Re: [stella] SoundSim code..

Subject: Re: [stella] SoundSim code..
From: "Andy Mucho" <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:42:02 +0100
It is running at the rate it asks for, by default 64k or so...

That's why I force the primary buffer format which is always hardware in the
setup code, this allows me to set whatever rate I choose, possibly forcing
other apps to be resampled, but not, unless I lose focus possibly.. This is
a huge long and contentious issue, but even with windows kernel mixer in the
pipeline, it'll still do the right thing, and give me, if the hardware can
take it, the real sample rate I ask for with no resampling of my generated
signal, which quite frankly wouldn't make a huge difference..

The main aim of oversampling it by 4 was to reduce the jitter time on writes
to the AUDV controls.. What I intended to do was over sampling by 8, then
uyse a polyphase filer to downsample it 8x to about 32k or so, and end up
with a very close approximation of the real analog output of the 2600..

There wouldn't be much difference really.. With a decent lowpass filter, and
a nice DC remover[1], it shoud should a bit cleaner, but ultimately the
2600s sound generation isn't pretty or clean :) I only did it because of my
lack of appreciation for z26 needing a proper frame ;)


[1] Which I took out of SoundSim because the squarewave hell just wrecked
everything... I intend to redo it properly..

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Saeger" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stella@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [stella] SoundSim code..

> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 09:26, Andy Mucho wrote:
> > That was my fault, forcing hardware buffers for huge secondayr buffer
> sizes
> > :( Doing that promptly ruled out a large portion of soundcards being
> to
> > run it..
> >
> > This reverts it to software buffers..
> O.K. It works now.  :-)  And if I set the volume to 0.5 it sounds a lot
> like z26.  The thing is, considering that it theoretically runs at 4
> times the sample rate of z26, I was sort of expecting to hear more of a
> difference than I do.  So I'm thinking maybe Direct-X may be remixing
> the sample rate for one or both programs.  Do you know of a way to tell
> for sure what sample rate the hardware is running at with Direct-X?
> Thanks,
> John
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Archives (includes files) at
> Unsub & more at
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may
> contain confidential and/or privileged material.
> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
> use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received this
> in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread