On 29 Nov 94 21:53:00 +0000, Johnathan Taylor said: > I reckon the 16bit DAC should be done as a seperate interface but that's yet > another box to be added on the end... The 8bit dongle is probably the most > sensible comprimise:-)
Yes, I'm not sure whether there's any point in a 16-bit DAC on the Sam (in any case you would then need to play samples at 30 or 40 KHz to make proper use of it and that's pushing it a bit (you certainly couldn't do it with the screen on). But if you do then you might as well do it properly; no point in spoiling it by making it out of a resistor network hack. > I believe that the conventional SAM 4bit sample replay method involves quite > a > bit of overheads that the 8bit dongle method doesn't so the replayed sample > rate would be better as well! Perhaps you mean the "ldh,a:rrca:rrca:rrca:rrca:xorh:andl:xorh" that you have to do in order to set the volume on both channels. It's not that much actually, and not every program has to do it. Apart from that I can't see any difference. > I've yet to uudecode imc's sample player and disasemble it Don't you dare... ;-) > to see if it can be > easily adapted to a real DAC port;-) Of course it can. What's the problem? I assume that all you have to do is change the port address (and of course the initialisation, but that's unimportant). > Also recently in the FidoNet BOFFINS echo was a msg describing the .WAV > sample > file format I've frozen it so IF anyone want's to experiment with that format > I can post a copy in here:-) Does it have advantages over any other kind? Is it compressed? I often wonder why each machine has a different format (actually, the PC seems to have at least 3 different ones). imc
