Michael J. Mahon wrote:
Mitch replied:
<clip>
If _lots_ of extra hardware is needed, then using the IIgs as is becomes less desirable.
I sincerely respect your desire to keep things pure and true to a platform. I like that way, and I also like the way of maxing things out. In antique cars I like them to be either pristine pure stock or old beaters that people want to pass, but can't, because of what's under the hood.
But I thought that one DOC chip was enough for one IIgs, and that a mouse/GUI simulated panel might replace the real panel knobs, sliders, LEDs, and switches. Obviously not, for someone who wants that "hands on" feel. ;-)
Personally, I've moved mostly to softsynths. I'm not one of those compulsive knob twiddlers. And I'm not the only one. A softsynth panel on a IIgs could be a wonder to behold.
<clip>
But what about the many functions listed above? Are they possible to do in software on a IIgs?It would have to be evaluated on a feature-by-feature basis. I expect that much of it could be done just with software.
Yes. I definitely wonder how far the IIgs can go without add-ons. One of the reasons SID music is great is because the musicians are trying to work around the limitations of the chip. It forces you to come up with solutions which take an extra measure of creativity.
<clip>
The filters are, indeed, a problem. The SID has a versatile filter built in, but the DOC--and the IIgs--does not. The 65816, even accelerated, is no match for real-time digital filtering. ;-(
Not such a terrible thing if you can load your own samples into it. Just filter them beforehand, I guess. No need for real-time, then. Thanks, that's good to know. "A man's got to know his limitations." -Clint Eastwood, Magnum Force
---p.s. My posts are out of order when I check them on Google Groups. I post using Mozilla Thunderbird and they're order at my ISP. Sorry if they're out of order where you are.