<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[The 1-Bit Forum — Any reason for using both 3rd and 4th bits of #fe port?]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://randomflux.info/1bit/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=281&amp;type=atom" />
	<updated>2021-09-19T20:02:52Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?id=281</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Any reason for using both 3rd and 4th bits of #fe port?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2441#p2441" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>utz wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Anyway, the main reason you&#039;ll see bit 3 being used is because it costs additional cycles to mask it out.</p></blockquote></div><p>I see. I thought that the 3rd bit is set for reason because I failed to comprehend what&#039;s happening in the engine from the readPtn label and up to the playNote.</p><div class="quotebox"><cite>utz wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Haha, no, I can&#039;t take any credit for that discovery, you figured that out by yourself!</p></blockquote></div><p>Thankies! Tho I won&#039;t be able to make it without the test track you&#039;ve made ^~^</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[yottatsa]]></name>
				<uri>http://randomflux.info/1bit/profile.php?id=228</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2021-09-19T20:02:52Z</updated>
			<id>http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2441#p2441</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Any reason for using both 3rd and 4th bits of #fe port?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2440#p2440" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Haha, no, I can&#039;t take any credit for that discovery, you figured that out by yourself!</p><p>I&#039;ve done some experimenting with using bit 3 for reverb. However, volume levels for bit 3 vary considerably between 48K board revisions (not to mention different models), so it&#039;s not really useful. Generally speaking, the output from bit 3 is low enough that it can be ignored for practical purposes. (It does cause problems for engines with a high volume resolution, but that&#039;s another story.) Anyway, the main reason you&#039;ll see bit 3 being used is because it costs additional cycles to mask it out. Povver is a typical example of this: Use of bit 3 is by no means intentional, but there is at least one location where I couldn&#039;t find enough cycles to mask it. Aside from that, some PFM-based engines use bit 3 in sync with bit 4 for a little extra volume boost. Alone Coder&#039;s BeepTracker engines do this, for example.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[utz]]></name>
				<uri>http://randomflux.info/1bit/profile.php?id=2</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2021-09-19T18:41:59Z</updated>
			<id>http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2440#p2440</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Any reason for using both 3rd and 4th bits of #fe port?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2438#p2438" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I recall some years back there was a guy who was talking a lot about this possibility of getting four output levels on the classic 48K beeper, and proposed to use it somehow in a beeper engine. However, as they&#039;re pretty close to each other on the extreme ends, no one figured out any useful application for such a feature.</p><p>Actually, even if there was a true 2-bit DAC with proper evenly spread levels, I&#039;m not too sure what advantage it could have over 1-bit - a two-channel engine with &#039;lazy&#039; mixing perhaps, but that wouldn&#039;t give a major speed advantage, or extra opportunities for more unusual synthesis techniques. Maybe I&#039;m wrong.</p><p>Curious little quirk, nevertheless.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Shiru]]></name>
				<uri>http://randomflux.info/1bit/profile.php?id=11</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2021-09-19T13:01:57Z</updated>
			<id>http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2438#p2438</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Any reason for using both 3rd and 4th bits of #fe port?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2437#p2437" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>As <a href="http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2435#p2435">utz and I figured out</a>, behaviour for MIC and EAR ports on the ZX Spectrum 128k +3 with Amstrad 40077 Gate Array produces completely different output in comparison to a classic Speccy.</p><p>For the Speccy, values: 00, 01, 10, 11 of bits 4 and 3 produces 0.39, 073, 3.66, and 3.79 volts respectively.<br />For the +3 however, values: 00, 01, 10, and 11 would produce ~0, ~5, ~0, and ~5 volts, so the result level is driven by (bit4 &amp; bit3).</p><p>So the question is: what is the reason for using all 4 levels (both MIC and EAR bits)?</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[yottatsa]]></name>
				<uri>http://randomflux.info/1bit/profile.php?id=228</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2021-09-19T10:41:32Z</updated>
			<id>http://randomflux.info/1bit/viewtopic.php?pid=2437#p2437</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
