[sdiy] Old Computers

[Scott Gravenhorst]

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_=D6berg?= <johannes.oberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Anyway, from experience, if you are using an old computer like a 486,
>> >you'll want DMA for the sound. LPT DAC won't sound very good,
>> 
>> Why?
>
>I haven't tried doing exactly what you're suggesting, but it was
>allways a problem with old trackers (Like Scream Tracker 2 that runs
>through a Covox in an old 386 of a friend) that there were all sorts
>of interrupts and stuff going off all the time, so you would get sound
>skips if you used any sound device that had to be fed sample by
>sample. With cache issues and stuff, the same code can take different
>amounts of time to execute from pass to pass.
>
>There are of course ways around this, but it gets more and more
>complicated, especially if you are trying to squeeze out every last
>cycle of an old 486 or something.

This is a bit more than a 486, but not quite a pentium.  
It's an AMD 5x86 running at 133 MHz.
 
>> I plan a DAC update rate of 
>> 44KHz using the built in programmable interrupt timer.  This is a bit
>> faster than the 31.25 KHz of the AVRSYN.
>
>IIRC, you can't make the LPT run faster than 115 kbps, at least not
>the original parallell port. That means 28khz max.

Hmm.  I wasn't aware of that.  I can live with that.  Not optimal, but if
nothing else, it just gives a bit more headroom for the timer ISR.

>> The first cut will be very simple, certainly a mono-synth.  I will
>> build it on a 5x86-133 which would seem to have between 2 and 4 times
>> the power of the AVR used for AVRSYN.
>
>Orangator 2.0 would run on that machine, so it certainly should work!
>
>I'm don't know too much about the AVR, but I would suspect a 133 MHz
>pentium is alot faster than 4 times the AVR with proper programming.

As I wrote above, it's not a pentium, just an AMD 5x86, but it performs
about like a pentium running at 65 MHz.

>Especially since you'll likely will have enough memory to put many
>parts of the synth engine into lookup tables.
> 
>> My OS will be DOS (I know, I know, but I ain't changing), it's
>> something I have and I also have both C and assembler tools for DOS
>> based programs.
>
>I would also recommend DOS or a similiar non-operating-system :-) It's
>the easiest way IMHO, especially regarding documentation, to get
>low-level controll of the PC.
>
>/J
>

---------------------------------------------------------
- Where merit is not rewarded, excellence fades.
- Hydrogen is pointless without solar.
- What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.
- The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
- Governments do nothing well, save collect taxes.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/fatman/
-- NonFatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/electronics/
-- Autodidactic Master of Arcane and Hidden Knowledge.