Robert A. Colbert wrote:
>
> >>>That's right. I suppose if you generate the waveform on the fly that even
> >>>simple sound hardware like the Apple II will suffice.
> I tried writing a "playbin" for the Apple II and didn't have a whole lot of luck, didn't stick with it for long though.
I spent an afternoon working on it for the 64. Within the hour I had
something playing that sounded very much like a Supercharger tape,
but it didn't work :( I'll have to struggle with it further...
sort of infuriating, since my 64 and 2600 share the same monitor... :)
My test program is a raw (-r) output from makewav on the latest
rescue file. BTW, Bob, I've noticed a few things from the raw
output:
The Supercharger Notes by Christopher Salomon say that the header
is a series of $AA's, while makewav puts out $55's. I realize
this is 10101010 and 01010101, does the Supercharger care which
if it starts on a 0 or a 1? And the Notes state that there should
be a 0 byte following the header, while Makewav puts just an
extra bit? Is that why the last byte of the header is a $54
(01010100)?
> I also tried writing it for the 2600 using a waveform, then setting a delay and modifying the waveform, but each time you did, the speaker clicked. Since then I realized that there is a "speaker click" sound on the 2600, that could use the same algorithm (or similar) as that in the Apple ROM. Never did anything about it, but if I were inclined to, that's where I'd start.
Cool. And that's exactly how samples could be played, if memory
weren't so precious.
Robin
--
Archives updated once/day at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsubscribing and other info at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/stella.html
