VOGONS


First post, by 0kool

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Found it listed nearby as untested for roughly $60 without ram. I really want an ultrasound classic for a future 486 vlb build, so my arguments are as follows:

Against:
- for now the project is on hold and I would strongly prefer to keep all of the hardware '94 or below (and not pnp)
- I could get a classic locally for $150, just don't need it right now that much
- theoretically it could be broken

For:
+ it's a rare thing and doesn't cost a lot in this instance
+ atm I don't own an ultrasound

I would appreciate if someone could sway me one way or the other, really on the fence about it. Any reasons to get a pnp over classic for a 486 dx2 dos 3.1 machine?

Reply 1 of 12, by tpowell.ca

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Get the PNP. It is 99% compatible with the GUS classic once you install 1MB of RAM and can do so much more.

  • Merlin: MS-4144, AMD5x86-160 32MB, 16GB CF, ZIP100, Orpheus, GUS, S3 VirgeGX 2MB
    Tesla: GA-6BXC, VIA C3 Ezra-T, 256MB, 120GB SATA, YMF744, GUSpnp, Quadro2
    Newton: K6XV3+/66, AMD K6-III+500, 256MB, 32GB SSD, AWE32, Voodoo3

Reply 3 of 12, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Found it listed nearby as untested for roughly $60 without ram.

Is it some local online trading platform? Does it has some sort of reputation system for buyers/sellers? Unless you can buy it directly, have buyer protection or at least the seller is trustworthy enough, my bet on retro hardware scam. Most likely card just does not exist or the seller know that it's not working.

Last edited by The Serpent Rider on 2018-08-11, 10:12. Edited 3 times in total.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 4 of 12, by derSammler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Funny how fast someone shouts "scam" if a seller does sell something sought-after for less than what one could get on ebay for it. Maybe he just doesn't care that much about making profit? $60 for an untested card with no ram seems to be a fair price to me.

Reply 5 of 12, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
jesolo wrote:

As a matter of interest, in what circumstances will a GUS PnP not be compatible with the GUS Classic (the other 1 %).

I vaguely recall that the AMD InterWave chip used by the PnP has slightly different timing than the GF1 chip. In most cases you will not notice, but there are corner-cases, with very long looping samples, where the InterWave can get out-of-sync a bit.

Edit:
Here's some more info on that:
http://www.pouet.net/topic.php?which=97&page=1

The PnP has serious issues with native GUS support: after a peak burst it will emit a noise signal until you interrupt current going through it (i.e. reset/reboot your computer) and there's the infamous tempo bug:

The timing of the GUS Classic chips and the Interwave are not similar, either crappy drivers or just plain hardware leave a serious tempo bug in the replay of a GUS PnP using GUS Native mode. Most of the time, it's not noticeable... but most trackers (people, not software) who used GUS native trackers know that sample loops play properly on a classic and NOT on a PnP. For reference I defy all PnP users to play Mighty or run any loop-rich XM module in FT2. The PnP has upsides: the RAM modules are 30-pins SIMM (salvageable from any junkyard of 236/386/486 pile) and it doesn't have the 14+ channel limit the Classis has. IWSBOS does seem to take a lot off the tempo glitch, but not enough. I still curse the days when I composed with a PnP Pro and had to redo everything using a Classic so I'd be sure the rest of the world woul be able to enjoy a normal-sounding song.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 6 of 12, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
derSammler wrote:

Funny how fast someone shouts "scam" if a seller does sell something sought-after for less than what one could get on ebay for it. Maybe he just doesn't care that much about making profit? $60 for an untested card with no ram seems to be a fair price to me.

Thing is, it's lower than the going eBay or Amibay rates, but not so low the seller doesn't know what it is or wants to gift it to the community. I'd guess the card does exist but the seller has tested it and it's dead.

With sought-after items like this "untested" is plain implausible - in half an hour you can have certainty and easily double the price - and value for the buyer. If you truly want to keep it in the community that's the least you can do. If you just want money it's a no-brainer too.

Reply 7 of 12, by 640K!enough

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Scali wrote:

I vaguely recall that the AMD InterWave chip used by the PnP has slightly different timing than the GF1 chip. In most cases you will not notice, but there are corner-cases, with very long looping samples, where the InterWave can get out-of-sync a bit.

From my reading of the Programmer's Guide, there are timing differences. I wouldn't expect problems in "enhanced" mode, but its GF1 compatibility mode seems to be more of an approximation, especially beyond 14 channels. They call it frame expansion, and it's essentially the addition of delays to approximate the playback timing of the GF1 while still running at a constant 44.1 kHz.

The interesting question, however, is whether the problems with looping are inherent in the InterWave, or whether they can be worked around by tweaking the layout of the samples in memory.

FT2 seems to use the chip in enhanced mode, being able to use all of the memory I have installed on my card beyond the basic 1 MiB that is available in compatibility mode.

Some software will need to be patched to work on the InterWave, because the timing was somewhat borderline on some systems, even with a real GF1 card. Also, if the programmers took shortcuts when writing their GF1 code, it may not be enough to trigger a switch to compatibility mode, providing incorrect results or crashing outright.

Personally, I quite like the InterWave. The added CODEC functionality adds flexibility, IWSBOS is a little more functional and less temperamental than the older tools, and the additional memory capacity and ability to use customised ROM banks are considerable benefits.

Reply 8 of 12, by 0kool

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
The Serpent Rider wrote:

Is it some local online trading platform? Does it has some sort of reputation system for buyers/sellers? Unless you can buy it directly, have buyer protection or at least the seller is trustworthy enough, my bet on retro hardware scam. Most likely card just does not exist or the seller know that it's not working.

It's more of a craigslist clone, no reputation and I would have to wire the money before the seller ships it. I was already concerned that his account was just a week old and when I asked him about the card's condition, the answer was that I could see "how everything is great for myself" on the relatively lowrez pic he had posted. After all, not everyone is living by some code of "pride and honour" nowadays. But than the dionb's sound argument made me exceedingly dislike the odds:

dionb wrote:

it's lower than the going eBay or Amibay rates, but not so low the seller doesn't know what it is or wants to gift it to the community.
With sought-after items like this "untested" is plain implausible - in half an hour you can have certainty and easily double the price - and value for the buyer. If you truly want to keep it in the community that's the least you can do. If you just want money it's a no-brainer too.

Thanks for helping me out with this one folks, I'll just get my GUS Classic from a reputable source when it's due.

Reply 9 of 12, by stamasd

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

There are other cards (clones, not made by Gravis) which you may want to keep an eye out for as they may end up being cheaper while very compatible. Like this Primax Soundstorm I got some time ago:

Re: Bought these (retro) hardware today

I/O, I/O,
It's off to disk I go,
With a bit and a byte
And a read and a write,
I/O, I/O

Reply 10 of 12, by Rawit

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
640K!enough wrote:

From my reading of the Programmer's Guide, there are timing differences. I wouldn't expect problems in "enhanced" mode, but its GF1 compatibility mode seems to be more of an approximation, especially beyond 14 channels. They call it frame expansion, and it's essentially the addition of delays to approximate the playback timing of the GF1 while still running at a constant 44.1 kHz.

From what I've read I was under the impression that the Interwave only did 32 channels @ 44.1 kHz in it's enhanced mode and would behave the same as the GF1 in Legacy mode, meaning max. 14 channels @ 44.1 kHz and a drop in sample rate after that.

640K!enough wrote:

FT2 seems to use the chip in enhanced mode, being able to use all of the memory I have installed on my card beyond the basic 1 MiB that is available in compatibility mode.

I assume this is with FT 2.0.9? The recently released FT 2.10 dropped the Interwave support because it was buggy.

YouTube

Reply 11 of 12, by 640K!enough

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Rawit wrote:

From what I've read I was under the impression that the Interwave only did 32 channels @ 44.1 kHz in it's enhanced mode and would behave the same as the GF1 in Legacy mode, meaning max. 14 channels @ 44.1 kHz and a drop in sample rate after that.

This was briefly discussed in this thread. I don't have the PDF handy now, but my understanding is that the InterWave synthesiser always, unconditionally runs at 44.1 kHz; anything that isn't 16-bit/44.1kHz is interpolated. For GUS compatibility mode, frame expansion is used to approximate the behaviour of the GF1, but I don't believe the rate actually changes. Perhaps I misunderstood; either way, it's likely just a debate over semantics, as the result is the same.

The CODEC module is actually rather flexible in its supported sample rates, as long as both crystals are present on the board, being a superset of the CS4231.

Rawit wrote:

I assume this is with FT 2.0.9? The recently released FT 2.10 dropped the Interwave support because it was buggy.

Yes, I think it is 2.0.9, though I was under the impression that development had ended due to lack of time.