Razmo

Thanx Jaicen :) Here's another little demo of a patch I'm working on using sync... Yep!... SID goes Blade style! 8) http://media.putfile.com/Sync-Lead-Demo Regards , Jess.

Here is a little demo to illustrate what I'm talking about... PLease bear in mind that it's played live! ;D http://media.putfile.com/Arpeggiator-Demo Regards, Jess.

Hi js! :) I've been asking TK about the rate of the arp also, but he told me it would be hard to implement lower rates. Also, the "divided time" arp feature now implemented will probably not sound very effective at low rates, because of the alternating speed changes, it's better suited for fast broken chords. In V2, I believe TK will make it switchable between a normal arp. and this new one, so that when you want classic arps, going slower, you can chose the right arp type. The good thing about the new feature is, that it sounds really beutiful also when playing melodies instead of just simple chords... with the old version it was not really useful on other stuff than chords. With this new feature, if you play it right, you get the kind of "thrills" from it, that you do when playing flutes and other wind instruments... REALLY good for renaisance and old times types of melodies... Regards, Jess.

Hi Thorsten... That bloody EG! >:( ...It just keep on giving headaches just because of a counter that does not get reset... man! ::) I don't understand why you would need 9 extra bytes for the 3 ramp EGs if you just reuse the ADSR registers when the ramp feature has been switched on? The SIDs 3 ADSR envelopes need to be set to 0,0,-,0 for this feature to work, you don't need to be able to set the ADSR registers from the users side anymore when the ramp feature is on!?... Is it because you need extra bytes for counters or something? surely they can reside in another space in memory than 100-1ff? ... well, I don't know the nature of your engine, just wondering :) Regards, Jess.

And in addition to my last post: The three exstra EGs need not really be EGs... They can be simple ramps having only two parameters: Rate and Curve. If you have trouble squeezing more parameters into teh current V1, you could in fact use the parameters already there for the osc. ADSR. Then you need only three flag bits for it to work: when a flag is set you simply set the ADSR to 0,0,15,0 when a note is triggered. You can then use the ADSR parameters in this fashion: ATK = ? (not needed really) DCY = Ramp Decay Rate SUS = Ramp Sustain Level REL = Ramp Decay Curve I know that it will require a bit of effort on your behalf to make three ramp EGs, but I really think it would be handy if you did this feature. Drumsounds would be awesome using this, and also bass sounds and lead sounds will be much better with this feature. Those sounds often do not require an attack or release phase. Regards, Jess.

Hi Thorsten.. Yes... I don't think that resetting the SID is a good idear when thinking about it. Also, I'm giving up on trying to work around that EG bug... It seems impossibe... I'd go for the simple delay method of 33ms. instead... maybe this can be incorporated into the DELAY parameter that is already present for every oscillator? Will the delay parameter be able to deliver a setting that delay the triggering for just 33ms? If I understand you correctly, you want to reset the ADSR to 0 at note-on exactly, and then wait the time you set in the DELAY parameter (for each osc individually) and then trigger the sound right? This way I find to be the best solution when no work around can be done. Also, I've learned so much about the bug now, that I can utilize the ADSR more efficiently because some settings work better than others. I still though feel that you should implement the ability to route an envelope to the sustain parameter, as this would make a VERY useful tool when it comes to drumsound programming. I know that it will sacrifice the attack and release phase, but we do not need that with drumsounds, we need only a snappy attack and a controllable decay. It's just a matter of setting the ADSR to 0,0,15,0 and routing an EG to the sustain parameter. I know that you would have to make three dedicated EGs for this to work, but I really think it's worth the trouble. Regards, Jess.

As I currently see it, there is NO WAY around this bug, without waiting for the envelopes to reach the end. and to insure this you will have to: 1. Wait for MIDI note on and then: 2. Clear ADSR registers. 3. Wait for 32ms. 4. Trigger the note. This should work, but will introduce a 32ms. latency when using this method. It is anyway a crucial option for the MBSID, and the latency can be compensated for in the sequencer. It's feel a bit sluggish when you play live, but if you could just switch the 32ms delay on/off fast, then It will not be that bad. Jess.

Hi Thorsten! That explains EVERYTHING! ... I understand the bug fully now, and it's quite hard to get around it. What has been revealed actually means that the delay bug (rate_counter wrap) may be present at every phase transition of the EG, UNLESS the EG rates stay the same (in ms) from one transition to the next (i.e. Decay is the same as the release rate in ms). It's worth noting that the attack rates differ VERY MUCH if you look at the table in the SID datasheets. In fact only two settings is shared by all rate registers, wich is 24ms and 3s! ... this should make the "famous" 0,0,15,0 setting of the ADSR to also be bugged (attack is 2ms, decay/release is 6ms!), but somehow this is NOT the case... I believe the reason for this is that when the EG is in either SUSTAIN or END OF RELEASE mode, the rate_counter is ZERO! and held there untill the GATE bit is toggled either off or on (in fact a text by yannes clearly states that the clocking of the EG is STOPPED while in sustain mode! I bet this is the same with END OF RELEASE), and thus the rate_counter will NOT wrap when the attack phase is again triggered since the rate_counter will begin counting again from ZERO preventing a counter wrap. The fast release rate of 6ms will insure that the EG has reached it's end before you can press another key on the keyboard if a key is released before retriggering a note, and if played legato, the counter will be at ZERO because of the sustain phase... it makes total sence! I don't know yet if you can do any tricks to work around this, but I'll be thinking about this a lot... I just don't believe there is any way around it. It IS possible though, to control the LOWERING of the sustain register manually from a PIC EG, controlling the volume this way, and changing the decay rate on this technique will make some sort of "interpolation lag" when the decay rate is raised as it then tracks the sustain level more slowly. Making a release-phase would be a bit of work though... I do not feel that the release phase is as important as the decay phase though, and Id like to see how well i works if you control the sustain level from an EG this way. Also knowing how the bug works now, makes it easier to program the envelope since some settings make the bug more pronounced. Regards, Jess.

Hi! Nebula: Yes! It sounds very different from the 6581... The 6581's resonance is not really resonance but rather distorted feedback because of the fact that the 6581 was never fully developped before they took it into use (Yannes had only a couple of months to develop it)... The 8580 has corrected the filter bugs, and it was also made tunable in the same fashion as the frequency registers (which means that the register values change the cutoff in a logarithmic fashion... the 6581 was linear... wich is why the 8580 sounds thin on a C64) The 6582A sound very much the same as the 8580... is also 9volts (not 12v as 6581), and controls the filter just like the 8580... there are subtle differencies on the lowpass filter, but the main difference is within the bandpass and hipass filters... they sound very different than both 8580 and 6581. I'll post more comparisons between 8580 and 6582A later... Regards, Jess.

Hi! Ganchan: Yes! something like that though my revisions have other datings: 6581 R1/R2 (83,84) I've still to find an 82 SID :'( 6581 R3 (85,86) 6581 R4 (86) 6581 R4AR (90) 6582A (92) 8580R5 (88,89,89,90,91,91,92) Can see that I'm not the only C64 canibalizer! :-X Wilba: It's absolutely worth a try if the resetting I recently came up with does not work, in fact that may be the second best way I think. The best solution would be that the envelope works like it should, and if the resetting of Decay and Release works, then that should be it. But I like the idear of the decay control... Thorsten could try it out I guess. You are not rambling by the way! any possible solution should be tried out!!! :D Regards, Jess.

Hi Stryd! :) Well, thank you for the care :D ... Guess we are just a two guys with a passion for the SID... I had my first musical inspiration back then in 1986 listening to the SID (so much my mother often had to scream her lungs out for me to turn down the volume ;D). It means a lot to me this SID chip, and it has always been my dream to play it like a real synth... then came the SID Station... I bought it... and was disappointed because it did not support the 8580, ... I even tried to pursuade Elektron into making a mod for it... wich they would not... so I'm stubborn and decided that when noone wanted to do it for me, I'd do it myself, and I started researching electronics on the net (had no experience)... and made my own... but as told in an earlier post, Thorsten obviously saw this, and contacted me informing me about the MBSID, which I rapidly accepted! :) .. but... stubborn as I am, wanting my own features, I gave some idears to Thorsten, and now we work together by me giving idears and such... wich hopefully will be to everyones advantage ;) My sole goal with the MBSID is very simple: Prove that SID can kick some serious pro-gear butt! ... do it's own special sound no other gear can (wavetables etc.) and lastly, for remixing good old C64 songs for the RKO pulling nostalgica into the remixing. My goal at remixing would certainly be a remix made with nothing but the SID in such a way that no-one will guess it's actually the SID chip!.. I believe it's possible 8) My dream SID synth would be (MBSID V2) with these SIDs: 1. 6581 R1 2. 6581 R2 3. 6581 R3 4. 6581 R4 5. 6581 R4AR 6. 6582A 7. 8580R5 8. 8580R5 just imagine these being played monophonically, remixing some of hubbards old hits, bringing in all the generations of SID! :P That'd be awesome nostalgica! ... got the chips allready 8) Regards, Jess.

Hi again ... :) First I'd like to say, that the only effects used on the demo is a simple stereo delay... nothing else... forgot to mention that :-[ I believe that no machines hold the 6582 at all. They are a small batch of chips that I believe was meant for the C65 that never went beyond proto-type state. They can be found in small stock on broker-sites though (if any left anymore)... I've seen them there, but have to be bought in large quantities. I would say it's not worth the trouble... It's too close to the 8580 I'd say.. only the HP/BP filter differs greatly. I am just lucky to have one piece of the 6582A chip, and wanted to see I f there was any difference to the 8580 SID... At first glance it seemed that they were identical, but by looking more closely at the LP filter, there are a very subtle difference... hardly noticeable... but when I switched to the two other types of filters the difference became much more obvious... The sound of the 6582 is much more "thin" as can be heard on the demo. In fact I like that "reed'ish" sound it gives, and I'm going to experiment a little more with it these days. And to the question about reproducing this sound on the 6581... just not possible... The 6581 has a very different filter, and the resonance that is almost non-present on the 6581 is used at full settings in the demos, so bad luck!... the 6581 excels at other fields ;) I do though have SIDs of both revision 1, 2, 3, 4, 4AR of the 6581, so I could do some tests one day, but unfortunately I've made my MBSID for 9volts 8580/6582 so It will not be right away :-\ Here are an 8580R5 Demo I made with a few of my newly created patches... they will be available when I finish a 128 patch bank :) Hope you like em'... please remember that I played live, so If it's not tight enough for you... too bad! ;D also I've used a delay effect on top... that's all!... rest is pure SID. http://media.putfile.com/SID-8580R5-Demo Regards, Jess.

... if you want to, then check out these MP3's I made using the same patch playing on both 6582A and 8580R5 SID chips. The major difference in the 6582A lies in the Bandpass and Hipass filters. The demo plays a combination of both lowpass and bandpass. So the conclusion is, that there ARE differences between the two chips... http://media.putfile.com/8580R5_BandPassFilter_Demo http://media.putfile.com/6582A_BandPassFilter_Demo Regards, Jess.

I believe Thorsten will stick to it ;D ... I asked about hardware changes/additions and got the evil e-mail eye from him ;D (sorry Thorsten... Exageration gives better understanding ;D)... Oh and by the way, now that I'm cramping in my wrists from writing about EGs and such :-\: The option to reset the SID will still give one major benefit: The EG can be switchable between two modes using this. If the reset line is used, the EG is reset enough so that it will not continue from the last value it had... The SIDs EG works in a way, that if the release is long, and has not died out yet when a new triggering of the EG is done, than it just start the attack phase from the value it already has. This is impossible to get around in a normal usage of the SID, but the resetting of the reset line will allow this since the last used value will be reset to 0. just tested it... it works. Regards, Jess.

You also mentioned something about the JCH player resetting the EG registers before triggering the note, and waiting 20ms... I think this is the same solution, but on the C64 the delay time of 20ms is probably because they wait 1 or 2 raster-screens as this is convenient and of no importance because it's a player... with MIDI realtime playing 20ms is too much (in fact I measured the delay to have to be 33ms!?) ... but I believe that a 0.002 or 0.003 ms delay is actually enough since my measurements in soundforge clearly shows that the attack/release phases with a setting of 0 in the registers last for roughly 0.002ms. so in general, the EG bug is present all the time, and also with ADSR settings of 0,0,15,0 ... the rate of 0 in decay and release is just so fast, that it will have reset the counter because you cannot press two notes en sequence in under 0.004 seconds! :) I also remember that Yannes chose the EG rates and put them in a lookup table, and actually chose the values copying the rates from another synthesizer... I read that somewhere in an interview with yannes. Regards, Jess.

Hi Thorsten! Today I've been looking deeply into the workings of SIDs envelope and it's bug, and I believe I think I know the cause of it technically. I did a series of tests to try and find out what happens, and this is what I found out: We know, that if the envelope is set to 0,0,15,0, that no problems exist. In fact, this is wrong! ... You can mess about with the Attack parameter as much as you'd like, as long as the decay and release rates remain 0. In fact you can also set the sustain parameter to any value you want, and still no problem uccurs, the envelope is NOT delayed. This way we learn, that we can actually set the relative volumes of the oscillators by setting the sustain parameter to what ever value we want... it works! no delay on the envelope triggering. The problem begins when other values but 0 are present in either the decay or release parameter. Even if you only raise the decay value, the envelope bug sets in, and it's easy to hear! try and make a simple oscillator playing a pulse waveform, and set the envelope to 0,1,15,0... when you press a low key you will hear the tone... now hold the key down, while you press a high key... now release/press the high key repeatedly so that the tone alternates between low and high note... you will now hear the envelope abruptly cut off the notes but if you listen carefully, you can hear the note that is cut off VERY briefly!... It lasts for about 33ms... you can also hear that ALL OTHER PARAMETERS that are changed with the cut note (pitch, phase reset, waveform etc.) is correctly an instantly changed to the new notes values... it's simply and only the envelope that reach the release phase 33ms later than it should. Now I've been thinking about what could be the cause of this reaction... I bet that the SID has some sort of decreasing counter, and a simple comparator that compares the counter value to the sustain value (during the decay phase), and against a set "release-end" value for clearing the counter again after the release phase has ended. The decrease of the envelope can be viewed in a waveform-recording of the SID (e.g. soundforge), and can be seen to be clearly logarithmic in nature giving it a good "thump" (like the curve parameter)... I therefore asume, that the EGs output values that SID compares it's sustain/release-off values to, is logarithmic, and if this is so, it probably takes quite some time for the EG values to reach 0 because of it's logarithmic nature (never really reaching 0), so I bet that if the counter is below a certain value, then the counter will be reset as if the end of the release phase has been reached... this could explain why the 6581s oscillators was still sounding when the envelope had reached it's end if the "0" end value was set too high... maybe this "off-value" that is compared to has been lowered on the 8580 (if you pump up the volume on an 8580 you CAN actually hear the oscillators running!!! in fact I believe that the bug was never fixed!... I believe that many registers in the 8580 was made logarithmic like e.g. the filter cutoff, and I believe that also the volume register of 8580 is logarithmic! ... this explains the lower running of the oscillators! ... after using the new ENV2->vol I noted that the volume gets MUCH lower in the low range of the register... because it's also logarithmic on the 8580!) If what I wrote above is true, then this also explains why the envelope is delayed on a new note, because if the counter never really reached the "envelope off" value compared to, then it has probably not been reset meaning that when the gate bit is set again, the envelope continues from it's former position reaching for "0" and then reset the counter, and voila! the envelope begins again... also this will explain why different release rates give different delays... simply because a longer release rate takes longer to reach that "0" value compared for, which also explains why a resetting of the ADSR to 0 will make that delay equal under all settings of the release/decay registers... If all this is correct, then we can see that the release phase is running, when the gate bit is off... meaning that as soon as the gate bit is triggered, that envelope starts over with the counter in what ever value it was left in, if it did not reach "0". We have to make sure that the counter reach that "0" as fast as possible right before triggering the gate bit! ... so my suggestion would be to do the following: 1. MIDI note on recieved: 2. Set ADSR registers to 0s (this will make the EG begin counting down as fast as possible) 3. Wait for the EG to reach the "0" counter value, so that the counter will be reset properly (this will be rather fast and approx: 0.002ms!!!). 4. Set and initialize the new ADSR values and other regs. 5. Trigger the gate bit (if this is done too fast after the ADSR was set to 0s, the EG may not yet have reached the "0" counter value, and the counter will not have reset, resulting in the EG bug) I REALLY think you should try this out Thorsten!... I'm beginning to believe it might actually work, and if it does, the envelope bug will have seen it's own demise! :o Regards, Jess.

In addition to my last post: Also, I think that was is so cool about the SID is that something that was build in 82, can perform so well... we like the SID so much we want it to "learn new tricks"... but old dogs can't do new tricks. The SID is what it is, and the goal of many a SID programmer on C64 was to squeeze as much out of it as one can, by tweaking it's parameters... and I think, that this is what should be done too with the MB-SID. Lets see how much we can perform with this one chip alone... though I believe we have good ol' SID on steroids already! ;D Regards, Jess.

Hi Stryd... I think that making an external VCA would be a nice thing... but on the other hand, one should be careful not to jump too far off the original SID... Afterall we are talking nostalgica here, and putting something extra on it would make it... ermm... NOT SID anymore, but rather a hybrid of sorts. It would "cure" the envelope bug though... I'm just wondering what it is we REALLY like about the SID? ... Is it the sound engine?... The filter? .. It's "stubborness" and quirkyness? ... I think it's all of it in one good blend. Anyway, another thing that I've thought about would be to make a good combination of PIC and SID... I believe that one of the things that are hardest to reproduce of the SID is of course the filter. The rest of the digital logic has been duplicated fairly well on emulators, and if those emulators just had the real analog filter, maybe it would be much more accurate. Therefore I'm wondering, if it would be possible to reverse engineer the digital parts of SID, and then redo this in PIC code... Make a conversion into analog, and feed the external input of a real SID chip, to get that special SID filter. What this would give us is the ability to cure all the associated bugs of both 6581 and 8580. No envelope bugs, No standing waves on 6581. It is certainly possible to do it, it's just a matter of feeding the external filter input. On top of this, new enhancements could be done too to make new sounds... The question is if the PIC can handle it... but it's a nice thought though :P Regards, Jess.

Hi again everyone. Davo: Yes! the SID drums should be there, and is made using the wavetable, changing the waveforms rapidly... this was just an experiment to do it the "right way" :) Thorsten: I've checked out the new reset feature, and it works alright... I stumbled on some thing that are not so good, but I remember having the same probs when I did my own synth back then... Whenever the SIDs envelopes are used with other settingsg than 0,0,15,0, the sound will get a bit af soft attack to it... I don't think there is any way around this, which is pretty bad when it comes to drum synthesizing. The envelopes don't "hickup" anymore though which is a great improvement! ... The worst attack problems will drop in when the release value is higher... I guess that the main problem with the env.bug is with the release phase obviously, but why this is not reset when even reseting the hardware reset line of SID, well... don't ask me! :-\ Have you tried to clear all envelope registers prior to toggling the reset line also? maybe even clearing the control register also... I don't know... have to try everything... SID is quirky! ::) Nonetheless; the feature open up a lot of new potential, so I wote it to be there 8) Regards, Jess.

Hi Thorsten! :) Typpical!... That SID seems to be a stubborn son of a Yannes! :-\ ... Seems to want it's way, not giving in... guess it likes it's "handicap" somehow ;D I'll look at the things you said later today... It's my child-weekend, so I've got two Critters here who is to be delivered home to their mother in about an hour, so... familly endeavors first ;D Eventually I won't give up on that envelope bug until I find a solution... (don't say I'm not optimistic 8)) Regards, Jess.

Hi Stryd! :) I'm with you here... the snares lack something, but it's already quite alright compared to one oscillator typical SID snaredrums. I think that the reason we are not getting enough punch out of the Snares is that the Phase reset is resetting the phase at 0 degrees where the triangle waveform probably begins at zero... to get a nice "click" it should start one fourth into the waveform where the amplitude of the waveform is at maximum... this is just not possible with the SID, so it'll have to doo as it is... another thing is the noise... it's not that snappy either. I think that maybe by using the square waveform, and then filtering it for the right "thump" might do the trick, since a square waveform start it's phase with max volume... don't know... will try that out. Anyway, using the SID as a drummachine is perhaps a bit overkill.. I don't think I'll be using it in normal compositions because of it's limitations, but I'd use it for stuff that "real drummachines" cannot do, and in particulaer 100% SID compositions that SHOULD utilize only the SID chip. I feel that what is important with a SID synth/drummachine is to be able to get that special sound, that only the SID does... and that IOS sounding cheesy and computerish... after all, if it was to sound just like any other music-machine out there, then why bother using it? in honesty; there are machines out there that are much better suited for that and sound much more professional than the SID I think. Therefore, wavetables should NEVER be omitted just because we realize that more "pro sounds" are possible with the SID... It's just an extra bonus... main goal should always be nostalgica, because that is what SID sound is all about. And yes, using the ringmod may give some extra possibilities... I'll check out on that later today. As said before, drumsounds on V2 should REALLY allow for 3osc sounds! ... that combined with wavetable features would make drums that no other machine can do... and THAT is what I'd be aming at! Regards, Jess.

Hi again Thorsten... I just checked my old MP3s of my SIDsynth... I was right, I did make an MP3 utilizing this hardware reset line feature! :) ... The name of the file reveals it he he! ... I'll be emailing you this MP3 in a few minutes... believe I did send this to you sometime in the past, but in case you erased it, then I'll send it to you again. I also now recall that the drawback ( ::) ) using this trick is that it adds a small "click" to the initiating of a note, but for sounds with instant attack this is not that noticeable, and it WILL reset the envelope timer! ... If this works well as I suspect it will, then percussion sounds will get to whole new dimentions. Regards, Jess.

Hi Thorsten! Well... If the reset line is accesible from your design, all you have to do is to reset the SID to clear all and everything in the SID by togling the reset line off/on, when this has been done I think that you would have to re-write all the SID's registers again before you can trigger the gate bit. I did this trick with my old design, and actually I thin k that I recall that it worked extremely well... It's definitely worth a try! ... IF it works, the envelope bug should be cured :P ... I'm almost sure that I recorded my design using this technique actually... have to check them out... Regards, Jess.

Hi Thorsten! Yes!... maybe it's better to wait with the last bits... I don't know any advantage to increased frequency clocking to justify it... The envelopes of SID will get faster, but they don't function well anyway so why bother!? One thing though is that times calculated for the delay to properly work the envelopes will shorten I guess... so a smaller latency would be possible maybe. Actually I think I made some test back then with my own design, where I actually toggle the reset-line of SID to simply reset the whole SID chip before starting a new note... I believe it worked quite alright, but this would require you to have direct access to the reset pin of SID from the PIC to be done... don't know if you have implemented that in your design (?). Regards, Jess.

Hi Jaicen! :) Yes!... the snares are quite analogue in nature, and yes, the noise is also the problem I had... I'd like the noise to be a bit more filtered... hipassed to be exact... on the second demo, the end tail is more like white noise... the problem is, that I want to make the drums without using the SIDs own envelopes because of the envelope bug. The first snare demo uses both the BP and HP filters to thin out the noise over time... this is why the sound is "Swooshy" in nature... The second demo has the Noise routed around the filter, so that I could get a good "thump" from the triangle waveforms... to do this I used the LP filter since it will smoth out the triangle waveform and make a volume decay because of the LP filter damping frequencies... this works very well, but makes it impossible to thin out the noise... and as I do not use the SID envelope on the noise, the only way I could get a decay on it was to route ENV2 to the volume register, but that worked alright actually, though I would have liked the noise filtered... I'm going to check on another way to do the "thump" so that the HP/BP filter can be used on the noise instead. Man! I'd really like to shwed some light on that silly envelope bug of the SID!!! ... It's pretty darn annoying! ... Wish to find a solution to it ::) ... In fact I read that speeding of the clock frequency of the SID chip also speeds up everything in the chip (pitch, envelope times etc.)... This basically means that if you clock the sid at 4Mhz (this IS possible with the PIC!) you should get some new features... max frequency would be higher, and envelope speeds would be much faster... I actually did this on my own SID synth I once did, and it worked fine! ... I'm wondering if this could help minimize the envelope bug somehow... I'm also wondering if the noise would get brighter (thinner) if the frequency is heightened this way... Hey! a new feature for V2 Thorsten! ... different clockings in the engine! ... 1, 2 and 4MHz ... it should work with all 8580s and those 6581 marked with an "S" i believe... Regards, Jess.