On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:02:30 +0930, Tim wrote: > Tim: > >>> 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. > > Michael Schwendt: > > 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). > > You're missing my point. "Sound quality" is an entirely different thing > than the quality of the music (composing and arranging skills). It's the sum of it that counts. Some people could do wonders with the audio chip from that era, because in addition to being awesome composers/arrangers they were the few who put all its capabilities (filters, various forms of modulation, time-sharing of multiple instruments on one voice, adding a virtual 4th voice for 4-bit samples) to good effect, which were far beyond the basic/raw sound of the chip. Already simple implementations like pulse modulation or clever use of ring modulation made a big difference in sound quality. > Speaking as someone who is a musician who plays keyboard instruments, > and as someone who works in audio-video production in recording and > post-production, my professional opinion is that the sound quality of > the C64 leaves a lot to be desired (noise, buzz, low-resolution, etc.). Apparently, the SID sound alone is attractive enough even to main-stream music producers like Timbaland.
