[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?

Subject: Re: II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?
From: email@DELETE_THIS.luddite.no-ip.com (Simon Williams)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:40:06 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Organization: Luddite Enterprises
References: <20041102235400.05880.00000052@mb-m28.aol.com> <20041103212905.23348.00000030@mb-m03.aol.com>
User-agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6 (unregistered)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:5434

Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

> Since the IIgs does not have a bank-switched memory emulation
> beyond the "standard" 128K //e, I expect that it simply plays two
> (main + AUX) banks worth and then quits because it has run out
> of 8-bit addressable memory.

Interesting, I'd often wondered about that...

I've also noticed that II Sound's playback seems to actually _sound_
better on an 8-bit machine... the IIgs sounds more "screechy" to me...
is this possibly due to the IIgs having better fidelity in the treble
range, or is it all in my head?

-- 
._____. SIMON WILLIAMS  email(*)luddite.no-ip.com
|[LD8]! LUDDITE APPAREL http://apparel.luddite.ca
| (O) | FAILURE RECORDS http://failure.luddite.ca
!__!__! LC475 WEBSERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?
  - From: mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)

References:
- II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?
  - From: obsbedia2@aol.com (Obsbedia2)
- Re: II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?
  - From: mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)

Prev by Date: Re: A few technical q's from an apple newbie
Next by Date: Disk format utility?
Previous by thread: Re: II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?
Next by thread: Re: II.Sound question: why is it better on a //e, than a IIgs?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread