff was better. And I'm sure he'd like to use his existing data files as well.

Okay, I did see some cheap midi stuff for PCs. And he was considering other software packages and it is easier to get or write a utility to convert from Amiga MIDI to PC MIDI.

>I opted to do the same thing. I simply wasn't willing to throw out my software investment, buy new PC software that wasn't as familiar or as capable and then learn the new software.

>It was much easier and cheaper to get an XP box and WinUAE.

But now you're assuming the results are equivalent or tolerable. You can't really go by one's experience sometimes since there are hardware differences between PCs and Amigas and it's not that Amiga hardware is a subset of PC hardware.  Heck, a few hundred years ago people observed and declared that the earth was flat.  Mirages look like real water.  Better to prove it deductively so you know what you are doing.

[amigaksi]

>by the_leander on 2008/8/9 22:28:28

>Quote:
    amigaksi wrote:
    >by ferrellsl on 2008/8/9 14:34:03

>>...And I'm sure he'd like to use his existing data files as well.

>Why would you need to convert anything? Midi, the last time I checked was a fairly mature and stable standard. A midi file from an Amiga should run just fine in a PC with the requisite software reader.

It was ferrellsl who suggested that he wanted to use his existing files so if there's no conversion involved then his point is moot.

>Certainly I've played plenty of both MIDI and MOD files made on amigas using PC software, on BeOS, Linux and Windows over the years without issue.

Later, you write:

>Music was one artform I could never create, painting, drawing, writing, no issue, but music.. always eluded me

"Without issue" from non-music person.  

>>    amigaksi wrote:
    But now you're assuming the results are equivalent or tolerable. You can't really go by one's experience sometimes since there are hardware differences between PCs and Amigas and it's not that Amiga hardware is a subset of PC hardware. Heck, a few hundred years ago people observed and declared that the earth was flat. Mirages look like real water. Better to prove it deductively so you know what you are doing.

>Well, here's the thing, you've already been told by a professional musician that it is comparable, indeed having had both real and emulated Amigas running side by side, soundwise there was no difference.

>So, I have to ask, do you have a point in this paragraph? Because I for one can't see it.

You did miss the point.  One person experiencing the music to be sounding the same does not prove that every combination music produced will sound the same nor does it prove that it is the same even for that instance for all people.  Even MP3 and uncompressed linear audio sounds the same but they are in fact different.  To prove it's the same on both platforms, you need to prove through the hardware resources used on the both, not by someone's subjective taste.  For example, you can try to prove that there is no drift or distortion in the timing.  So the analogy that a few hundred years ago the earth was declared to be flat applies.  I am sure the EXPERTs back then also claimed earth to be flat that's why Columbus had a hard time.  What happens if someone comes hundreds of years later and states there's this difference with a certain music.  Mirage example also applies because you can be listening to music that is actually not the original but a distorted version but without a deeper analysis you take it to be the same.  

[amigaksi]

>Key word in the sentence is played.

>But hey what would I know about sound, afterall I only used to setup and calibrate surround sound systems...

>And Hi Def TV's.. Which I have to be honest was more difficult.

It's a subjective experience just listening to sound and claiming both platforms are producing equivalent sound.  I know some people can detect music defects between two compositions that normal people can't detect.  I think they say some people have "musical ears".  Even so with musical ears, it doesn't prove the two platforms are equivalent.

>>You did miss the point. One person experiencing the music to be sounding the same does not prove that every combination music produced will sound the same nor does it prove that it is the same even for that instance for all people. Even MP3 and uncompressed linear audio sounds the same but they are in fact different...

>Which is great and all but you realise there are differences even in different variants of the same models of an Amiga, right? Which kind of leaves your point completely moot.

It doesn't leave the point moot since the hardware spec is the same or a subset in the new hardware spec which is what I stated originally would be needed.  

>As near as damnit is all you will ever get, because even between different variants and models of the Amiga because there are differences.

>For instance, just on the A3000 there were something like 9 different variants, all with subtly different timings and all with their own unique quirks, for instance my particular one was one of only 3 models that could actually boot up without the need for a scsi hard drive to be present. Then there are differences in the chips themselves - some socketed and others surface mounted. All of these things could throw off the results at the level of testing you are on about.

We are talking whether they are equivalent to an Amiga so if the hardware specs of the PC being used to emulate the Amiga sound functionality were a subset or equal to that of Amigas, you can say the two platforms are producing identical sound.  What exactly are the differences between an original (OCS) Amiga 1000 sound functionality and Amiga 4000 sound functionality?  They both use the same timing and equal spec DACs (OCS compatible).  It's a different story when you know the hardware specs are different.

[amigaksi]

>- cubase (steinberg) or nuendo (from the same editor) if you have to work seriously with video files. Nuendo uses the cubase audio engine and offers more slots to load virtual instruments. Midi implementation in steinberg products is very nice.

I think that's the one I saw bundled with Atari ST machines as well, but had some sort of hardware add-on.

[amigaksi]

>You mean someone who has, for instance someone who has tested consistantly to having hearing sensitivity and range in the top 1%?
...
>Dunno about musical ears, but I would pit my hearing against anyones.

You missed the point again, instead you are now making another claim which would be hard to prove.  Your experience (by hearing various modules) does not prove that running an emulated amiga sound software and sound software on original amiga is the same.  There may be some sound samples that you have not tried that are different EVEN FOR YOU.  And even those that sound the same FOR YOU, may actually be distorted and different like in the case of MP3 and uncompressed linear audio.  And please read rest of the post before you reply.

>But again, given that there were differences in hardware, in timing,

There aren't timing differences in all the Amiga models (as per spec and as I have tried it) so it's not a given.

>>amigaksi wrote:
>>We are talking whether they are equivalent to an Amiga so if the hardware specs of the PC being used to emulate the Amiga sound functionality were a subset or equal to that of Amigas, you can say the two platforms are producing identical sound.

>Given that even the Realtek AC'97 codec produces sound as good as if not better then any Amiga native chip ever put into production, and that the said codec is considered obsolete these days, in favour of much more advanced and capable chipsets, I really think you can put this arguement to rest.

Again, I am also stating that if the hardware is a subset of the Amiga hardware like OCS is of ECS & AGA, yeah it should give identical output.  However, the point is whether the Amiga emulated sound output is the same as Amiga sound output on original.  All I need to show is ONE example where it's different and THAT puts the argument to rest.  I already have tried to port over Amiga slideshow software with background audio running to the PC with a Sound Blaster and IT IS DIFFERENT!  The Sound Blaster happen to have a 1,000,000Hz crystal to compute sampling rates and the Amiga uses a 3,579,500Hz timer so in this case using a divisor of 325 to get around 11Khz rate when ported to a Sound Blaster deviated the sampling rate enough that every few minutes the sound went out of sync by a second or so thus ruining the slideshow's sync with the audio.  And don't tell me the PC timer can be used to emulate the sampling since that timer is also only 1.19318 Mhz.

[amigaksi]

>by cicero790 on 2008/8/11 18:25:59

>I used WINUAE on XP and a p4 2.6ghz intel northwood for that experiment. It worked fine no tweaks needed.

I just saw as much of the earth as I could and it's flat.  Sorry, but we need to modify the history books and as far as all those fairy tales of people flying around the earth, that was due to nonlinear space and using modulo arithmetic axes of space you can fly from one end and pop in on the other end and leaving the earth as still being flat fitting in with many people's observations.

[amigaksi]

>My hearing tests and their results are a matter of record.

>What, you want me to get a photostat of them for you?

I think they forgot to compare my hearing to yours and many other people's including my dog's (who seems to hear somethings I can't).

>>There aren't timing differences in all the Amiga models (as per spec and as I have tried it) so it's not a given.

>But there are on some and that ...

When you decide to state the models that you are talking about, we can better determine what the timing differences are.  Until then, we go by the specs.

>That is not using an Emulator though, is it? It's a port using native hardware without any form of emulation wrapper. Also, if you know the basic sampling speeds of two devices you should be able to correct for one to the other to maintain sync.

Port and native versions are always better than emulated versions.  You need to go check with some software expert regarding that.  You can adjust the sample (either resample the data or change the total time by finding closest frequency supported by hardware).

>You can argue that it might not be "exact" when measured under some insanely convoluted system of your choosing that no human ear could ever detect in a million years, but that isn't the point, the point is, does it sound different, are there distortions between emulation and real, the answer is no.

Nothing convulated about 11Khz sampling rate.  Higher rates will deviate more samples.  Sound Blaster is integrated into many motherboards including thinkpads and some toshiba maintain SB compatibility.  Why don't you state the specs of your sound card and which frequency crystal it's using for the sampling rate.  And I was only giving a simple example, if I wanted I could start using Copper lists and modifying audio registers and you'll be getting audio distortions all over the place in your emulator.