>Commodore Amiga was the successor to the Commodore 64.
>It actually has worse sound than the 64.
what were they thinking? a massive part of the C64s success was its sound chip.
low bitrate samples were a mistake.
>Commodore Amiga was the successor to the Commodore 64. >It actually has worse sound than the 64.
there is already an Amiga thread up. lrn2catalog.
that thread is about Amiga games.
this thread is about the Amigas audio.
lrn2read
>inb4 "the Atari ST was the true C64 successor"
so why then did that have an even WORSE nintendo tier soundchip? why didnt they just put the SiD chip in it?
>what were they thinking?
Bob Yannes left MOS Technology in 1982.
>inb4 "the Atari ST was the true C64 successor"
The most direct successor to C64 was Commodore Plus/4 (both computers were initially aimed for low price market sector) with its multi purpose TED chip. That one has only two channels and could generate only square waves and white noise. It did however generate video and do a lot of other functions for less money, so in Jack Tramiel's eyes it was a perfect successor.
There's still some demoscene interest in Plus/4, but as you can hear, its audio capabilities are limited.
> worse
when you're comparing a DAC to SID, a synthesiser in a chip, you know you have severe mental moronation.
>>inb4 "the Atari ST was the true C64 successor"
never was.
> why
because YM FM chips were insanely expensive at the time.
>Nope. If anything was "the successor" it'd be the 128.
was never a successor for anything on commodore's line of products.
great to see this board is STILL full of dangerously low iq fricking morons.
>great to see this board is STILL full of dangerously low iq fricking morons.
Yes, you're fitting in very well.
Atari ST absolutely soundmogged the Amiga and it's not even close.
However developers at the time were lazy and stupid and most didn't bother figuring out how to get music and sfx playing at the same time. But at least it was so good it was worth loading up games or demos just to listen to the music.
Ah, the Genesis has better sound gambit.
Amiga made money as a business machine. A lot of movies were made on Amiga.
If by Amiga you mean SGI workstations then yes.
No, they used Lightwave 3D on the A4000 with video and accelerator cards to render 3D scenes on some TV shows, plus videotoaster was used for a lot of years as well as other genlock solutions. I was used as a sampler in music and a sequencer running mainly Octamed but also other programs like Bars and Pipes. It was used to make and animate pixel art with Deluxe Paint.
So Amiga was used to make TV shows, not movies. You didn't use genlock for film, moron.
NTA, but lmfao at your cope. Amigas were used to make many movies. You can easily google to find a few. Oh wait, you can't. Because zoomies can't google.
Name one theatrical movie that the Amiga was used to produce.
Why?
nta but you're not getting what the other anon is saying
The Amiga was great for tv shows because how well it can work with tv broadcast signals.
But movies in the 90s were released on actual film, not broadcast so that strength becomes irrelevant.
I'm very much getting what that other anon that's totally not you is saying. He's saying ignorant zoomie cope. Just like you.
It's an easily verifiable fact that Amigas were used in making many movies. No amount of crying by ignorant babies can ever change that. Stop wasting your time embarrassing yourself shitposting about things you know nothing about. Apply yourself.
>. Amigas were used to make many movies.
many. also many television shows, cable stations, satellite stations. etc. video toaster made it possible and was everywhwere. the closest thing to a quantel paintbox worth as much as a house at the time was the amiga and video toaster.
>Commodore Amiga was the successor to the Commodore 64.
Nope. If anything was "the successor" it'd be the 128. Amiga was a completely different system in nearly every way.
>It actually has worse sound than the 64.
Says whotube?
>what were they thinking?
Everything except "we wonder what some aspie who won't be born for another few decades will think of this"
The Amiga is well known for its far superior sound. Whats this revisionist history?
Amiga doesn't even have a proper reconstruction filter for its sample playback. You literally get the stairstepping that audiophiles pretend exists in normal digital audio, audible as high frequency noise. I can't think of any other system that gets this wrong.
What is "proper" reconstruction filter?
One that filters the high frequency noise caused by the DAC to inaudible levels. The Amiga DAC takes the cheap option of zero-order hold, which makes this a very difficult task. The filter provided isn't sufficient to make the noise inaudible. Most games actually disable it for better frequency response, so you literally do get the "stairstepping" of audiophile imagination. The SNES DAC interpolates the samples so there's far less noise to filter out, and none audible after the reconstruction filter.
>The SNES DAC interpolates the samples
sauce?
>watch this 30 min youtube and see if it confirms my claim
So no sauce. Got it.
> sidestepping
> reconstruction filter
> just making shit up as he goes
i've worked with amiga audio for around 30 years and not a single thing you wrote is based in reality. take your medication, dunning kruger schizo.
anon is just a schizo and doesn't understand how anything works. you see, on this board, people are repulsive liars that know nothing. to make up for their lack of education on every subject known to mankind, they make it up as they go.
>i don't understand this
>better call him le scitzo
Stop typing in troonycase, nobody wants to read that wall of crap.
chad reply and accurate
it's amazing how one anon can absolutely destroy you with one post.
> kept it cooler
it was deliberately unclocked during protype stage because it outperformed the mac. apple didn't want the 2 series to be better than mac. that was the only reason.
>Amiga
>Atari ST
>Apple IIgs
>all three permanently fricked by stupid corporate decisions
It's no wondet that consoles and x86 PCs took over. 16-bit home computer generation was cursed.
>It's no wondet that consoles
consoles weren't actually a competitor. many games from those 16-bit computers were ported to snes, genesis etc.
>all three permanently fricked by stupid corporate decisions
and incredible level of incompetence. i still remember commodore UK was the only division of commodore keeping the amiga alive after 1991.
> and x86 PCs took over. 16-bit home computer generation was cursed.
they took over easily as apple,commodore,etc. couldn't compete with pricing, supply and expandability. indeed, 16-bit generation was cursed but it didn't have to be this way.
>couldn't compete with pricing, supply and expandability
x86 was expensive as shit though. The only reason it took over was because all businesses used IBM. And it's not only commodore, atari, and apple that failed, all the japanese companies failed too. Maybe except for NEC for a little while longer because they were the japanese IBM.
NEC lost the moment everyone started using Windows. The 9821 was a last ditch attempt to scrounge up some money from people holding on to their old PC-98 software with shit tier compatibility, but Win95 killed them. 1995 is the exact moment NEC died when they shipped their new computers with giant American flags and Win95 pre-installed.
>has worse sound than the 64
No it doesn't. That's moronic. I grew up with a C64. I own several Amigas. The Amiga is capable of producing sounds the C64 could never make.
Amiga samples are plenty decent. They certainly sound far better than SNES samples.
Are you kidding me right now? .MOD was the music standard back then. So much so that a lot of the PC soundcards were just Paula's on steroids.
The SID does have a leg up in actual synthesis though, not like it mattered much since you could just sample it + any other audio source.
The SNES had some differences that made it a better chip in some regards. 8 channels vs 4 along with sample interpolation so that the samples themselves don't sound too crispy. Amiga iirc was capable of a higher sample rate though. Lot's of SNES music sounded very muddy since they had even less room for high quality samples. Still some very good music came out of the SNES.
You will never get an Amiga for free. That's all you're after with this thread with your obvious lies. You want something for free.
frick off
Are you high or stupid? What the frick
Do you understand that 90's producents indeed used Amiga, but only as a sampler which they forwarded to their post production studio tech with filters, mixers and effects. Making it sound thousands of times better than played on stock Amiga on it's own? You can't do much with basic C64 sounds like that. Samples win.
Wait until you find out what they did to the Apple IIgs
>The 2.8 MHz clock was a deliberate decision to limit the IIGS's performance to less than that of the Macintosh. This decision had a critical effect on the IIGS's success; the original 65C816 processor used in the IIGS was certified to run at up to 4 MHz.[2] Faster versions of the 65C816 processor were readily available, with speeds of between 5 and 14 MHz, but Apple kept the machine at 2.8 MHz throughout its production run.[3]
applesisters... what went wrong?
At least the underclocking kept it cooler so it didn't have the massive overheating problems the classic Mac had because Jobs hated fans and ventilation holes.
128 was the successor.
Amiga was the next generation
No, Amiga sounds far better.
What is wrong with you.
>a massive part of the C64s success was its sound chip.
Wut
Yeah sure OP. The computer that the vast majority of jungle music was made on has bad audio. The fact that amigo sampler exists shows that you're an idiot.
Most jungle was made with Atari STs controlling hardware samplers using MIDI. You can always tell when they used Amigas because the sound quality is so much lower.
Where’s the best place to listen to a bunch of SID kino
?feature=shared&t=10