From: ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Sound cards - enough!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.155713.2367@seas.gwu.edu> brad@seas.gwu.edu (Bradford J. Crane) writes:
>	Alright, enough is enough about cards. Now that I know the GUS stats,
>I can say a few things:
>
>	1. It sounds better playing recorded music files.
>
>	2. It sounds better playing digitized sound files which use an
>instrument type interface - like .mod files.
>
>	3. It sounds equally good as SBPro in actual digitized music - it can't
>sound better, and don't give me this crap, because the human audio range cuts
>out at 22 khz, so anything above that is equal in sound quality, it could only
>reduce noise slightly..... and don't argue with me on this one - unless you
>have a degree.
>

22 kHz sampling rate means that the card can only reproduce frequencies
up to 11 kHz.  The GUS's 44.1 kHz sampling rate means that its dynamic
range has an upper limit of 22 kHz.  It takes two sampling points to
reproduce a wave, so you have to divide the sampling rate by two to get
the dynamic range.  Also, the GUS's DAC is 16-bit, compared to the SBPro's
8-bit DAC.  With the greater bit-resolution and higher sampling rate, the
GUS does sound very noticeably better than the SBPro. 
 
>	4. SBPro needs ONE card for the sound and MIDI, and I understand GUS
>will require TWO cards, and the MIDI does not exist yet, right? (That is the
>MIDI interface, of course it can play .mid files, and it sounds better, as
>mentioned before.)
>

The GUS, like the SBPro, only needs an adapter that connects to the 
joystick port for a MIDI interface.  It does not require a separate card.

>	5. The card is cheaper than the SBPro, but I doubt the speech sounds
>better UNLESS that is also digitized.
>

The quality of synthesized speech is a function of software, with the 
hardware setting the limits. 
 
>	6. It takes MORE MEMORY to store sound files for the GUS in it's native
>mode, unless you just happen to already have ALL the digitized sounds. That
>is a bad point, but I doubt the digitized sound samples are too big. Of
>course, that would mean superior sound quality.... just like synthesizers which
>use digitized samples to sound almost EXACTLY like the real thing.
>

The GUS *is* a synthesizer that uses "digitized samples to sound almost 
EXACTLY like the real thing."  And since it comes with its own RAM, the 
samples can be offloaded onto the card instead of taking up main memory.
Aside from freeing up memory, the GUS also has a processor to handle
the tedium of wavetable synthesis, freeing up the CPU.  With a card like
the SBPro, the CPU has to spend a lot of time processing samples and
feeding the DAC when playing digital music.

>
>	Now, from this, the GUS is a GREAT card, but, so is the SBPro.......
>each has an advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is that the buying gets
>to choose what he/she favors more: great sound reproduction quality, or ease of
>use and smaller files.....
>

The GUS is way ahead of the SBPro in all areas but one:  SB compatibility.
The GUS is not 100% SB compatible.  About 90% of SB/Adlib software will
run well with the GUS.  The other 10% will either not run or will run
poorly or incorrectly with the GUS.  The Ultrasound is a card with
mind-numbing potential but currently little software support for its
powerful native wavetable (or wavesample) synthesis mode.  

Phat.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games