From: dcole@ua.d.umn.edu (david cole)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard
Subject: Re: SB16 + Waveblaster > Multisound
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:36:06 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
NNTP-Posting-Host: ua.d.umn.edu

In article <1993Jan12.143125.39904@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> krw1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Kevin Weiner) writes:
>In article <1is50uINN5kh@ua.d.umn.edu>, dcole@ua.d.umn.edu (david cole) writes:
>

[some of my post deleted]
>
>>Thus it appears that the SB16 with this daughtercard will exceed the
>>multisound in total capability because of the addition of SB compatibility
>>and much broader software support.  Street pricing for the combo is likely to
>>be better.
>
>The EMU daughter card used on the SB was the lower grade OEM unit which had
>been offered to Turtle Beach, but rejected in favor of building in a true
>1/XR chip set.  

The only news item I ever saw mentioned only a single chipset, the one from
the Proteus 1/XR.  As far as I know, EMU doesn't have ANY other chipset to
sell.  If so, what product do they use it in??  In any case, point me to the
specs and pricing on the two chipsets....  As I mentioned, the article PC
Week listed the chipset at $75 (which is the HIGHEST I have ever hear of an
audio chipset being sold for), or $200 for the chipset on a fully functional
daughtercard.  Pricing in lots of 10,000.  No mention of a low end chipset.
What is the exact differecne between the two chipsets you mention?



>The SB is also still DMA based for digital I/O, compared to
>the shared device memory used by the MultiSound.  That means, for example,
>that to keep up with 44.1KHz/16-bit stereo using DMA, you'll typically need
>> 33MHz 386, where the MultiSound has been benchmarked at less than 10%
>system overhead even on a 286-16.  You'll also find significant reductions
>in signal to noise ratio, increased harmonic distortion, a much narrower
>frequency response, and less system noise immunity on the SB.  Comparative
>figures will be appearing in several trade publications soon.
>

I find all of this plausible.  The digital IO is excellent on the Multisound
and certianly superior to past Creative Labs products.  I was only thinking
of the synths as appearing comparable.


>The bottom line is that in terms of audio quality and processing
>capabilities, no one has yet built anything in the consumer audio category
>that approaches the MultiSound.  Nor are they likely to in the near future -
>not because they can't, but because there's no reason to incur the extra cost
>of the needed components. 

I don't agree with this at all.  The Roland SCC-1 sounds to ME very much like
the Multisound, EXCEPT that it has built-in effects that the Multisound
lacks.  And I don't know what "extra cost of needed components" you are
talking about.  What components?  Roland, ATI, Orchid, Cardinal, etc. design
their own chips.  They can put as much functionality on a chip as they want.
Robots do the rest.  The SCC-1 has a tiny chip count (compare it to the
full-length LAPC, only three years older).  Turtle Beach may be a fine
companry, but they have been primarily a software company.  They ventured
into the card business buying other peoples' chips.  Their pricing has been
highly artificial.  Comparable synths on a card are out there.  The main
advantage of the Multisound was the digital audio.   The main disadvantage of
the Multisound has been that nobody supports its digital audio (and its
pricing, which moved dramatically overnight).  Success in this market means
the best product in the $100-$300 range.  Roland and Turtle Beach are both
out of the range.  So what will happen is their capability will appear on
products within the range -- because there's no intrinsic reason why it can't
be done, and because that's where the big market is.

>The MS was designed for high-end audio; the rest
>are basically game boards on steroids, and targeted to a different market.
>
>This isn't to say that they aren't cost effective for their intended
>audiences.  The MS isn't for everyone, and I wouldn't recommend it unless
>it's exactly what you're looking for.   The new SB includes MPU UART
>compatibility, base SB compatibility, a CD-ROM interface, and lots of
>software, so it has a good bit to offer.  It's just not reasonable to think
>of it as comparable in terms of overall audio quality.  If you try to be all
>things to all people, something has to give...
>

Why?

-- 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kevin Weiner        Lehigh University Computing Center        (215) 758-3991
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard