> "To be honest I don't think it'll be worth using anything other than > ave[ Hooper]'s DLL. The synth version isn't as accurate, and lacks the high > resolution changes needed for sound samples, and the Spectrum beeper support > used by the SAM BASIC sound effects." > > My reasoning being: > > Benefits of the synth version: > - Faster than the SAASound.dll > > Drawbacks of the synth version: > - No support for Windows NT or Windows 2000 > - No support for the rapid audio changes required to play sound samples > - No support for the Spectrum beeper used for the BASIC error rasp, the > beep/zap/pow/zoom commands, and Spectrum software > - No support for envelope effects > - Noise generators aren't emulated correctly on OPL2/3 sound drivers, due > to OPL2/3 inability to play white noise. > - Envelope-ctrl is used only to override the channel-mask bit, so some > tunes still play even if you mask out all the channels. > - Doesn't work with all sound cards (includes some Aztech cards) > > It's a perfect case of not getting anything for nothing - yours is fast but > lacks features is inaccurate, Dave's is slower but fully featured and very > accurate.
My should know that my technology is generally better. It uses the system of audio drivers, so it allows to do several advantages. Look: 1. WinNT/2000 support can be added, I can use AdLib drivers of MAME (multi arcade machine emulator - sorry if the name is a bit wrong). 2. It can be much better if I add envelopes. 3. It can be enhanced by some good parts of SAAsound to get the better sound. 4. Spectrum beeper can be played individually. 5. It works with Aztech soundcards. I don't know why you tell that it doesn't. You probably misunderstood the documentation. Generally, current SAAemu can hardly match SAAsound's quality, but it can be enhanced. And that's it. You can say: "Enahance it and then I will include it in SimCoupe." But is this right way? > Actually, the only thing in WinCoupe that gets hardware assistance is the > image blitting, and that's only when the card supports it; the audio side > isn't accelerated in any way. The main advantage the Windows version gets > is the hardware /abstraction/ through DirectX. This is clear. I would to know how does it work: Do you create a whole 320x240 or 640x240 image everytime and then use blt to put this stuff to videoram? Or do you put there line by line using separate blt's? Do you emulate on-line video changes? (I mean when the ray is on line 100 and I change something on line 50, it shouldn't be visible.) > If your machine is up to running the Windows version, then I'm sure you'd > want perfect sound emulation with it! It reduced the maximum frame rate on > my work machine down from 113 to 108 (about 4%) when enabling 22kHz 16-bit > stereo sound, which is is peanuts. If a machine isn't up to running > WinCoupe, even with the frame skipping (I can't imagine a P100 is!), then > you're probably better off sticking with the DOS version, which already > includes the faster synth sound emulation. You're right. I obviously agree. 1. Digital sound takes a few percent of CPU time on P2. 2. Windows version is much faster generally since it uses video acceleration. Video acceleration gives more than anything other can take. Right? I will never use DOS version, when I will have a computer where Win32 version runs too. The only reason why to use DOS version is when you are like my friend Lukas, who don't ever had Windows, and uses Linux on his 386-notebook. (This man don't have any mail program for Linux, so he uses DOS emulator and Pegasus Mail for DOS. I really wonder that this combo woks.) > > Si > Aley
