Re: It's time 2 play "ID This Card"!

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

"Scott Alfter" <salfter@theonramp.net> wrote:
>Edhel Iaur, Esq. <LOSETHECAPITALWORDSedhel@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> I found this card in slot 4 of a Bell & Howell Apple //.  It has 2
>> phono jacks on it, both pointed toward the keyboard...
>>
>> The phono jacks are labeled.  The upper one is labeled SPK OUT above
>> it and DAC OUT below it.  The lower jack is labeled AUX OUT below
>it...
>
>Sounds like some kind of sound card.  Odds are that if you STA'd something
>to the appropriate I/O address, you'd change the output level at the
>speaker jack.  Do that often enough and you'd get sound.  With only 8 bits
>to play with, it'd be no better than Sound Blaster or IIGS audio, but it's
>definitely better than anything you could do with just the II's stock audio
>hardware (including programs such as SoftDAC and other digital-audio
>playback programs that have been written in recent years).
>
>Scott Alfter
>salfter@theonramp.net

I just wanted to point out that your assumption that all 8-bit sound
hardware is equal is in error.  Although the original SoundBlaster and
the IIGS's Ensoniq 5503 both have 8-bit DAC's, the SoundBlaster was
only capable of FM synthesis.  The Ensoniq 5503 had 32 independent
oscillators (sound generators) and implemented _wavetable_ synthesis.
The difference is like night and day.  In fact, with the exception
of playing a straight sound with 16-bits of resolution (and then only
at a lower maximum sampling rate than the Ensoniq), all Macintosh
computers still lack the sound hardware features of the GS.

Comparing a wavetable synthesis chip like the Ensoniq to the 8-bit
sound blaster is akin to comparing a Gravis or Roland wavetable
synthesis sound card for the PC to a SoundBlaster 16 for the PC
(or Macintosh sound).

-Scott G.