Sorry to bump this old thread, but I hadn't realized that the edits I made way-back-when on that Wikipedia page on the YMF262 would cause this kind of a stir someplace. Allow me to explain myself.
First off, I suppose I should explain what I was trying to do with the Wikipedia recordings. My aim with those was to show the minute differences in output between the chip (and especially the much more obvious difference between the Yamaha chips and the ESS clone chip), and I simply felt MELT.AMD was particularly good at bringing out the audible differences between them. TBH it's a bit difficult to do a 100% on-the-level comparison, considering that the two cards I used to make the YMF262 vs. YMF289 comparisons were indeed different. Both were captured from Sound Blaster 16s, one a CT2230 with a CT1747 (which incorporates a YMF262 FM core) and the other a CT2910 (my favorite YMF289 card). It's far from scientific, but it was adequate for the task, though in hindsight I really could have done something about the high noise level of the recordings...
Secondly, before my edits Wikipedia had a mere stub for the YMF289. I had originally filled out the YMF289 article as well as I could using a datasheet, but then later decided to merge it with the YMF262 article anyway as they're still functionally the same chip despite some very minor differences in register behavior and some more obvious differences in output stage and sample rate.
I always make every effort to update any incorrect information I post, once I learn more. I did speculate in a few parts, notably in the presumption about why I felt the YMF289 uses a lower sample rate. After reading through the discussions over the input clock crystal differences, I've removed that bit of speculation, as the clock crystal differences present a more plausible explanation. (I'd reckon a more 'standard' frequency oscillator would indeed be cheaper to purchase in large quantities than a less-standard custom frequency.)
Tertz wrote:Lower pitch of 289 in the comparision sample on that article. What makes the sound noticably worse.
Tertz wrote:If it has music examples of real output made on those chips, then it's meaningful.
To be honest, whether or not YMF289 is really 'worse' depends on your POV. If you're accustomed to listening to 'genuine' YMF262 then the YMF289 will probably sound ever so slightly different from what you'd remember; namely, more squeaky from resampling artifacts. As for me, my first sound card was a YMF719 which used the YMF289 FM core, so to me the YMF289/YMF71x/YMF7x4 sounds exactly how I remember DOS games sounding as a child. Hence, for me it's the 'best'. However, that said, YMF262 doesn't have resampling artifacts, making songs like MELT.AMD that do a lot of high-frequency stuff sound more pleasant to listen to, so I like to have both whenever possible.
My ears are weird, despite having some tinnitus I can definitely hear the subtle difference in pitch between the two in this song, and I had initially heard the difference when I wasn't even looking for it. (I was actually listening for grounding loop racket, when the difference caught my ear...) A friend of mine also heard a difference in pitch as well (he's a musician and an extreme synthesizer fan to boot), but in either case it wasn't really that significant. Ergo why I mentioned that the difference in pitch was subtle, as I doubt many would hear it in the 'normal' course of DOS gameplay.
Life isn't long enough to re-enable every hidden option in every BIOS on every board... 🙁