| The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208883] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 03:57  |
|
|
Originally posted by: nontelo
I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
their silly musical hardware.
I think there's absolutely no point in using a real 6581/8580 in such
devices, as they are mostly intended to make new music, rather than
playing tunes made on C64, which may sound incorrect on emulators. If
you really want to make SID music without a Commodore 64, why don't
you just use some hardware or software emulator? A software emulator
can emulate as many SIDs as you need and cost you nothing. Both kinds
are configurable, more flexible and have better signal-to-noise
ratios. They might not be 100% accurate, i.e. not sounding EXACTLY
like a real SID, so WHAT?
You may do whatever you want with your stuff, but let me tell you: if
you destroy a working C64 just to take its SID and make some farts,
then you're up to something really sad.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208884 is a reply to message #208883] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 04:11  |
davidmylastname
Messages: 48
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
TSM <nontelo@dico.no> wrote:
> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
> and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
> their silly musical hardware.
I bought new-old-stock SIDs for my musical toys.
--
David Griffith
davidmylastname@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208885 is a reply to message #208883] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 05:24 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TSM wrote:
> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
> and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
> their silly musical hardware.
Taking the SID out of a C64 doesn't break the C64, it just means it loses
it's voice. People often ebay these C64's and you can pick them up cheap.
When someone does finally develop a drop in replacement, there should be
plenty of C64's around to take advantage.
> I think there's absolutely no point in using a real 6581/8580 in such
> devices, as they are mostly intended to make new music, rather than
> playing tunes made on C64, which may sound incorrect on emulators. If
> you really want to make SID music without a Commodore 64, why don't
> you just use some hardware or software emulator?
Because every SID is pretty much unique.
A software emulator
> can emulate as many SIDs as you need and cost you nothing. Both kinds
> are configurable, more flexible and have better signal-to-noise
> ratios. They might not be 100% accurate, i.e. not sounding EXACTLY
> like a real SID, so WHAT?
The SID as a musical instrument is quite unique and flexible. Inside the C64
you're not going to get the best out of it in terms of sound quality
(quality which is pretty poor on a stock C64).
> You may do whatever you want with your stuff, but let me tell you: if
> you destroy a working C64 just to take its SID and make some farts,
> then you're up to something really sad.
On the other hand there are hundreds of thousands of unused C64's sitting
around gathering dust, and sooner or later bit-rot is going to get them too
even if they're never switched on. Why not put them to some good use even if
it means cannibalising them?
As for the use of SID's in new music, that is subjective as to whether you
like it or not. To each their own.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208887 is a reply to message #208883] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 12:06 |
christianlott1
Messages: 1852
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jul 29, 2:57 am, nont...@dico.no (TSM) wrote:
> You may do whatever you want with your stuff, but let me tell you: if
> you destroy a working C64 just to take its SID and make some farts,
> then you're up to something really sad.
I agree.
I think the challenge is to create something beautiful w/ the machine
as-is. If you're so obsessed w/ the sound and can't see the combined
beauty of the complete C64, it IS really sad.
Even if you're an excellent musician, learn to program animation, game
play and how to create beautiful pictures w/ the VIC. Make something
cohesive, be a Renaissance man and try to master more than just one
thing - because in the end it will make all your other talents shine
even more.
As for 'drop in replacements' for SID chips, I think it should be
those who want to use the SID outside the C64 who should be waiting
for and buying such hw when it's created.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208889 is a reply to message #208885] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 13:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: nontelo
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
> Taking the SID out of a C64 doesn't break the C64, it just means it loses
> it's voice.
Not just that: you can't use paddles nor proportional mice anymore.
Yes, I know it will still work, but what's a C64 without its SID?
> People often ebay these C64's and you can pick them up cheap.
> When someone does finally develop a drop in replacement, there should be
> plenty of C64's around to take advantage.
Drop in replacements already exist, but their use makes much more
sense outside the C64. As I already said, I think people wanting to
make music without a 64 should be perfectly happy with a replacement,
as it doesn't have to be 100% identical to a real SID, including its
bugs and all. On the other hand, if you own a C64, you probably want
to listen to sid-tunes the way they are intended to be.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208890 is a reply to message #208884] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 14:55 |
Martin Wohlauer
Messages: 39
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Am 29.07.2011 10:11, schrieb David Griffith:
> TSM <nontelo@dico.no> wrote:
>> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
>> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
>> and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
>> their silly musical hardware.
>
> I bought new-old-stock SIDs for my musical toys.
Where from? Maybe that's interesting for others.
Greetings.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208891 is a reply to message #208885] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 14:57 |
Martin Wohlauer
Messages: 39
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Am 29.07.2011 11:24, schrieb Clocky:
> TSM wrote:
>> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
>> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
>> and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
>> their silly musical hardware.
>
> Taking the SID out of a C64 doesn't break the C64, it just means it loses
> it's voice. People often ebay these C64's and you can pick them up cheap.
> When someone does finally develop a drop in replacement, there should be
> plenty of C64's around to take advantage.
I haven't tried it yet, but how about the SwinSID?
http://www.swinkels.tvtom.pl/swinsid
Greetings.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208892 is a reply to message #208885] |
Fri, 29 July 2011 21:15 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Clocky wrote on 29. July 2011:
>
> TSM wrote:
>> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
>> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
>> and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
>> their silly musical hardware.
>
> Taking the SID out of a C64 doesn't break the C64, it just means it loses
> it's voice.
You would "handicap" it.
I say a C64 is *one* *piece*, even though I know there are several
components (VICII, CIAs, VIAs...) in it.
It should stay in one piece. It's not an organ donor.
I agree though if hardware is broken and it makes no sense to repair it,
then let it be a donor.
--
Andreas
My Commodore 64 classic game music page at
http://www.ankman.de/commodore-64-sid-music/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208895 is a reply to message #208883] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 04:09 |
Ian McCall
Messages: 153
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TSM <nontelo@dico.no> wrote:
> ...people need SIDs to put in their silly musical hardware.
Reveals a fair amount of bias there. The primary reason I'm still
interested in C64s is the music side of things. I'm never going to
reprogram the disk handling, upgrade to a new kernal, try to push the
machine into the modern world (well, beyond connecting a flash adapter) but
I -do- listen to SID tracks.
I use SID emulation in a lot of what I write - QuadraSID is my instrument
here. For a long time I wanted a SIDstation but they're no longer made,
which is a damned shame.
I mostly agree with you - if there's a working C64 don't kill it for the
SID. It's more the 'silly' I'm quibbling with: for some of us, that's our
primary interest.
Cheers,
Ian
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208896 is a reply to message #208890] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 04:10 |
davidmylastname
Messages: 48
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Martin Wohlauer <mwohlauer@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Am 29.07.2011 10:11, schrieb David Griffith:
>> TSM <nontelo@dico.no> wrote:
>>> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
>>> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being butchered
>>> and rendered useless all the time, because people need SIDs to put in
>>> their silly musical hardware.
>>
>> I bought new-old-stock SIDs for my musical toys.
> Where from? Maybe that's interesting for others.
The sources seem to be exhausted now. I got mine through a group buy at
midibox.org. As someone else suggested, the SwinSID project is a very
good imitation and should fool most people. They work very well as
drop-ins to midibox synths. Someone else suggested reverse-engineering
the SID. I brought that up too at midibox. I suppose an effort could
be funded to do that, but another line of thought put forth was to
design a new analogue chip based on the SID specs. That might be
cheaper overall.
--
David Griffith
davidmylastname@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208897 is a reply to message #208892] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 06:12 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Clocky wrote on 29. July 2011:
>>
>> TSM wrote:
>>> I know, people can do what they want with their stuff. But there's a
>>> really sad thing going on: perfectly working C64's are being
>>> butchered and rendered useless all the time, because people need
>>> SIDs to put in their silly musical hardware.
>>
>> Taking the SID out of a C64 doesn't break the C64, it just means it
>> loses it's voice.
>
> You would "handicap" it.
>
> I say a C64 is *one* *piece*, even though I know there are several
> components (VICII, CIAs, VIAs...) in it.
>
> It should stay in one piece. It's not an organ donor.
What is the point of having hundreds of thousands of C64's slowly dying of
bit rot?
Put them to use!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208898 is a reply to message #208895] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 06:15 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ian McCall wrote:
> TSM <nontelo@dico.no> wrote:
>> ...people need SIDs to put in their silly musical hardware.
>
> Reveals a fair amount of bias there. The primary reason I'm still
> interested in C64s is the music side of things. I'm never going to
> reprogram the disk handling, upgrade to a new kernal, try to push the
> machine into the modern world (well, beyond connecting a flash
> adapter) but I -do- listen to SID tracks.
>
> I use SID emulation in a lot of what I write - QuadraSID is my
> instrument here. For a long time I wanted a SIDstation but they're no
> longer made, which is a damned shame.
>
> I mostly agree with you - if there's a working C64 don't kill it for
> the SID. It's more the 'silly' I'm quibbling with: for some of us,
> that's our primary interest.
>
I find it odd that some consider the sounds made by SID in modern music as
"silly" when they're happily listening to "silly" SID music on a real C64.
If it's silly, they're both equally silly.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208900 is a reply to message #208885] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 07:56 |
|
|
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith6079
On Jul 29, 5:24 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> When someone does finally develop a drop in replacement, there should be
> plenty of C64's around to take advantage.
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the SID chip has
already been developed. So wouldn't it be great if someone just made
new SIDs, identical to the old SIDs and then sold them so that C64s
won't have to be cannibalized? I'd imagine that such chips wouldn't
be all godawful expensive for anyone to buy....
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208903 is a reply to message #208900] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 10:05 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:24 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>> When someone does finally develop a drop in replacement, there
>> should be plenty of C64's around to take advantage.
>
> Well correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the SID chip has
> already been developed. So wouldn't it be great if someone just made
> new SIDs, identical to the old SIDs and then sold them so that C64s
> won't have to be cannibalized? I'd imagine that such chips wouldn't
> be all godawful expensive for anyone to buy....
I doubt the filters will ever be properly emulated, and that is one of the
main attractions of the real SID to musicians if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208908 is a reply to message #208895] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 17:58 |
|
|
Originally posted by: nontelo
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
> It's more the 'silly' I'm quibbling with: for some of us, that's our
> primary interest.
Of course I don't think SID music is silly in itself. I greatly
appreciate it and I also make some tunes now and then.
But those musical instruments that rely on a real SID (sometimes more)
to work, are very silly in my opinion. Some of them will take up to 4
SIDs in them. Most of the time, this means butchering 4 Commodore
64's. We often discuss about the difficulties in SID emulation, which
is mainly due to every chip being different from the others,
especially the filter section. Well, this is a reason not to use real
SIDs in new hardware, as are the well known limitations and bugs.
For long, talented programmers and hardware designers have been making
huge efforts towards emulation accuracy. I think we all appreciate
this. But in my opinion, a chip that really would suit a modern
SID-like synthesizer should have a superset of the SID's capabilites,
consistency, no bugs and a thorough documentation. It should have many
voices, many independent filters, no need for hard-restart techniques
and the usual waveforms that made the SID famous. I don't understand
why it has to be a real SID or a 101% accurate replacement. If you
want to make new music and you're not going to play it on a C64, then
consistency is what you're looking for, not accuracy. You want to be
able to predict the hardware's behavior, in order to have control over
it. Why stick to a flawed, rushed out, fragile, hard to get,
inconsistent piece of hardware for a new design? Why dismantle
perfectly working computers to achieve this? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208909 is a reply to message #208908] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 19:28 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TSM" <nontelo@dico.no> wrote in message
news:4e346c15.1129000@nntp.aioe.org...
> Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
>> It's more the 'silly' I'm quibbling with: for some of us, that's our
>> primary interest.
>
> Of course I don't think SID music is silly in itself. I greatly
> appreciate it and I also make some tunes now and then.
> But those musical instruments that rely on a real SID (sometimes more)
> to work, are very silly in my opinion. Some of them will take up to 4
> SIDs in them. Most of the time, this means butchering 4 Commodore
> 64's. We often discuss about the difficulties in SID emulation, which
> is mainly due to every chip being different from the others,
> especially the filter section. Well, this is a reason not to use real
> SIDs in new hardware, as are the well known limitations and bugs.
> For long, talented programmers and hardware designers have been making
> huge efforts towards emulation accuracy. I think we all appreciate
> this. But in my opinion, a chip that really would suit a modern
> SID-like synthesizer should have a superset of the SID's capabilites,
> consistency, no bugs and a thorough documentation. It should have many
> voices, many independent filters, no need for hard-restart techniques
> and the usual waveforms that made the SID famous. I don't understand
> why it has to be a real SID or a 101% accurate replacement. If you
> want to make new music and you're not going to play it on a C64, then
> consistency is what you're looking for, not accuracy. You want to be
> able to predict the hardware's behavior, in order to have control over
> it. Why stick to a flawed, rushed out, fragile, hard to get,
> inconsistent piece of hardware for a new design? Why dismantle
> perfectly working computers to achieve this? I don't get it.
Because the perfectly working computers are not being used to do what they
are designed to do, that is compute. They are laying around in the many
hundreds of thousands not being used and dying anyway.
Real SID's are more likely to die in a C64 than the newer products that can
make use of them due to C='s aging and poorly filtered power supplies and
inadequate cooling.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208910 is a reply to message #208908] |
Sat, 30 July 2011 21:53 |
Tom Lake
Messages: 450
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
But in my opinion, a chip that really would suit a modern
SID-like synthesizer should have a superset of the SID's capabilites,
consistency, no bugs and a thorough documentation.
Be careful not to eliminate bugs that old-time programmers
may have gotten used to exploiting!
Tom L
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208915 is a reply to message #208910] |
Sun, 31 July 2011 03:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: nontelo
"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Be careful not to eliminate bugs that old-time programmers
> may have gotten used to exploiting!
I am. Those are essential inside a C64, because there are many
productions that rely on them while many others are just affected from
bugs and would sound wrong without them. On the other hand, should a
synthesizer be based on bug exploitation? Are those bugs used at all
in these SID-based devices? I'm not sure, but I don't remember any
"useful" bugs other than the one used to play digis but there are
infinitely better ways to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208936 is a reply to message #208900] |
Sun, 31 July 2011 15:32 |
Ingo Korb
Messages: 54
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
WinstonSmith6079 <winstonsmith6079@gmail.com> writes:
> Well correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the SID chip has
> already been developed. So wouldn't it be great if someone just made
> new SIDs, identical to the old SIDs and then sold them so that C64s
> won't have to be cannibalized? I'd imagine that such chips wouldn't
> be all godawful expensive for anyone to buy....
So, you've got a semiconductor factory somewhere that is still capable
of running an NMOS process with roughly 1µm geometries and process
parameters that are similiar to the ones used by MOS[1]?
-ik
[1] The MOS process parameters are not known - that means that for
example you can tell from the SID die shots on the net that some feature
is a resistor, but not what value it has. Some parts of the SID seem to
be quite sensitive to changes in process parameters as evidenced by
slightly different sounds from SIDs of the same revision but different
manufacturing dates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208946 is a reply to message #208900] |
Mon, 01 August 2011 10:12 |
Anssi Saari
Messages: 327
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
WinstonSmith6079 <winstonsmith6079@gmail.com> writes:
> So wouldn't it be great if someone just made
> new SIDs, identical to the old SIDs and then sold them so that C64s
> won't have to be cannibalized?
Sure, but even if someone had a 30-year old semiconductor factory in
their barn or something, you'd still need the manufacturing masks and
someone from the old says to run it. As far as I know, the masks are
long lost (or locked away somewhere?) with so much other Commodore
stuff. Likewise, porting the old SID to a modern technology would need
the original paper schematic (which are also lost AFAIK) and probably
a complete redesign. Not to mention lots of money...
The SwinSid is a software solution, a small microprocessor emulates
the SID. This is a realistic way of providing a cheap replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208952 is a reply to message #208909] |
Tue, 02 August 2011 13:37 |
Oge
Messages: 38
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4e3493aa$0$11103$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Real SID's are more likely to die in a C64 than the newer products that
> can make use of them due to C='s aging and poorly filtered power supplies
> and inadequate cooling.
The 9V/12V used for the SID is internally regulated by the C64 so,
theorically, it is one of the chips which will suffer less because of the
cheapy C= Power Supply. I agree about the cooling issues.
Cheers,
Oge
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208953 is a reply to message #208952] |
Tue, 02 August 2011 17:10 |
|
|
Originally posted by: nontelo
"Oge" <oge@nospam.it> wrote:
> The 9V/12V used for the SID is internally regulated by the C64 so,
> theorically, it is one of the chips which will suffer less because of the
> cheapy C= Power Supply. I agree about the cooling issues.
The SID also needs the usual +5V to work.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208958 is a reply to message #208918] |
Tue, 02 August 2011 19:14 |
|
|
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith6079
On Jul 31, 10:48 am, Groepaz <groe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
>> I'd imagine that such chips wouldn't
>> be all godawful expensive for anyone to buy....
>
> your imagination is wrong
So you say, and nothing else--I mean you have nothing "right" to say
at all? If you do, why didn't you say it?
You say "wrong". Well then explain what is "right", eh? What do you
think these message-boards are for? ???
Hey, here's a good one: Why would a SID chip cost more than like 2GB
of DDR2 RAM? 2GB of DDR2 RAM costs less than a paltry $40US (last I
checked). That's not expensive for me! So why is it wrong that a SID
chip wuld be all godawful expensive, like much, much more than $40US?
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208959 is a reply to message #208946] |
Tue, 02 August 2011 19:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith6079
On Aug 1, 10:12 am, Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
Likewise, porting the old SID to a modern technology would need
> the original paper schematic (which are also lost AFAIK)
Really? Woah, that's a shame! I woulda never thought that, that such
schematics would be floating around out there, possibly not even
terribly hard to aquire. But actually, literally lost? Damn! :
( Now that's real, real sad shame! :((
> The SwinSid is a software solution, a small microprocessor emulates
> the SID. This is a realistic way of providing a cheap replacement.
Yeah? I'd like to hear about that hehehehe
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208960 is a reply to message #208947] |
Tue, 02 August 2011 19:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith6079
On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, Marc Nause <marc.na...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread yet: There are people
> working on a model of the SID by analyzing hires images of the chip:
>
> http://visual6502.org/images/pages/Commodore_8580_SID.html
>
> Regards,
> Marc
Hey, now that's nice! Maybe that would put an end to the unnecessary
slaughter of good ol' C64s that we all love and hold dear! hehehehehe
And those people who have C64s just to "collect dust" should be
getting rid of them, such as on eBay (for only one example possible),
and in particular to people who well care for them properly hehehehe
Or at least won't tear out their guts, killing them hehehehe
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208964 is a reply to message #208953] |
Wed, 03 August 2011 04:45 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TSM wrote:
> "Oge" <oge@nospam.it> wrote:
>
>> The 9V/12V used for the SID is internally regulated by the C64 so,
>> theorically, it is one of the chips which will suffer less because
>> of the cheapy C= Power Supply. I agree about the cooling issues.
>
> The SID also needs the usual +5V to work.
And that is the chip-killer.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208965 is a reply to message #208964] |
Wed, 03 August 2011 05:46 |
|
|
Originally posted by: nontelo
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
> TSM wrote:
>> The SID also needs the usual +5V to work.
>
> And that is the chip-killer.
Sure, if you use the old C= brick. No one should use it anymore.
Heavy-duty REU PSUs and C128 PSUs are much more reliable. Another
solution that worked great for me is a generic (2A minumum) 5VDC
switch-mode PSU combined with an old (1A) 9VDC transformer, the kind
that was used with old PSTN modems. Those are very common and just
need a fuse.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208968 is a reply to message #208958] |
Wed, 03 August 2011 12:28 |
Groepaz
Messages: 640
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
> On Jul 31, 10:48 am, Groepaz <groe...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
>>> I'd imagine that such chips wouldn't
>>> be all godawful expensive for anyone to buy....
>>
>> your imagination is wrong
>
> So you say, and nothing else--I mean you have nothing "right" to say
> at all? If you do, why didn't you say it?
>
> You say "wrong". Well then explain what is "right", eh? What do you
> think these message-boards are for? ???
>
> Hey, here's a good one: Why would a SID chip cost more than like 2GB
> of DDR2 RAM? 2GB of DDR2 RAM costs less than a paltry $40US (last I
> checked). That's not expensive for me! So why is it wrong that a SID
> chip wuld be all godawful expensive, like much, much more than $40US?
because a whole lot more people are buying those drams than there would be
people buying those sid chips, as simple as that. and those drams can be
made in existing factories =)
--
http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net
http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org
-If the Bible proves that God exists, then comic books prove the existence
of Superman.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208972 is a reply to message #208958] |
Thu, 04 August 2011 04:53 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
> On Jul 31, 10:48 am, Groepaz <groe...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
>>> I'd imagine that such chips wouldn't
>>> be all godawful expensive for anyone to buy....
>>
>> your imagination is wrong
>
> So you say, and nothing else--I mean you have nothing "right" to say
> at all? If you do, why didn't you say it?
>
> You say "wrong". Well then explain what is "right", eh? What do you
> think these message-boards are for? ???
>
> Hey, here's a good one: Why would a SID chip cost more than like 2GB
> of DDR2 RAM? 2GB of DDR2 RAM costs less than a paltry $40US (last I
> checked). That's not expensive for me!
That's because they make millions of them and they are simple devices,
unlike the SID which might sell a few thousand and will cost an enormous
amount to reverse engineer.
That has to be recouped.
So why is it wrong that a SID
> chip wuld be all godawful expensive, like much, much more than $40US?
See above. Economies of scale, basically.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208973 is a reply to message #208960] |
Thu, 04 August 2011 04:58 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
WinstonSmith6079 wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, Marc Nause <marc.na...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread yet: There are
>> people working on a model of the SID by analyzing hires images of
>> the chip:
>>
>> http://visual6502.org/images/pages/Commodore_8580_SID.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>
> Hey, now that's nice! Maybe that would put an end to the unnecessary
> slaughter of good ol' C64s that we all love and hold dear! hehehehehe
>
> And those people who have C64s just to "collect dust" should be
> getting rid of them, such as on eBay (for only one example possible),
> and in particular to people who well care for them properly hehehehe
> Or at least won't tear out their guts, killing them hehehehe
I know people who are literally sitting on dozens of C64's, unused and
gathering dust (and probably a good percentage of them doing a slow death
because of environmental factors that affect even stored silicon)
If all unused C64's went on Ebay, there would be a massive oversupply -
there just aren't that many people interested anymore.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The silent slaughter of 64's [message #208974 is a reply to message #208965] |
Thu, 04 August 2011 05:04 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TSM wrote:
> "Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
>
>> TSM wrote:
>
>>> The SID also needs the usual +5V to work.
>>
>> And that is the chip-killer.
>
> Sure, if you use the old C= brick. No one should use it anymore.
99% of people do however. And then the heat will kill them, or environmental
factors, or thermal cycling, or the power-up voltage surge, or they just die
of old age for no particular reason.
> Heavy-duty REU PSUs and C128 PSUs are much more reliable. Another
> solution that worked great for me is a generic (2A minumum) 5VDC
> switch-mode PSU combined with an old (1A) 9VDC transformer, the kind
> that was used with old PSTN modems. Those are very common and just
> need a fuse.
I use an ATX supply for the 5V that I have added a 9V 2A AC transformer
internally (1A isn't enough especially if you use it with a VIC-20). Works a
treat for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
