On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:08:55 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 21:14 +0930, Tim wrote: > > The C64 could do some rather interesting things, but sound quality is > > something that I'd have praised it for. > > Typing correction: Isn't something I'd have praised it for. That could be because you never learned to know any really good music created with the C64 (and nowadays it can be kind of difficult to find the good pieces, because the most popular audio collections consist of over 30,000 files, with quite some junk among them). Outside Europe, what people did with the Sound Interface Device chip was vastly lower in quality, both at the technical level (i.e. the programming of synthetic instruments and heavily polyphonic music players) and the composers' capabilities. European musicians and programmers pushed the chip to its limits, making the C64 audio one of its bigger selling points, whereas in the U.S. (and afaik also in Australia) there was a scene of people that were satisfactory with "cheap ragtime piano" sounds as Ric Moore put it in this thread. One could say that outside Europe the definition of "C64 music" was *very* different. That is also still visible in Internet archives of such music files. Nowadays one is better of with real-music remixes of C64 compositions: http://remix.kwed.org/index.php?page=1&chart=alltime&view=rating&search= and related sites such as http://remix64.com and http://c64audio.com
