SID R4 vs. R4AR
Jaque Moreau
Now I had the "luck" to get a R4AR which I replaced my R4 with.
But now things like FAIRLIGHT song (playing during the Fairlight Intro with the green Letters an the blue rotating bar) sound very different compared to what I am used to from using my R4 SID and VICE.
But Deus Ex Machina for example sounds better to me (at least the interference and the coke part).
Now I am wondering if I have been fooled by such postings or am I wrong? I just can't imagine the Fairlight song would have been allowed to sound that strange :-)
Is it right that the SIDstation is also using a R4 (and not a R4AR)?
Agemixer
It sounds interesting how a big difference the SIDs could have. Well, i
heard something about those differences from other sources, but never had
a possibility to test with some R4AR revisioned machine. Possibly in some
party, but that was not a listening environment... :-)
Would you be kind to make some MP3 conversions? I needed few test tunes
from the URL http://koti.japo.fi/~agemixer/hid/tune/playwith6581r4ar/
to be compared with the R4 and some other chips, if it is not a big
approach. I don't recall using mixed waveforms on those but the filters
should differ. I recall either the R4 or R4AR played funny, more likely
a "tube" kind of a filter sound. :) Does it?
--
Agemixer/Skalaria - "First run, then load."
email: age...@japo.fi pass: "C64 mailinki" to the Subject: line
Spam filter is on
Jaque Moreau
I maybe would have done so if you had mp3s from other chips on your page and would share them.
But my whole equipement has to be transported to where my PC is.
BUT: Listen to your Tunes with VICE. To my ears they sound the same on vice and the R4AR.
Agemixer
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jaque Moreau wrote:
> > Would you be kind to make some MP3 conversions? I needed few test
> tunes
>
> I maybe would have done so if you had mp3s from other chips on your
> page and would share them.
This drawback should be corrected soon... (when a new look of
our site is finished...)
Should have been there 10 years ago, but the mp3s ate a huge amount of
space.
> But my whole equipement has to be transported to where my PC is.
I wouldn't bother that much to move equipment for.. :) But if anybody
could help, i'm looking for one who has both revisions of this 6581 R4*.
> BUT: Listen to your Tunes with VICE. To my ears they sound the same
> on vice and the R4AR.
I need to compare some real sid filters... Ok, the R4AR might sound
the same, but Vice uses probably a different method to a real SID
playback.
Though, i never heard a SID chip that sounds similiar to an
another... :)
Stephan Schmid
> BUT: Listen to your Tunes with VICE.
> To my ears they sound the same on vice and the R4AR.
Sorry, your problem being...?
Pretty please, learn to post properly before torturing us with your
both ignorant and unqualified drivel...
But Agemixer, interestingly I was asking myself the same question
earlier that day, what the difference between a R4AR and a R4 is.
I was thinking about which of those two to put into my new Catweasel,
so I need to do some comparison recordings anyway. I'll make some
mp3's with my R4AR and the "normal" R4 later next week and drop back
here when I'm done.
Best regards,
Steppe
--
www.demodungeon.com
-> for your daily dose of demos!
Jaque Moreau
> Pretty please, learn to post properly before torturing us with your
> both ignorant and unqualified drivel...
what du you complain about?
it wold be nice to know so I have a chance to make it better.
> I'll make some
> mp3's with my R4AR and the "normal" R4 later next week and drop back
> here when I'm done.
you definitely have to because I would have transported my equipment here today but not if I get pissed that way. (sorry Agemixer. Not your fault. you were kind an polite.)
Stephan Schmid
> you definitely have to because I would have transported my equipment
> here today but not if I get pissed that way. (sorry Agemixer. Not
> your fault. you were kind an polite.)
Sorry, but I had the impression that your reply on Agemixers request
was pretty harsh and impolite. If that wasn't your intention then I
must have misinterpreted it.
And doing two linebreaks after each sentence doesn't increase
readability either, that's what the other comment was pointed at. But
maybe that's just your newsreader...
Anyway, as I just found out I took my mouth too full: I was in the
wrong believe that one of my broken C64C's hosts a "normal" R4 SID.
Which isn't the case, it has a R4AR as well, which means that I have
two R4AR to choose from, but no R4 (without the AR). Duh...!
Agemixer, wanna swap? ;-)
/Stephan
Jaque Moreau
> Jaque Moreau <mr.w...@firemail.de> wrote in message news:<slrnbak952....@matthias.bachert>...
>> you definitely have to because I would have transported my equipment
>> here today but not if I get pissed that way. (sorry Agemixer. Not
>> your fault. you were kind an polite.)
>
> Sorry, but I had the impression that your reply on Agemixers request
> was pretty harsh and impolite. If that wasn't your intention then I
> must have misinterpreted it.
This wasn't meant to be harsh. It maybe sounds so because of my "Geraman-English" I learned at scool.
> And doing two linebreaks after each sentence doesn't increase
> readability either, that's what the other comment was pointed at. But
> maybe that's just your newsreader...
I'll investigate this.
> Anyway, as I just found out I took my mouth too full: I was in the
> wrong believe that one of my broken C64C's hosts a "normal" R4 SID.
> Which isn't the case, it has a R4AR as well, which means that I have
> two R4AR to choose from, but no R4 (without the AR). Duh...!
Hey, because you are sorry for your "strange" posting. I did the recording of R4 and R4AR.
But I only have them in MPEG2 because DEBIAN Linux doesn't haven an MP3 encoder.
> Agemixer, wanna swap? ;-)
Agemixer, wanna R4 and R4AR Recordings ? :-)
go and grab them under http://colt45.bei.t-online.de and drop a note in here if you have them so I can delete them
Tim Boescke
> After googling through usenet I realized that the R4 of the 6581 is
>favorized over the R4AR by many people.
>
> Now I had the "luck" to get a R4AR which I replaced my R4 with.
>
Do the R4 and the R4AR require the same caps ? AFAIK the R4AR was
only used with '86 boards. The capacitors may be different on
these boards.
Jaque Moreau
I assume caps is an abreviation for capacitors, isn't it?
Tim Boescke
> > Do the R4 and the R4AR require the same caps ? AFAIK the R4AR was
> > only used with '86 boards. The capacitors may be different on
> > these boards.
>
> I assume caps is an abreviation for capacitors, isn't it?
yep..
Stephan Schmid
> "Geraman-English" I learned at scool.
Allright, so sorry about my rather hard words.
> Hey, because you are sorry for your "strange" posting.
> I did the recording of R4 and R4AR.
Nice, thanks man!
On my desktop speakers I didn't hear much difference, but when I'll
have dug up the closed headphones from deep inside my closet I'll do a
more precise comparison.
Cheers!
/Steppe
--
www.demodungeon.com
Jaque Moreau
> On my desktop speakers I didn't hear much difference, but when I'll
> have dug up the closed headphones from deep inside my closet I'll do a
> more precise comparison.
The main difference you will find in the passages with filtered basses. the R4AR has much "sharper" sound.
ltx
the R4AR has much "sharper" sound.
Sounds oppositie to my chips :)
Here's a recording, 86 R4AR chip on the left channel, 87 R4 chip on the
right. [2.7MB]
<http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~johnt/David_Hanlan_Enlightenment-Druid_2_R4AR
_R4.mp3>
The mp3 will be up for a few days...
Agemixer
On 26 Apr 2003, Stephan Schmid wrote:
> Anyway, as I just found out I took my mouth too full: I was in the
> wrong believe that one of my broken C64C's hosts a "normal" R4 SID.
> Which isn't the case, it has a R4AR as well, which means that I have
> two R4AR to choose from, but no R4 (without the AR). Duh...!
>
> Agemixer, wanna swap? ;-)
>
> /Stephan
I have neither R4's, but only one spare 6581 R3 left.
But thanks for the offer :) Maybe i should ask one for loan from
some collector friend, if someone already got a R4/R4AR machine.
If you ask, it is some "ultimate" SID detector/selector that i have
been digesting... :-) It will adjust some wave and filter settings on
a tune. The filters are not easy, because the SID output cannot be
monitored by plain code.
Agemixer
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Jaque Moreau wrote:
> But I only have them in MPEG2 because DEBIAN Linux doesn't haven an
> MP3 encoder.
>
> > Agemixer, wanna swap? ;-)
>
> Agemixer, wanna R4 and R4AR Recordings ? :-)
>
> go and grab them under http://colt45.bei.t-online.de and drop a note
> in here if you have them so I can delete them
Thanks Jaque! I guess you chose the 6581 version of the tune (calibrated
for MOS 6581 R3). There were also 8580 version (CSG 8580 R5). the CSG
version has a cleaner filter sound to the MOS version.
Here is a sample how the filter is intended to play with a MOS 8580 chip:
http://www.japo.fi/~agemixer/hid/tune/Azmagutah.mp3
Those 6581r4xx samples sound somehow disturbed comparing with R3 chip. The
frequency sounds a little too low as well, but it has to do with the
filter capacitors, so that is OK. The r4ar sounds more like a R3 than a
plain R4. But it depends.. Ought to get some r4 in my hands for a real
comparison.
Agemixer
I got an impression they were produced later after C64
production was stopped. I have never heard about a stock c64 with
6581 r4ar. This may be a stupid question, but were they common?
Jaque Moreau
> production was stopped. I have never heard about a stock c64 with
> 6581 r4ar. This may be a stupid question, but were they common?
Maybe here in Germany
Agemixer
On 27 Apr 2003, Stephan Schmid wrote:
> Jaque Moreau <mr.w...@firemail.de> wrote in message news:
> > This wasn't meant to be harsh. It maybe sounds so because of my
> > "Geraman-English" I learned at scool.
>
> Allright, so sorry about my rather hard words.
<offtopic>
To me, there was nothing to sorry about.. Think those who has absolutely
different native language, compared to english. If can even compared. In
worst case, which need word-to-word translation, you would not understand
single word... (sorry :-)
</offtopic>
> > Hey, because you are sorry for your "strange" posting.
> > I did the recording of R4 and R4AR.
>
> Nice, thanks man!
> On my desktop speakers I didn't hear much difference, but when I'll
> have dug up the closed headphones from deep inside my closet I'll do a
> more precise comparison.
The examples are missing the mixed waveforms, It would be nice to get
also some tunes playing mixed and the illegal waves. The results
may be quite interesting.
Atleast the 6581s of mine (mostly R3's, few plain old 6581's) doesn't play
the mixed ones. A very weak sound, if sound at all. Maybe that's why i
haven't played with mixed waves.
Otaku Joe
I am an electronic musician and also an electronics engineer. I was
wondering how the different revisons can be determined, and also what
electrical characteristics they have compared to each other.
Thank you!
Joe
Agemixer
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Otaku Joe wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I am an electronic musician and also an electronics engineer. I was
> wondering how the different revisons can be determined, and also what
> electrical characteristics they have compared to each other.
>
> Thank you!
> Joe
Hi Joe,
Google with +6581 +characteristics following the the first link, almost
all known 6581 characteristics are explained there.
The sid chip model and some revisions can be probed by setting particular
mixed waveforms (fe. $51) to the 3rd channel, set some frequency to it,
and read the $d41b register (raw sample from channel 3) to determine the
revision of the sample shape. For example, 6581 and 8580 chips can be
determined (not too reliably) setting a waveform of $51, and reading few
frequency series; 8580 chip exceeds the value of >= 128, where 6581 made
a thin peak seldom, which exceeded the value 128, so a 6581 chip had to be
tested multiple times with this method (testing bit 7 change). Other
methods, like tracing the waves might be more accurate, but also more
complex and probably need to reserve some memory for angles, sample value
statistics, delta values, comparison traces(?) or other measure methods,
depending on your algorithm. The algorithm mentioned above can fit just
into 8 bytes (test + count loop), so it is quite effective one, but a
dumb one. Probably also one of the worst. :)
Stephan Schmid
> I got an impression they were produced later after C64
> production was stopped. I have never heard about a stock c64 with
> 6581 r4ar. This may be a stupid question, but were they common?
I don't think so. I got one out of a C128D (plastic), with an intact
warranty seal. The other one was (is still) seated in a C64C, although
this could be a replacement chip as the warranty seal was broken when
I bought it.
The rest of my C128's seem to favour R3's, both my two other C128D's
and my flat C128 have that revision.
Is there any rule of thumb which C64 to buy to increase the likelyhood
of getting one with an R4 inside?
/Steppe
--
www.demodungeon.com
Stephan Schmid
> I was
> wondering how the different revisons can be determined, and also what
> electrical characteristics they have compared to each other.
AFAIK you can only determine the difference between an 8580 and a 6581
softwarewise. The electrical characteristics differ in terms of
voltage, the 8580 is running on 12V, the 6581 needs 9V. I don't think
there are major differences in electric specification between the
different 6581 revisions.
Is any of the old gurus in here in contact with some of the old
Commodore people/employees? Would be nice to get some first hand
information about that topic, as opposed to the 99% hearsay
information that is rumoring around (not excluding my posting here,
ahem). :-)
/Steppe
--
www.demodungeon.com
Stephan Schmid
> > The main difference you will find in the passages with filtered basses.
> the R4AR has much "sharper" sound.
>
> Sounds oppositie to my chips :)
Hehe, doesn't really surprise me. Even among the same revision you'll
encounter rotten apples that sound completely different to other chips
of the same revision. :-(
The more I study the sound of the different SIDs the more I'm baffled.
Especially with my R3's in my 3 C128's I can see no consistency at
all, the filters range from pretty flat to ultra-heavy.
Guess this will always be a matter of trial and error.
/Steppe
--
www.demodungeon.com
Agemixer
On 28 Apr 2003, Stephan Schmid wrote:
> > I got an impression they were produced later after C64
> > production was stopped. I have never heard about a stock c64 with
> > 6581 r4ar. This may be a stupid question, but were they common?
>
> I don't think so. I got one out of a C128D (plastic), with an intact
> warranty seal. The other one was (is still) seated in a C64C, although
> this could be a replacement chip as the warranty seal was broken when
> I bought it.
> The rest of my C128's seem to favour R3's, both my two other C128D's
> and my flat C128 have that revision.
> Is there any rule of thumb which C64 to buy to increase the likelyhood
> of getting one with an R4 inside?
>
> /Steppe
Hmm. Does a specific year/factory match? Just thinking.. were those
commodores localized? That might explain where some r4ar batch can be
focused...
Agemixer
On 28 Apr 2003, Stephan Schmid wrote:
> Otaku Joe <em...@isprivate.happy> wrote in message news:<qlbpav0p5du3c22lf...@4ax.com>...
> > I was
> > wondering how the different revisons can be determined, and also what
> > electrical characteristics they have compared to each other.
>
> AFAIK you can only determine the difference between an 8580 and a 6581
> softwarewise. The electrical characteristics differ in terms of
> voltage, the 8580 is running on 12V, the 6581 needs 9V. I don't think
> there are major differences in electric specification between the
> different 6581 revisions.
The differences mainly applies to the filters and volume patches.
> Is any of the old gurus in here in contact with some of the old
> Commodore people/employees? Would be nice to get some first hand
> information about that topic, as opposed to the 99% hearsay
> information that is rumoring around (not excluding my posting here,
> ahem). :-)
Hehe
Take a look at the old'n'good SID homepage,
http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e9426444/
It contains a lot of tech info, characteristics etc. And the
legendary interview with Bob Yannes, the SID creator :)
Agemixer
On 28 Apr 2003, Stephan Schmid wrote:
> "ltx" <l...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:<b8i374$ieo$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> > > The main difference you will find in the passages with filtered basses.
> > the R4AR has much "sharper" sound.
> >
> > Sounds oppositie to my chips :)
>
> Hehe, doesn't really surprise me. Even among the same revision you'll
> encounter rotten apples that sound completely different to other chips
> of the same revision. :-(
> The more I study the sound of the different SIDs the more I'm baffled.
That is signs of a perfectionist :-)
If the filter output could have been recognized by software
(the frequency and strenght), that would have ceased the biggest
difference. The only way to compose a perfectly "SID-compatible"
tune, is to discard using filters at all and use only the set of
standard waveforms, $10, $20, $40 and $80. If filters are needed,
no more resonance than 8 and use only the lowest or highest filter
values to use with combined low-band+passband. Multiple voices played
through a filter disorders the voice badly.
Quite a set of restrictions for compatibility. Can be avoided by
detecting the SID and set the alternative parameters at the tune
initialization.
> Especially with my R3's in my 3 C128's I can see no consistency at
> all, the filters range from pretty flat to ultra-heavy.
> Guess this will always be a matter of trial and error.
>
> /Steppe
Unfortunately the 8580 chips doesn't differ that much, in my
experience, so a 8580 chip is a good one to refer to. Though, for some
reason, the C64c model's sound quality is worse compared to the earlier
commodores. Then again it depends... I think the pre-amp quality also has
a big effect to the final sound quality in there. Luckily all those
can be fixed by minor modifications!
Cybernator
> The electrical characteristics differ in terms of
> voltage, the 8580 is running on 12V, the 6581 needs 9V.
Vice versa. :-)
Agemixer
Ouch! Good comment. No 12V for the 8580 :-)
Jaque Moreau
my c64c was produced in 1986 and had the ar4ar
Jaque Moreau
I just checked the caps. They both are 470pF (nF?)
Tim Boescke
> > I was
> > wondering how the different revisons can be determined, and also what
> > electrical characteristics they have compared to each other.
>
> AFAIK you can only determine the difference between an 8580 and a 6581
> softwarewise. The electrical characteristics differ in terms of
> voltage, the 8580 is running on 12V, the 6581 needs 9V. I don't think
The 8580 is manufactured with a higher lithography mask resolution -
its a shrinked 6581. This does usually change the characteristics
of the transistors and does therefore required changes in the circuit..
Regarding the differente 6581 versions:
I extracted the dies of several broken 6581 and this is
what I found:
http://www.tuhh.de/~setb0209/cpu/images/sidmarkings.gif
Seems that a plain 6581 is already an R3. This limits
the amount of different versions to 4:
6581R3, R4, R4AR
8580R5
I did not have a broken R4AR, so I dont know whether it
contains R4 silicon. If anybody is in posession of a
broken R4AR (or R3) and is willing to part with it,
please let me know :)
I will try to investigate the circuit differences between
the revisions, but this will take some time until I get
better images..
Jaque Moreau
> I did not have a broken R4AR, so I dont know whether it
> contains R4 silicon. If anybody is in posession of a
> broken R4AR (or R3) and is willing to part with it,
> please let me know :)
I hope you never will hold my R4AR in hand :-)
Nicolas Welte
> http://www.tuhh.de/~setb0209/cpu/images/sidmarkings.gif
>
> Seems that a plain 6581 is already an R3. This limits
> the amount of different versions to 4:
Your 6581 seems to be a late model from 1984. Maybe older samples from '82 or
'83 had an older version of the silicon?
If you like, I can send you three dead 6581 SIDs with the date codes 4982,
1783 and 0784.
Nicolas
--
--> Email address is valid for replies (requires Re: in the subject) <--
- See my Commodore hardware projects at http://people.freenet.de/x1541 -
- Visit the German X1541 Shop at http://sta.c64.org/x1541shop_ger.html -
Nicolas Welte
To be sure that a chip was factory installed, check the date codes on each of
the big chips and see if they match within a few weeks. The earliest 6581R4AR
I've seen is from 1987, so I don't think any C64 from 1986 could have such a
chip installed from the factory.
A warranty seal is no proof that a machine has not been messed with.
Commodore service centers had replacement seals to seal repaired machines :)
Tim Boescke
Handle them well ;) None of my 4 R4AR broke so far,
and I am not attempting to push it.
Tim Boescke
> > http://www.tuhh.de/~setb0209/cpu/images/sidmarkings.gif
> >
> > Seems that a plain 6581 is already an R3. This limits
> > the amount of different versions to 4:
>
> Your 6581 seems to be a late model from 1984. Maybe older samples from '82
or
> '83 had an older version of the silicon?
>
> If you like, I can send you three dead 6581 SIDs with the date codes 4982,
> 1783 and 0784.
That would be great! See PM, if it reaches you.
Jaque Moreau
> Jaque Moreau wrote:
>> Stephan Schmid schrieb im Artikel <ac5cf4c6.03042...@posting.google.com>:
>>
>>>Agemixer <age...@NOSPAM.japo.fi> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03042...@aapo.japo.fi>...
>>>
>>>>I got an impression they were produced later after C64
>>>>production was stopped. I have never heard about a stock c64 with
>>>>6581 r4ar. This may be a stupid question, but were they common?
>>>
>>>I don't think so. I got one out of a C128D (plastic), with an intact
>>>warranty seal. The other one was (is still) seated in a C64C, although
>>>this could be a replacement chip as the warranty seal was broken when
>>>I bought it.
>>>The rest of my C128's seem to favour R3's, both my two other C128D's
>>>and my flat C128 have that revision.
>>>Is there any rule of thumb which C64 to buy to increase the likelyhood
>>>of getting one with an R4 inside?
>>
>>
>> my c64c was produced in 1986 and had the ar4ar
>
> To be sure that a chip was factory installed, check the date codes on each of
> the big chips and see if they match within a few weeks. The earliest 6581R4AR
> I've seen is from 1987, so I don't think any C64 from 1986 could have such a
> chip installed from the factory.
I just opened my C64 the 100000000000000000000000000 time to check that and now you know there is a R4AR produced in week 40 of 1986.
Nicolas Welte
>>I just opened my C64 the 100000000000000000000000000 time to check that
>
> and now
>
Hehe. My first C64 lost its screws more than 10 years ago and it died a
little bit later. It was not repairable anymore :(
>>you know there is a R4AR produced in week 40 of 1986.
>
>
> I also got a 44/86 R4AR.
Okay, I learnt something, my earliest chip is from 0687. I hate this chip
quite much, because I bought it as a replacement and it sounds so different
to the R3 and R4 that I'm used to.
Christian Link
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:49:28 +0200, Nicolas Welte
<welte...@freenet.de> wrote:
>> Does yours still have screws ? :)
>
>Hehe. My first C64 lost its screws more than 10 years ago and it died a
>little bit later. It was not repairable anymore :(
holy shit - who would have thought these damn screws were _that_
important...!
Greetings,
Chris.
Jaque Moreau
>
>> > To be sure that a chip was factory installed, check the date codes on
> each of
>> > the big chips and see if they match within a few weeks. The earliest
> 6581R4AR
>> > I've seen is from 1987, so I don't think any C64 from 1986 could have
> such a
>> > chip installed from the factory.
>>
>> I just opened my C64 the 100000000000000000000000000 time to check that
> and now
>
Yes, I like screws. They are ... ... on German I would say "eine saubere Sache" but I don't know the English expression :-)
Christian Potzinger
> Yes, I like screws.
Who doesn't like screw...in*? ;)
> on German I would say "eine saubere Sache"
> but I don't know the English expression :-
WOW?
--
ryl: [SF|G'Kar] [ www.SeniorFragger.de ] &
[ www.RavenClaw.at ]
Jaque Moreau
> Jaque Moreau wrote...
>
>> Yes, I like screws.
>
> Who doesn't like screw...in*? ;)
>
>> on German I would say "eine saubere Sache"
>> but I don't know the English expression :-
>
> WOW?
Ach du bist ja österreicher :-)
Jaque Moreau
>
>> Yes, I like screws.
>
> Who doesn't like screw...in*? ;)
you either have to be british or american to understand this, haven't you? (Although I presume I understand) :-)
>> on German I would say "eine saubere Sache"
>> but I don't know the English expression :-
> WOW?
WOW? WOW because of theese german words? Or do you think WOW is the right expression? It isn't.
Courious? :-)
Christian Potzinger
>> Who doesn't like screw...in*? ;)
>
> you either have to be british or american to understand this,
> haven't you? (Although I presume I understand) :-)
You understand and thats all i intended ;) And yes, i'm
not very good with the english (or american) Language.
>> WOW?
>
> WOW? WOW because of theese german words? Or do
> you think WOW is the right expression? It isn't.
I know it isn't. But it means the same (mostly).
> Courious? :-)
Yeah, always ;)
Christian Potzinger
> Ach du bist ja österreicher :-)
JA? ;-/
Agemixer
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Jaque Moreau wrote:
> Christian Potzinger schrieb im Artikel <Xns936CE1...@ID-53935.user.dfncis.de>:
> > Jaque Moreau wrote...
> >
> >> Yes, I like screws.
> >
> > Who doesn't like screw...in*? ;)
>
> you either have to be british or american to understand this, haven't
> you? (Although I presume I understand) :-)
You don't need to be a Scandinavian to understand... ;)
Melt some plastic and drill some new holes.
bud
'Lo Jaque:
Group: comp.sys.cbm Date: Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 8:53pm (CDT+7) From:
mr.w...@firemail.de (Jaque Moreau)
script:
>Yes, I like screws. They are ...
>... on German I would say "eine
>saubere Sache" but I don't know
>the English expression :-)
Well, Martha Stewart would say:
"It's a good thing." ;-))
salaam,
dowcom
--
http://community.webtv.net/dowcom/DOWCOMSAMSTRADGUIDE
DOShead Credo:
a) Try it! It might work.
b) GOTO a).
Stephan Schmid
How to determine the production year of the chips??? :-o
I took both my AR's out but all I find on them is the following
information
frontside (the same for both):
MOS
6581R4AR
2286 S
backside chip 1:
HONG KONG
HH212111
HC-30
and the number 46 engraved in the small circle to the left.
backside chip 2:
HONG KONG
HH163116
HC-30
and the number 36 engraved in the small circle to the left.
I can only guess that the 36/46 are the production week, but where do
I find the year?
/Steppe
--
www.demodungeon.com
David Dahle
news:ac5cf4c6.03043...@posting.google.com...
>
> How to determine the production year of the chips??? :-o
> I took both my AR's out but all I find on them is the following
> information
>
> 2286 S
The "2286" code is what you're after in this case... the 22nd week of 1986
(approximately the latter part of May 1986).
HTH
Dave
David Dahle
I assume the "HH..." would be lot numbers used by MOS/CSG for tracking
purposes.
A wild guess, but could HC-30 be a reference to the external packaging of
the IC?
The little numbers cast into circles refer to the die cavity used during the
encapsulation process. IC manufacturers have large trays to cast multiple
ICs at the same time - if some ICs consistently fail to be encapsulated
properly, those little numbers would be help the manufacturer locate the
defective cavity.
Dave
Steppe
>> Hehe, doesn't really surprise me. Even among the same revision you'll
>> encounter rotten apples that sound completely different to other
>> chips of the same revision.
>> The more I study the sound of the different SIDs the more I'm
>> baffled.
>
> That is signs of a perfectionist
To be honest, I'm not.
All I would like to know is what to expect when I plug in a specific
revision of the SID. But that's obviously close to impossible. :-(
> Unfortunately the 8580 chips doesn't differ that much, in my
> experience, so a 8580 chip is a good one to refer to.
Unfortunately??? :-o
Guess you mean the opposite, and I full agree with you on that one.
> Though, for some
> reason, the C64c model's sound quality is worse compared to the
> earlier commodores. Then again it depends... I think the pre-amp
> quality also has a big effect to the final sound quality in there.
> Luckily all those can be fixed by minor modifications!
Care to enlighten us about those "minor modifications"?
/Steppe
Steppe
> The "2286" code is what you're after in this case... the 22nd week of
> 1986 (approximately the latter part of May 1986).
Wow, so I seem to have the earliest 6581R4AR's of us. :-)
Thanks for the info, Dave!
And what a coincidence that both of them were produced in the same week,
considered that I got one out of C64C and the other one out of a C128D, of
course both from different ebay sellers.
/Steppe
Steppe
> Ouch! Good comment. No 12V for the 8580 :-)
Damn, I always confuse it! ;D
/Steppe
Agemixer
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Steppe wrote:
> > Unfortunately the 8580 chips doesn't differ that much, in my
> > experience, so a 8580 chip is a good one to refer to.
>
> Unfortunately??? :-o
> Guess you mean the opposite, and I full agree with you on that one.
Heh, I have mistaken "unfortunately" it seems. Ok, i fixed my
vocabulary for "unexpectedly". :-) I meant "surprisingly" (in a
positive way)
> > Though, for some
> > reason, the C64c model's sound quality is worse compared to the
> > earlier commodores. Then again it depends... I think the pre-amp
> > quality also has a big effect to the final sound quality in there.
> > Luckily all those can be fixed by minor modifications!
>
> Care to enlighten us about those "minor modifications"?
To just Change some components and make adjustment, no need for special
design on the board
Agemixer
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Steppe wrote:
It is not even a miracle if all the r4ar chips were printed in the same
production week. They produce a good amount of chips at one time period
for the stock. It is cheaper for the factory and eventually make some
sense to print large amount of the same revision of the chip at once,
instead of starting with the chip design over and over again.