CompuServe Messages

Marcel, I think we have a language problem here. 😎 I don't care what you get. You asked about DSP for the Amiga and I mentioned the AD1012 and AD516. You then said the Atari Falcon costs less than both of them. That was wrong. I then told you the AD1012 costs less than the Falcon and you wanted to know how I could compare a 12-bit board (AD1012) with the Falcon, which utilizes 16-bits. I wasn't comparing them. I was just making you aware of your error that the Falcon costs less than the AD1012. Then, I said you were right that the Falcon costs less than the AD516, but the dedicated AD516 was much better at hard disk recording than the Falcon, which just has rudimentary hard disk recording built in. You responded that I shouldn't compare the two, since the Falcon was a computer and you can do a lot more with a computer than you can with one dedicated sound board. Anyway, I've heard a lot of good things about the Falcon. And yes, the Falcon is a complete computer system, that has 16-bit hard disk recording built in and is a good value. But the fact remains that the AD1012, while not as good, does cost less than the Falcon, and the AD516, while costing more than the Falcon, is far superior at hard-disk recording than the Falcon is. You get what you pay for. The AD1012 costs the least and offers the least. The AD516 costs the most and is the best. Do you really think that Atari is capable of offering an entire computer system that has the capabilities of the AD516 for about half the cost? The Falcon is a good value, and yes it's also a computer so you can do a lot more. But for strictly 16-bit hard disk recording and sampling, the AD516 is far superior to the rudimentary sampler built into the Falcon. There's a lot more to a sampler/hard disk recorder than the DSP chip. And you'd had to buy a lot of optional accessories for the Falcon, if they're even available, before it could begin to match the capabilities that the AD516 has built in. Take care, Marcel. Dom Fontana –> Sent from NY via AP <–