Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!info-mac
From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac)
Newsgroups: fa.info-mac
Subject: Re: Macintosh sound
Message-ID: <1657@uw-beaver>
Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 17:05:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1657
Posted: Fri Sep  7 17:05:38 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 06:19:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beave
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 26

From: mark@harvard.ARPA (Mark Lentczner)
-=-
The problem with the custom sound chips that are included within the Commodore
64 and the Atari is that they only perform a very fixed type of synthesis.
The Mac's 8-bit DAC is limitless in the sense that you don't have to use a
particular synthesis method such as additive synthesis, or working with square
waves and shift-register noise (the Atari method).  Of course, the Mac offers
a four-voice look-up-table oscillator scheme if you want it, but you can do
anything you want with the DAC.  Thus the possibilities for sound on the Mac
are far greater than on the Atari or Commodore.

As far as 8-bits are concerned, I have be composing computer music for years
using 8-bit DACs.  Yes, of course the quality is less than 12 or 16 bits.  But
I have found that there is a lot to be had out of an 8-bit DAC.  I'll admit that
there are certian things that I have to avoid, but why write music that can
only be played on a Stienway?

-mark lentczner
 electronic music studio
 music department
 harvard university
 cambridge, ma 02138

 lentczner@harvard.ARPA
 {allegra,genrad,ihnp4,ima,ucbvax}!harvard!lentczner.UUCP