Cloudschatze wrote:

...at least SEVEN versions of the CT1600, SBPro2.

Make that EIGHT. Unbelievable...

Cloudschatze wrote:

Cloudschatze wrote:

...at least SEVEN versions of the CT1600, SBPro2.

Make that EIGHT. Unbelievable...

That's Creative for you.....

It seems there is information to be gained in testing my card, and both keropi and carlostex offered to do it. Shipping rates are the same for Greece and Portugal, so first one to send me a PM with his name/address gets the card 😀

Maybe carlostex is a better choice since he also has a gal programmer and a working upgraded card to compare... I only have a 1320c , still happy to test though if it comes to me 😊

I am highly interested in this project! I have two cards, both 069328 with 2.02 DSP and 1336A. I will keep a lookout for different revisions and whatnot - I'm in CT, so consider New England covered 😀

Uploading video... Stay tuned...

EDIT: Video Online.

Testing 5u3's CT1350B (CT1336 and V2.02 DSP)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmU_l7o7aa4&feature=youtu.be

Sorry, i recorded with my cellphone, i should have filmed horizontally and YouTube compressed the quality a lot.

Anyway, for what is worth it serves its purpose.

So whaddya guys think? Do you believe there is something else that can be done? I personally don't think so.

I could be wrong again, but i definitely think that this is the end. I don't think that cards with the CT1336A will work, that bus chip was probably designed with the Sound Blaster Pro as priority so this particular chip installed in a CT1350B would render CMS upgrade to not function properly. I'm gonna speculate that changes in the chip left lesser resources, because it's about the SB Pro and it needs more dedicated resources. So maybe the CMS upgrade makes OPL2 dead because the CMS it's taking its dedicated resource in the bus chip. So either OPL or CMS.

My theory is that the bus interface chip was redesigned for the Sound Blaster Pro 2.0. I have never seen a CT-1336A chip on an original Sound Blaster Pro, all the Sound Blaster Pro cards I have seen use a CT-1336 chip. The Sound Blaster Pro was designed first, then the Sound Blaster 2.0 and finally the Sound Blaster Pro 2.0.

For the Sound Blaster Pro, CL removed the CMS chips, added an extra OPL2 chip and mapped one chip at 2x0-2x1 and the second chip at 2x2-2x3. This involved no great deal of effort, because the original Sound Blaster mapped the first CMS chip at 2x0-2x1 and the second CMS chip at 2x2-2x3. The CT-1336 needs to control two separate chips, and as we know the CT-1336 is interchangeable on the Pro and the 2.0. The OPL2 and CMS chips are addressed very similarly.

The Sound Blaster Pro 2.0 only uses one OPL3 chip, the integration needed to be slightly modified to accommodate the advanced features of the new chip. Here we have the CT-1336A. As the 2.0 only had the one OPL2 chip, the CT-1336A would be able to accomodate.

carlostex wrote:

I could be wrong again, but i definitely think that this is the end.

Regardless, I think I'm done looking into it. There are more than enough compatible boards out there to make this a non-issue.

Great Hierophant wrote:

My theory is that the bus interface chip was redesigned for the Sound Blaster Pro 2.0.

Which is a nice idea, except for the plentitude of SBPro2 cards bearing non-"A" CT-1336 chips...

I have received the GAL and SAA chips already, still waiting for the USB programmer. Will test my card species upon arrival to prove or deny the idea about CT1336A bus chip. In the end, it could be the only unlucky revision of SB 2.0...

Today my card came back from Portugal where carlostex has fitted it with a Lattice GAL and it works perfectly. 😁 Thank you very much for testing!
BTW, currently the SAA1099 chips are available for a very reasonable price from a chinese ebay seller.

5u3 wrote:

Today my card came back from Portugal where carlostex has fitted it with a Lattice GAL and it works perfectly. 😁 Thank you very much for testing!
BTW, currently the SAA1099 chips are available for a very reasonable price from a chinese ebay seller.

Happy for you, thanks for allowing us to test it and get some more answers. The next time i visit CTT (Portuguese post office) i will ask some of them if they wanna take some places in the government, there is alot of space there for people that work hard. That was fast shipping considering it was regular service!

I havent really been following this thread while I've been away. So to clarify, CT1336A means the card won't work with the CMS upgrade? The 2.02 DSP doesn't really come into the situation?

DonutKing wrote:

I havent really been following this thread while I've been away. So to clarify, CT1336A means the card won't work with the CMS upgrade? The 2.02 DSP doesn't really come into the situation?

Pretty much it.

This is a video i made, testing 5u3's CT1350B. His card features a CT1336 bus chip and a V2.02 bus chip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmU_l7o7aa4&feature=youtu.be

Finally, everything arrived. I've got a G540 flasher, a bunch of SAAs and GALs, and a CT1350B that is under suspicion. Though reading that *chinese-english* G540 manual I found it pretty obscure.

Anyone willing to post a step-by-step guide of using a G540 over a GAL?

Well, I have installed the Win98 G540 driver and software. The driver works normally, but when I run the software, it swears: First connect the device!, though it is already connected and lights on. So, I can't flash anything. Should I install WinXP, or any other thoughts?

It works for me under winxp but I couldnt get it working under win 7

Weird. I have it working on Windows 7, as far as i remember i didn't do anything special.

I have a Genius G540 running perfectly on Windows 7 x64. I'm using version 5.20 of the software downloaded from the manufacturer's website, didn't have to do anything special to get it working.

http://www.stg51.com/downloadshow.asp?id=6

Thanks for the link. I downloaded the software and it seems to work with my Win8 Pro x64. The thing is when it asks 'Please reconnect the device' at startup, one should really unplug it and plug back, otherwise the software would compain about wrong user ID or somewhat alike. So I believe it's my fault.