VOGONS

Common searches


Reply 40 of 44, by Tertz

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Would be interesting to see the sound comparision of this with standard DOSBox's FM emulation. Better in some games to notice the practical imrovement. It's not clear when the significant difference can be noticed.

DOSBox CPU Benchmark
Yamaha YMF7x4 Guide

Reply 41 of 44, by James-F

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Nuked OPL is accurate to the real hardware, and there are indeed cases where inaccuracies are clearly audible.

Some examples: from nukeykt himself:
DOSBOX fork with better FM synthesis?


my important / useful posts are here

Reply 42 of 44, by villeneuve

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I wonder if setting [mixer] to 49716 also (as required for "nuked" to work correctly (?)) reduces playback quality of other soundsources especially SFX samples. Can anybody comment on that please?

Reply 43 of 44, by slinkygn

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
villeneuve wrote on 2021-05-20, 16:32:

I wonder if setting [mixer] to 49716 also (as required for "nuked" to work correctly (?)) reduces playback quality of other soundsources especially SFX samples. Can anybody comment on that please?

Adding to that curiosity, I wonder how the noise spectrum chart looks for the 44.1k/44.1k case -- I thought it was strange that that wasn't posted with the other comparisons. It goes without saying that any rate conversion is going to introduce some unwanted transients (especially when not supersampling prior to conversion), so of course 49k/49k will sound better than (not 49k)/49k, but apples-to-apples would be comparing with 44.1k/44.1k. Hopefully 44.1k/44.1k is cleaner, because it can't just be me that hears a lot of additional sibilance in the demo audio for nukedopl that's been posted here previously. (Then again, nobody seems to hear the to-my-ear painful high frequency artifacts in the MP3 files posted that supposedly reflect on it favorably, so I don't know what the criteria are that people are using to pick the "best" tbh.)

Reply 44 of 44, by slinkygn

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
slinkygn wrote on 2021-08-07, 12:05:

Hopefully 44.1k/44.1k is cleaner, because it can't just be me that hears a lot of additional sibilance in the demo audio for nukedopl that's been posted here previously. (Then again, nobody seems to hear the to-my-ear painful high frequency artifacts in the MP3 files posted that supposedly reflect on it favorably, so I don't know what the criteria are that people are using to pick the "best" tbh.)

OK, it's definitely not just my ear. I ran a cross-correlation comparison on the Lion King and Aladdin examples over here DOSBOX fork with better FM synthesis? between the Nuked, compat, and the recordings of the original hardware. The Nuked delta FFTs did show more high-frequency noise compared to the original. And the overall waveform comparison showed compat was actually a significantly closer match than Nuked was.

I reran that as well with the MK2 files that were posted there in a ZIP file, since those were WAV files -- I was hoping they were "clean" and not from a prior MP3 source or anything like that, but it also showed both the high-frequency losses in Nuked and the closer matching to compat. So either those files weren't just straight uncompressed audio at some point in their "lives", or there's a significant problem to the conventional wisdom that Nuked is more accurate than compat.

One interesting thing is that, at least to my ear when I originally noticed these issues, it seemed like in the places where compat and nuked differed from the hardware recordings, they did so kind of in the "opposite" ways -- so nuked would have added sibilance and high-frequency noise, which might sound good or be hard to detect for some listeners on a hi-hat or other cymbal for example but would not be nearly as kind when picked up against mostly low- to mid-freq sounds like orchestral instruments or perhaps voice synthesis. Compat would instead be missing some of that high-frequency "sizzle" that cymbals and such are supposed to have (or at least seemed to on the original hardware recordings), but would have a cleaner response across the board and less HF artifacts.

Those ear "observations" are a little trickier to verify numerically with cross-correlation testing (though not impossible), but I did get a strong hint from the numbers that I was right: as my last test, I compared the nuked and compat versions against each other as their own "references." Sure enough, they are more "dislike" to each other than they are to the original source (almost shockingly precisely so). If they were displaying the same sorts of errors but one was just worse than the other with those errors, they would show more alike to each other than they do to the worst-case match to the reference source (here, the nuked sample).

It should also be noted that while the difference in accuracy of both nuked and compat were each log-2 magnitude significant to each other, both of their individual accuracies were another one to two log-2 orders of magnitude different than the source recording. Taking that into account with the fact that their errors seem to be of fundamentally different natures, it would appear that the conclusion here would be that though compat is technically more accurate than nuked, they are both just plain *different*. So unless you're an ultimate-accuracy junkie (in which case why are you bothering with these, go get yourself an ISA card instead), which one is better will just depend on plain personal preference, and perhaps even vary with which particular game you try them.