SiD vs PoKEY v2 (Commodore 64 music vs Atari 800 music)

[@The8BitGuy]

I think the SID has more choices for waveforms. The Pokey sounds just barely better than a multi-voice square-wave generator. Don't get me wrong, Pokey was awesome for the time period, since there wasn't really any competition in 1979.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

I just want to say, I love your channel mate! I've learned so much about the programming techniques of 8 bit machines I never had personal experience with thanks to you. Very informative and very easy to grasp. I've done 3 hour marathon sessions of your channel. Thanks for the uploads and the nice comment. Big fan.

[@bjbell52]

and please don't forget the the SID chip came out a couple of years later and that something I've rarely if ever heard was music on the Atari 800 take uses POKEY's ability to have either 4 8-bit channels or 2 16-bit channels. I don't even know if any games ever bothered to use the 16-bit mode.

[@pauljs75]

By default Pokey could be considered square-ish in most of the sounds it made. But it could also be programmed to do custom waveforms. Some rare examples also show it was able to do custom samples. (The ones I remember were from a disk or two included with Antic Magazine.) So the biggest limitation may have been whoever programmed it.

[@olynxmano]

BTW: What recording Software do you use, as Camstudio only records at that low volume level, while KZbin videos use to play much louder.

[@jeanlesueur6936]

Pokey have Polynomial counters that SID don't have. That's what make it's particular crispy sounds... Those saying Pokey is a simple square wave generator simply doesn't know the technical details of this chip.

[@RichardM-kv4uu]

Pokey Ballblazer is so much better than the C64 version - benefits from 4 voices and nicer bass sound.

[@elbiggus]

I know the SID is "technically" better than POKEY, and objectively speaking the C64 versions of games have a more refined soundtrack than the A8 counterparts, but there's something about the honesty and purity of the modulated square wave of Atari's offering that speaks to me more than the fancy tricks that Commodore's machine can pump out.

[@jeanlesueur6936]

Technically speaking, the two chips have features that the other don't have. That's why they sounds very differently. IMHO these two chips are interesting.

[@videomaster8580]

The quality of the tunes, isn't necessarily down to the chips, its the skill in using the hardware. Some Pokey music sounds rough, sometimes the Sid chip does. Both can be awesome.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

Sorry for the late reply, but I completely agree. All the featured musicians, I feel, were masters on both chips. They knew each systems strengths and weaknesses. Producing excellent music on both machines on a consistent basis. I genuinely love to hear how they created the same music idea on both chips.

[@videomaster8580]

@@JohnnyOrgan Well said! ;o)

[@markthackray3185]

Pokey wins for me. There's something special about it, and these days those clever coders are making pokey do what we didn't think it could. There's some nice c64 tunes tho no doubt at all. I sometimes load up parralax just to listen to the bizarrely brilliant tune.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

People ignore that even if the Pokey was an earlier sound chip and its commercial use was poor, it was a hybrid which inspired the design of the Paula chip in the Amiga. Retriving and reproducing samples was the future and this is what Pokey was designed to do back in 70s ....crazy

[@williambuford6136]

Pokeys were used in many Arcade cabinets.

[@lovemadeinjapan]

@@williambuford6136 Atari Super Sprint has one of the best sounding Pokey setups.

[@MrSEA-ok2ll]

Both chips offer some unique sounds that are very memorable. SID on the C64 is a three year newer chip with impressive capabilities back in the day; however, the older Atari chip is also very capable and a major jump from the Atari 2600s two voices.

[@bjbell52]

The Atari sound chip could be used as 4 8-bit sound channels or 1 16-bit sound channel and 2 8-bit sound channels or 2 16-bit sound channels.

[@madcommodore]

I don't know enough about the way POKEY technically generates sound but I can easily explain what the SID chip is, it's a cut down version of something like the Roland Promars analog synth. I think a tune has to be designed for either chip first to be the best on it too. You can't really do a remix of something using a Roland Promars with a Yamaha DX7 :o)

[@mjp29]

The Commodore may sound better, & it should considering it is 3 years newer. However, I had both, & I can tell you the Atari was far less buggy. It's disk operating system in particular was superior in my opinion...

[@markwiygul6356]

I had an 8bit Atari 130XE. I think it had a more synthetic Arcade Sound. The C64 had a more acoustic natural sound. With graphics, the Atari was more colorful. The C64 had more contrast. I'm Glad I had the Atari 130XE, especially with its MUCH quicker 1050 Disk Drive and Atari DOS 2.5. Plus I had a letter quality 1027 printer, and a dot matrix XMM801, and the XM301 modem. I'm still proud of that system, and learning to program in Atari BASIC, with Graphics and Sound capabilities unmatched by any other version of BASIC out there. Thanks Atari !! and the Tramiel CEO who actually created the C64, then moved to Atari and built POWER WITHOUT THE PRICE machines for them

[@ks-bg5uk]

A music producer and synth player, I notice that the commodore has great synth sounds for that era. Even more realistic than the pokey chip. There are some great music coming from the c64 games, even better than many Atari titles.. However, there are a lot of great sounding, better written, and more instrument sounds on the Atari 8bit than the c64. If you compare World Karate Championship, Ninja, Alternate Reality, and Ballblazer, you'll notice they actually have beats in the background and even more sounds, something that c64 doesn't do. In those particular games, the 8bit is superior in sound and music. So in many instances it's not so much the hardware, but it's the programmer/composer. Both are great sounding chips for that time period.

[@GalacticJourney]

The Atari has more voices, so music for Atari tends to be more intricate. I do like the sound of C64 synths, though. There's no comparison between Atari MULE and C64 MULE, though. The former wins, hands down.

[@richardkelsch3640]

Pokey has a masculine sound and SID a softer feminine sound. Some of the tunes sounded better on SID some on Pokey. In my opinion, the winner was the Pokey Ballblazer.

[@KarjamP]

Richard Kelsch A musical instrument is still a musical instrument. You can't just say, "Some sound better on one than it does on the other". What really matters is that those who made the songs properl thought through the message they were trying to make, and for this to work, the elements must be working together to achieve that goal. Some of the songs weren't even arranged correctly between machines. A perfect example would be Alternate Reality. I bet the Atari version came first; among other things, it really seems that the opening cinematic of that version's the intended way it should've been played out.

[@richardkelsch3640]

I believe that is incorrect. For example, pianos. I have heard the sounds of various pianos, from grand to upright. All had different sounds, and most of the grand pianos I have heard were Pioneer (real piano, not synthesized electric), and I thought they sounded great. All were well tuned. That all changed when I heard the sound of a very expensive Steinway piano. Holy smokes, the most beautiful sounding piano I have ever heard. I can't even describe it, but its sound made the others sound like toys. It had an amazing and soothing "warm" sound to it. I understood and knew instantly why it is the "Rolls Royce" of pianos. Which brings me back to your point. The POKEY and SID sound completely different from each other. This means music composed for them is going to sound different. Ballblazer, for instance, sounds good on POKEY because it was made for POKEY. You can't get the same sound from SID, due to their differences. You will never get the sound to be the same on SID as it is on POKEY (and visa versa). POKEY and SID are different "instruments" and different style sounds are exploited for various compositions for them. Ballblazer is a POKEY specific tune, and is a magnificent demonstration of the POKEY sound. I don't specifically know of a SID tune that exploits its unique sound, but I am sure a few exist. Nevertheless, in the list of tunes presented, Ballblazer out-shined all of them.

[@KarjamP]

Richard Kelsch I never said they don't sound different. Of course, they will. SID isn't PoKEY for the same reasons a guitar isn't a keyboard instrument. I believe you misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. Just as one can do things right with either of them, so can one do things wrong. It's all about adapting a song to suit a particular musical instrument. (By the way, don't use "style" in reference to the artists themselves, for style is meant in support of the work itself, not the artist.) Many people seem to be forgetting that the SID chip is actually far more powerful than the PoKEY, to the point that it was even compared to an outright synthesis chip by some. In fact, it was actually envisioned to be far more powerful, but the developer issues meant that some features had to be cut back. This explains why, for instance, the SID chip can only play three instruments at a time. If the song seems to sound better on the PoKEY than it does on a SID, it's probably because the SID version happens to be improperly done, for the SID chip's actually still very much capable.

[@KarjamP]

By the way, I would like to point out that the PoKEY version of Ballblazer's theme is actually less thought through than the SID version of the same song. You probably enjoyed it due to that twinkle effect playing through the song. Such things may make the work seem enjoyable, but if anything, they harm it more than it does benefit. This is due to it getting in the way of the thought a work's supposed to project. For a comparison, the PoKEY's version of Alternate Reality happens to be properly thought through, hens it seeming to have a great effect, particularly in the opening cutscene to that game. Works which are properly thought out tend to sound a lot different compared to those which aren't/

[@richardkelsch3640]

KarjamP No it sounded better, and I realize your inner fanboy can't accept that. I get it. No, everything about the pokey version sounded better. I have heard the SID version and it is inferior. In fact it sounds like a magnetic tape drifting in and out of azimuth alignment. As far as what is "properly thought through" (after I laughed at that) as that is stupid considering a considerable amount of time was spent on the algorithm that generates the secondary sounds, including your "twinkle". Nevertheless, it seems all that thinking through for the SID version was wasted effort, considering.

[@mikewest6569]

People seem to forget that the Atari 8-bit was invented starting in 1977 and was released in 1979. The 64 was released 3 years later. The Atari holds its own against the 64 and surpasses it on many levels, including disk i/o and quality of components.

[@sideburn]

And 256 colors vs 16. I have both now and ataris still better overall. I don’t get why c64 gets all the love. I guess cuz it was cheaper so it sold more units.

[@Applecompuser]

Plus the C64 has more memory. With more memory, I think Atari would have been better. Eventually, I got the 130 XE. Very nice tho not a lot of software could use all of the memory.

[@sideburn]

@@Applecompuser yep my 2nd computer was an 800xl and then 130xe.

[@dm0527]

Have to jump in here. Alternate Reality was created specifically for the Atari 8-bit (PoKEY). I don't think it would ever sound the same or as good on the C64 (SID). I'm unsure about the others, but my guess is that each of them was written for one system and ported to the other, which is probably going to result in the port sounding inferior. I love both systems but since I had an Atari back in the day, the PoKEY tones sound better to me.

[@dukdukgoos]

Atari Ballblazer sounds so good! The algorithmic improvs are really musical...

[@fragmentalstew]

I love the way ballblazer always sound like a jazz improv musician going nuts on a synthesizer

[@oscwavcommentaccount]

Sound design is now better on the Atari PoKEY than before. There are now techniques like: Absolute PWM using filter Sawtooth wave using 1mhz and filter Triangle wave using 1mhz Filter chords (allows you to play 3 notes in 2 channels) This might have existed before, but you can join 2 channels for 16 bit pitch precision and that allows you to have square wave bass.

[@moronicmisfit]

the pokey chip, was almost 4 years older than the Sid chip, that's like 10 years in Car age. given that, i think the pokey stands up pretty well, sure the Sid, with the right programmer , could do wonderful things, but so could Pokey. plus Pokey was Gumby's sidekick, cant the sid chip say that?

[@Matthias_SZL]

Good said, but consider that SID is still in use while POKEY is just a relic of its era

[@herbertzegarra7161]

Have you ever listened all the adam's Gilmore fx pokey is muchas better than sid. Buenas the way, those games we're about 1988 to 1992. Listen specially Draconus theme. You Will motive that pokey is really awesome...!!!

[@herbertzegarra7161]

@@Matthias_SZL no my dear friend Atari 800xl continúes launch games this days.

[@another3997]

@@Matthias_SZL SID is no more "used" than Pokey. Everybody has their favourites from the past, and listening to nostalgic music isn't going to make anybody jealous or rich. The Atari was the spiritual forerunner of the Amiga, which CBM bought from Hi Torro. Jay Miner was intimately involved in both. Paula was better than Pokey or Sid.

[@mjp29]

Someone should make a video of all the areas the Atari are better: DOS, disk drive built like a tank & not needing frequent realignment, command lines that were easier to remember & made sense, the SIO connectors, the list goes on. I owned both and hardware wise, I'd much rather own the Atari again.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

No need, the Atari 8bit has proven its sound abilities with all the new demos and homebrew games that utilize Pokey's High Pass Filter and bass routines that don't require any cpu time. After all history is the ultimate judge. Synth chips like SID " died" with the arrival of Amiga's sound chip which was based on the same feature Pokey had.( fetching and reproducing digital samples or samples prepared by the CPU).

[@rpocc]

Atari has better BASIC but horrible keyboard input subsystem. I’d like to have an OS with the same keyboard buffer as in C64 but with Atari BASIC (just maybe better optimised, since the stock basic is slow). The SIO system and range of accessories is rad, I agree.

[@tharkthax3960]

i LOVE the C64 - also love the atari, but i have to say my fave is the pokey, just has something special about it, but thats not an insult to c64 users as i have c64 too, both are wonderful machines. i think its down to who programs the machines, nowadays pokey is beyond its abilities, mind blowingly good, sid always been good and for both have huge respect. just because sid sounds better at one tune and pokey the other doesnt make them better than one another, 8 bits - ahead of thier times.

[@olynxmano]

+Klaxer SID is limited to 3.5kHz . So, what you call "smoother" is in real "muffled" ... But, in many cases that results in a warmer sound using SID. The creator of the POKEY really missed to find a solution to play clean low toned waves aswell. Using POKEY's ability to create new waves by the "3.5MHz" feature, would enable to have very low toned forward and backward triangle sounds. So, if you use that feature, you get very high side noise, making square and triangle sounds only useful in the mid and high range . At least, one and two operator modulations were available over the full range ....

[@danlock1]

and fuzzier, which probably makes for smoother transitions. The POKEY could also combine its voices to enable two of the four to make one 16-bit voice, so 2x8bit+1x16bit or 2x16bit, and machines with an extra POKEY added could do nifty stereo, and that's neglecting the 1-bit "noise" channel each POKEY has.

[@ThoughtMachine1]

LOL, no, scratchy and high pitched. Pokey has depth and warmth.

[@Foebane72]

Any of the four channels on a POKEY could be noise, Danlock.

[@PG-gs5vb]

@@danlock1 There is no 1-bit noise channel on POKEY. Perhaps you're mistaking it with GTIA's beeper output (which was used e.g. for keyboard clicks on the Atari 8-bit machines), which can be used for some interesting sounds as well.

[@kylehill3643]

Cost of the IBM? 2000$ for a bare bones version. Cost of the Commodore 64? 500$ on release quickly dropping in price but had LOTS of software. It was more then a game machine it was an actual computer. Dad did books on it and you can program BASIC on it. None of it is kept secret. There were Commodore 'bibles' that teach you how to do it and we have one of the big programming books still. Later a CMD Hard Drive was released making things boot near instant. Using the hard drive Dad programmed a menu for me to navigate as I was only 3 years old but I did a lot of educational stuff on it.

[@thudtheace]

You must have used an emulator, because the Pokey sounds was totally broken.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

You must have ignored the description. "The music has been converted directly from .sid and .sap files to high quality .wavs"

[@bakatoroi]

Conversion is emulation. The only thing that is NOT emulation is the real actual chip.

[@megasuperlexa2]

I believe Atari chip used some kind of "approximation" of musical scale that didnt work every time, resulting in out-of-tune pices...

[@another3997]

@@bakatoroi Conversion is not emulation. Lossless formats are exactly that... lossless.

[@bakatoroi]

@@another3997 But you're not listening to lossless formats. You're listening to a conversion of those formats into sound waves.

[@d_vibe-swe]

There's not much of a competition here. The SID chip was designed as a synthesizer in mind, therefore it's pretty diversal. The Pokey does have some charm though.

[@tharkthax3960]

Why do folk think newer is better? But at the end of the day who really cares which is better. We are bound to think the computer we had back in those wonderous days was better as thats what we had (mostly). Enjoy all the tunes from various chips and finally let go of the uneeded 'loyalty'. In my opinion generally 8 bit computers were much more entertaining. And reliable! Many still going all these years later. Love em ALL

[@elasiduo108]

I agree that the SID chip is capable of creating much more versatile music than the POKEY chip. But, in some cases, the rough sound of the POKEY chip sounds better, I think. For example, I far prefer the POKEY version of the Draconus Theme. It sounds much more aggresive and less muffled.

[@zbyseklipka406]

Yes, Draconus or Zybex is best on Atari

[@repetto74]

SID chip is far superior to my hears. Pokey sound is very metallic...

[@EverettVinzant]

What I’d really love, is having a single synth that can support 2 SID chips, 2 Pokey chips, 2 chips for NES audio, and 2 Gameboy chips (arranged so that each chip can provide L/R channels). Then I’d like to make chip tunes using all the chips to produce “stereo” sound.

[@rustyhangerabortions]

There are probably VST instrument plugins for all of that. I'm going to have to look into that.

[@Daniel_Klugh]

Something's wrong with the NTSC colour emulation in the Atari version of Panther. That B&W glitchy mess shouldn't be at the bottom of the screen. Also the whole video was dithered or something. There are fine horizontal lines across the screen.

[@terramap2902]

Some emulators doesn't emulate the NTSC artifact of graphics mode 8 in the ataris, since it was an effect of the screen and varies with each manufacturer of CRT TV, and even different models the results vary. Also the game was designed for PAL TV systems, so, the colours would be wrong anyways.

[@RobCoops]

Objectively SID was the better sound chip there is no real reason to argue otherwise. Claiming that modern techniques and so on have made better use of the pokey hardware is nice but we need to look at it from the time these chips where in use not how we these days could technically use them. Also and this I am not sure about the new techniques that can be used to squeeze more out of the pokey chip how much data does that require is there enough for the game left? Anyway, having bought hardware with these chips back in the day the comparison was clear SID was the better chip (again in that era when you could go and buy hardware with both chips of the shelve).

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

High pass filter was a feature that existed in every Pokey and wasn't utilized....until people understood what Paula could do with that feature in a machine called Amiga . It's unfair to discard a specific feature just because it wasn't popular among coders during that period. Pokey was ahead of its time like most of the features of the platform.

[@markhall7173]

I loved these old chip tunes. The C64 always compares more favorably than the Atari 8-bit, but people often forget that the Atari was almost 3 years older than the C64, which back then was a lot. Also most Atari games of that era had to fit into 32K or 48K to remain compatible with the old 400/800 machines (even though the XE and XL had 64 and 128KB respectively). So the C64 games had between a 25% and 50% RAM advantage and chips that were 3 years newer. Both machines were far more powerful than the Apple II which today seems to get the most praise...

[@tarstarkusz]

Apple gets the most praise because it came first and was a "real" computer with an expansion bus that allowed 80 column displays, increased RAM and had a lot of very good business software. The inability to use 80 column displays and RAM expansion badly hurt the Atari and 64 for business use. Even the shapes hurt them. You could have your Apple II on your desk with the floppies on top and the monitor on the floppy drives, saving a lot of space. The floppies didn't need an extra power cord either. For these reasons, among others, the Apple II had a huge base of small business users and schools, while the Atari and C64 were largely seen as toys for playing games in the home. I know there was decent software for the 64, but it just never caught on in the small business market.

[@spearPYN]

tarstarkusz you right and both were replaced by PC's.

[@bjbell52]

@@tarstarkusz The Atari could have made a very good business computer. There was an 80 column board for the Atari. It also had 3 slots for memory expansion. Here's one reason Atari could have made a good business machine. Apple's word processor had to be read in from a floppy and took a good chunk of the memory leaving very little memory space for your document; so it had to continually read and write to the floppy. Atari could put the same size program into one cartridge thus taking up only 16K of ram, leaving you with at least twice as much space for your document. Unfortunately, Atari itself was stressing games over business. The did have a word processor and had a third party spreadsheet (I think it was called Visicalc or something like that). But as you said, most people thought of the 800 and the C64 as game machines. I learn machine language programming by reading a book on Apple programming and hardware wise, the Atari was much more powerful than an Apple. It also cost a lot less than an Apple. I once heard that if you walked into the headquarters of Apple you would see an Apple on every desk whereas if you did the same to Atari, you wouldn't see that at all..

[@tarstarkusz]

+bjb... Visicalc was one of the most important pieces of software in the history of software. Atari never really had a chance. The memory slots of the early Atari computers did not bankswitch. Atari designed the computers for low cost, not expandability.

[@another3997]

@@tarstarkusz Apple marketed their computer as a business machine. It certainly wasn't priced for the consumer market. Neither Atari nor Commodore marketed their 8 bits in that way. But they weren't considered "toys" either. They were expensive, and computers, in general, were something that many people were ignorant of. They certainly weren't household necessities, but a relatively big investment. All of them had expansion capabilities. Had Apple not produced the Macintosh, they would have ended up as a shortt byline in the history books.

[@kingcognito]

Thanks for the comparison. It makes you appreciate the SID even more. Pokey sound must be an acquired taste - on every song it was a relief to my ears when it faded away.

[@mjp29]

I owned both in the 80s. Would re-buy an Atari today because of it's polished engineering!

[@LoganHunter82]

Too bad that Atari didn't use PoKEY for Atari 7800 console.

[@markshanehayden4648]

by the time the 7800 was designed the POKEY was so inexpensive to produce that the idea was to embed one in any game cartridge that needed one, then the console could be kept cheaper and games could have basic 2600 like sound from the console, an on-cart POKEY, or perhaps more advanced chips in the future. Ballblazer for the 7800 had a POKEY in the cartridge and had identical sound to the 8 bit computer version for example. Sadly only a couple games ended up doing this.

[@stabarnak9841]

This can only be subjective, but in a few of the games shown (particularly Ballblazer) I think Pokey wins just because of tonal quality and the fact that I sat listening to that tune on an Atari 800XL for SOOO many hours bitd. (I found the jazzy overlay tune to sound way more like a cheap transistor radio on the C64 whereas the 800 sounded richer) That being said, I installed an aftermarket SID card in my TI-99/4A a few years ago, so I could access the massive library of SID tunes and play them on my favorite 8-bit era machine (ya I know the TI is a 16 bit computer, but it came out in the 8-bit era, and performed more like an 8-bit system). This is a purchase I never regretted. The deciding factor for me back then would have been which of the two chips was easier to program in high level languages like BASIC. I never owned a C64 to make the comparison, but loved the ease of programming music on the 8 bit Ataris.

[@dZDW]

i love Atari. Draconus better on Atari of course. Panther too, but intro better on C64. Alternate Reality better on C64, maybe it was made after Atari version, or composer not knows POKEY as he knows SID. Ballblazer i think is almost equal. differents only in channel loudness. Atari win :) but now i want to play some C64 games, it looks better in graphical solution. sorry my english ;)

[@JohnnyOrgan]

Your English is much better than my whatever your native language is. Nice comment . :)

[@gottfired]

What? Alternate reality pokey is miles better. Blasphemy! :)

[@Mikey-gs1dx]

I'm of the opinion, and this is all opinion, that Pokey has a harder, crunchier sound that I like over C64; however, when it comes to full range of sounds, C64 wins out. It just has mellower mellows, deeper and fuller bass, etc. But, again, if you want that digital 8-bit crunch, Pokey gives you more. So, it is all up to what it is you want.

[@bjbell52]

Don't forget you can turn 2 8-bit sound channels into one 16-bit sound channel. Have you tried listening to the POKEY chip using 16-bits for its sound?

[@infinitecanadian]

There is nothing to compare; each sound chip has a unique quality.

[@adroharv9213]

it's nice hearing both quite honestly. I like the more muted but still fat sound of the C64 but also the tight tones and unique bass of the pokey. There are certain instance on both that I like and dislike during certain tunes. It's not as obvious as one is better but certainly certain styles can be preferred- again this varies from tune to tune and not just because it's being played on a particular machine like some people try to convince others of. It's the one thing I definitely notice in fans of the generally more less favoured machines. There's a fanboy allegiance and it comes out because this can be used to champion their machine. Very sad unfortunately but you can't tell them that. It's the same with a lot of ST users too for this same reason and similarly Amiga lovers that think every single tune is automatically better. I love hearing music on all the systems and sometimes I prefer a particular one over the other but never I don't simply align to one on some silly basis that it's better merely because it's from that machine

[@smila007]

Ball blazer on the pokey, the rest Sid. That’s not draconus on the sid btw.

[@MrKarlyboy]

The Pokey can actually do SID synth but it ties up the processor a lot and you can't tell its not a C64 SID on the Pokey. Not sure many people know that. Pokey had 4 channels, SID 3 but the synth had just made it awesome. Note we are comparing a 1979 (Atari) computer system with a 1982/3 one (C64). Atari 8-bit was capable of some incredible stuff that even leaves the C64 standing (C64 programmes dispute this) but if you look at say Space Harrier on the Atari 8-bit it crucifies the C64 version (and lets face it Chris Butler on C64 was a Brilliant programmer and wrote excellent games). However the Atari humiliates it, as well as beating the Amiga and ST versions. Atari's biggest weakness was its sprite system, good in some ways but too small in width, and not enough of them. It also needed a better resolution with more colours. If it had released the 8-bit 3-4 years later chances are it could have been. Both machines had their excellent points though.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

I agree. Both chips are beautiful. I still listen to the old tunes from both systems regularly (as well as the Spectrum/Amstrad chiptunes). I had an Atari 800XL but love quality music from all the 8 bit computers back in the day. Some people have said it was a biased comparison. I was just trying to emphasise the difference between the chips and how quality programmers/musicians did the same tracks on the different hardware. Yes. The title is slightly clickbait but still stands. Thanks for your passionate comment. I genuinely appreciate it and hope I responded in kind.

[@atariandre5014]

Today, you can buy a PokeyMax and have 4 POKEYs, 2 SIDs and 2 FPGs inside your Atari 800 :)

[@rbrtck]

One of the main points of having custom chips is taking a load off the CPU, and the POKEY, at least in the context of sound, doesn't do much of that (I know it does a lot of other work, but for sound it enables the CPU rather than does much work for it). What you're talking about here is the Atari's CPU emulating a synthesizer, while the SID is a synthesizer. It's like an improved/glorified version of the Apple II's CPU banging away on its speaker. Or the audio equivalent of the VCS/2600's CPU "racing the beam" to feed data to the TIA chip. And before anyone points out that the Atari's CPU is faster, when displaying the most commonly used graphics modes, it's only about 17% faster than the C64's CPU, not 75% or 79% like most people tend to believe. Sure, the Atari does some things very well that the C64 struggles with, but examples of the opposite are not hard to find, either. They have rather different strengths and weaknesses.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

@@rbrtck POKEY needs software for envelopes, but can mix tones and keep a waveform running without any CPU consumption. This is not a ZX Spectrum beeper. I found a technically very interesting toy synth "Sound FX Phasor" made in 1980 by Electroplay, which contains a monophonic softsynth on a tiny PIC microcontroller that seems to use a similar RNG noise algorithm like POKEY.

[@rbrtck]

@@cyberyogicowindler2448 I didn't mean to imply that the POKEY is like an Apple II/old PC/ZX Spectrum beeper, which in truth is really just a clicker because even beeps require the CPU. I was kind of saying the POKEY was in between those and the SID. Yes, it can keep a waveform running on its own, but only a square wave, while for tones the SID offers triangle, sawtooth, and pulse with pulse width (square or rectangular waves with variable duty cycle), along with additional modulations. You can do all of that on the POKEY, including envelopes, because it's incredibly flexible, but of course the CPU has to drive it all, while for the most part the SID drives itself. Of course, the POKEY offers some advantages of its own, in addition to its flexibility. For one thing, it has more noise generators that play automatically, so it is really good at certain noise-like sound effects. And it has four voices versus three on the SID, albeit the POKEY's voices only have 8-bit frequency resolution versus 16-bit on the SID. This is fine for sound effects, but music will play noticeably (at least for some people) out of tune on the POKEY unless the CPU is in full control or two voices are combined into one for 16-bit resolution for the POKEY, which of course reduces the number of voices.

[@BokBarber]

The POKEY could belt them out in the right hands, but even the biggest Atari fanboy has to admit that the SID is better hardware. And rightfully so; it was released 3 years later.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

SID is just yet another analogue synth imitation. POKEY sounds unique even by nowadays means.

[@exogrinder3797]

Can I get this c64 Draconus version?

[@etele1256]

The pokey sounds not in well tuned. A little bit like the indian, or arabic or turkish music. 24 sounds in an octave?

[@storerestore]

It just has relatively low frequency resolution that's not aligned with any pitch scale. You can combine the channel timers on POKEY to get higher resolution frequency, but then you lose a channel. This is common with a lot of these sound chips. The SID however has unusually high frequency resolution.

[@10p6]

Nice Video. The biggest issue with the comparison is Commodore sold a lot more machines, meaning more games sales. This then pushed developers to spend more resources on the 64 than 800 range. Technically, Pokey has more capabilities than SID in many areas, and SID does in others.

[@kylehill3643]

C64 did a lot more then games buddy!

[@10p6]

@@kylehill3643 does not change the fact that 99.99 percent of C64's were sold and used as game systems.

[@another3997]

@@kylehill3643 He didn't say it only did games. And the Atari 8 bits did more than games, but were designed somewhat earlier than the C64. You would expect improvement over that period. Commodore produced the Vic 20 after the Atari 400/800 came out, and that was pretty crude in comparison.

[@Sinistar1983]

@@kylehill3643 and it technically never died

[@txmetalhead82xk]

This made my week so much better! Very nice video.

[@fragmentalstew]

the 7800 needed a pokey built-in

[@bjbell52]

Atari was originally designing a new sound chip for the 7800 but when Jack took over, he decided to use the sound chip from the 2600 (so that the 7800 could play 2600 games) and had the 7800 to use a POKEY in the cartridge. Only two games used the POKEY chip.

[@arnetrautmann9783]

Interesting, how close the are. Not in the details, of course, but in "overall pleasantness".

[@rosomakx4]

very often - although pokey is older and technically weaker,- sounds nicer than sid.

[@TheLemminkainen]

Pokey is exelent chip for games Sid is amazing for all kind of music love both

[@Quaid2k]

I love them both, I'm sure the SID was analog and the Pokey was digital? It sounds true to my ear, the warm sound of the filter on the C64 and the digital FM type of tones coming out the Pokey.

[@rpocc]

The POKEY was pure-digital with only square waves multiplied by per-channel volume coming out. But the noise generator and sound-morphing abilities were just perfect for the time. The designers have squeezed everything possible out of simple quad timer, LFSR and a handful of logic gates.

[@ryansupak3639]

I feel like SID was overall easier to get a better sound on (based on the typical C64 game sounding better than the typical Atari800 one), but the PoKEY was at least as good, maybe even a little better, in the hands of an expert.

[@alexandervalle525]

In my opinion alernate reality, phanter, zybex y draconus. Gana Atari 800 xl.

[@PrzeszczepiX]

POKEY is like a typical 1980's home computer/game console, while SID is closer to 1980's music synthesizer. Overall IMO the SID sounds better

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

SID was a synthesizer chip. Pokey was an all around custom cheap that can easily emulate SID. The collection of tunes in this video is unfortunate.

[@rbrtck]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 It is the CPU that is emulating the SID, while the POKEY provides a means of output. How much CPU does this take, and can a game be run at the same time?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@rbrtck since KZbin is broken and you might not get any of my replies I will repeat these simple facts..so please ignore the rest of my comments. Zero CPU time or better 2-3% at times. High Pass Filter is Pokey's feature that was later improved and incorporated in Paula (Amiga) and became a standard in computer audio resulting to the demise and death of synthesizer chips. What Pokey needs is memory to retrieve the samples produced by the CPU and that doesn't affect the performance of the graphics or the system in general. A long list of games and demos proves that...plus Jay Miner in his some of his talks explained how the system worked. So a memory upgrade on Ataris benefits this audio feature.

[@cbm80amiga]

Pokey plays only square wave, SID plays 3 different wave shapes and combinations. That's why it sounds better. With sampled channel on volume register it adds really realistic drums.

[@purrbox7514]

SID was a proper synth with oscillators and resonant filters which is something that no other 8bit sound chip had. That's why the C64 sounded so much better than other micros of the time.

[@jeanlesueur6936]

Not so simple. Waveform isn't the only way to make interesting sounds. You forgot that pokey have polynome counters generators for making complex sounds that SID don't have. And pokey also have filters...

[@daibonehead]

I'm quite impressed by the sounds of the pokey. I was aC64 owner and I still listen to Sid tunes via sidplay, but I would have been happy with an Atari 800. Back in the day, I played Star Raiders and Seawolf on the Atari 400, they were great games. I'm sure the C64 greats could have also produced some superb work on the Atari machine. Great video. Ball blazer is a great tune. Must find that amazing Romeo Knight remix.

[@brostenen]

In some situations, one is better than the other. And vice versa. Both are nice and each have their own thing going on. Personally I have never heard any Atari sound in person. Only used C64 and Vic-20 in my life. However the entire 8bit era were so great. Each machine have it's own personality.

[@johnernest8109]

Robert Yannes wanted the SID to be a music synth. Douglas Neubauer made Star Raiders and Solaris, which have no music, but have some massive sound effects, also the arcade version of Centipede was another one that had some really heavy sound effects, almost percussion-like. The POKEY excels on sound effects, really that was the appeal of the 2600 TIA too was sound effects it wasn't music. Both the TIA and POKEY have polynomial counters which are used both in noise channels and some unique bass type sounds. So C64 enthusiasts talk about how technically capable the SID is, which is true, but it can't do some of the things the POKEY can do, and the POKEY can't do some things the SID can do. That's really the bottom line. The SID is also technically more capable than the NES APU too, but listen to the stark difference of TMNT versions, that's a really interesting comparison. NES: kzbin.info/www/bejne/omqllGlvf5unibc C64: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXeliqt6m6qDjsU POKEY title cover: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5WqipZmhtKgf5I There's almost no comparison there. The NES version mops the floor and takes them all to the cleaners, of course the NES isn't a "computer" by accounts of most people, but the Famicom did have Family BASIC, and the NES was 6502-based just like the C64 and Atari 800XL. May as well discuss it too.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Well the NES came 3-4 years after the Atari 8bit machine, so there is no real value in comparing a computer architecture from the late 70s with NES. What we should talk about is how the Atari 8bit line still surprises everyone with all those homebrew games and the new music tools that allow Pokey to emulate rival chips. Great example is Sandor's Reharden Demo and how a chip designed to produce square waves can simulate SID's tone and bass. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKjFZKWBgKidd9k&t= The ingenuity of Jay Miner's Team was off the charts

[@bitset3741]

​@@nickolasgaspar9660 Show me a single example of Pokey simulating SID's filters, just one. You can simulate a SID with a PoKEY (minus its filters) and a PoKEY with a SID (minus its polynomial counters for noise but in both cases you are cutting out the heart of the chip. PoKEY's polynomial counters made for some really cool grungy crunchy sound affects, but SID's filters were unbeatable. (as well as the multiple waveforms) It also takes almost all your CPU time to do anything like that, so... okay for music software, cool for a demo, but worthless for anything else. PoKEY is awesome and I am a big fan, but SID is better in a lot of ways - multiple waveforms, better chromatic resolution, and FILTERS And PoKey is better in one - Polynomial counters.

[@Kand1nSky]

really a very good example of Pokey Music

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@bitset3741 Again pokey was NOT just a synthesizer chip. It was the future of the industry. Miner and his team improved and incorporated Pokey's sampling abilities in Paula(Amiga). In reality Synthesizer chips died with SID. There is a large list of modern games and demos that use Pokey's high pass.(Agenda demos).

[@OhFookinELL]

SID was way advanced for its time.

[@Foebane72]

Um, I think you'll find that Atari audio files are called .SAP, not .SAD .

[@davidcady6315]

I had used both the C64 and Atari800XL (later on with QMeg and TTDOS built-in enhancements). Regarding the sound - the SiD was 3+ years younger than POKEY and as such went for more synth-sound, even with 1 voice less, comparatively. The rest was pretty much a matter of programming (aka getting the max out of) either of the chips. In truth, Ataris went for crispy tube-ish sound, while the C64s were more tranzistor-ish. Having played around with both back in the day, I have to say, that the Atari POKEY was much easier to mess around with, while the SiD was a bit of a pain in the ass to program. So if you needed some music / effects really fast, C64 did not help that much, while Atari was an out of the box kind of a thing. To me, in a result - in my very personal memories' opinion - after a while C64 sounded like farting music out of the ass, while Atari sound was still bearable. But still, both were excellent and (if not ahead of than) setting up the standards for its time. A beautiful era, I need to add :-)

[@thudtheace]

My ears are burning from the emulation..... I might have post this same comparison from real Atari 800 and c64 hardware.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

Please do. I'd love to see that personally :)

[@1xenosky]

i dont know anything about this shit and i love it.... awesome music ~~

[@spearPYN]

Both are excellent, but Atari 8-bit was a perfect microcomputer for games and programming in the 80s. Most games from 82-85 era are much better on Atari.

[@kylehill3643]

Sid has a brighter sound and you can do a lot more as a user with the Sid Player v10. Dad wanted the Sid Keyboard but by the time he found out about it none was available. We lived in Paradise California back then and got our Commodore 64 at Jimco (I think that's how it was spelled) which became Target. We got ours for only 250$. The Apple II ONLY did 4 colors (well 2 actually) the others were faked and on board beeps. Eventually the Apple II was hacked to do more colors but it was rarely used. Cost of the whole machine? No less then 1500$ for the crappy version without a keyboard and mouse.

[@monolalia]

Ballblazer was so much slower in my memory. Perhaps a PAL/NTSC thing

[@Duelli75]

You come close to the "original" when you turn the speed to 0.75 in the player. It's just a tad to slow then.

[@archieil]

I had to say that music converted to C-64 can be worse than the original one... The one made for SID sounds great and are hard to convert with a big success to other chips: POKEY or YM. Games were using simpler tunes and it was not visible to that degree as with a dedicated cards/MIDI boxes having SID(s) on board. Not all "waves" SID can generate are "nice" to hear/to my ear and some musicians are trying too many different ideas at once... I wonder the result of unfinished Atari chip dedicated for 7800.

[@johnny5wd567]

I wonder what the AMY-1 chip (for the 65 XEM) would have sounded like.

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

SID - Commodore 64 absolutely won the #1 spot in 8-bit music, but the Atari 800XL was awesome too. Much Love for both systems. :-)

[@vap0rtranz]

Right out the gate this is like comparing a cover band to the original. The music for Alternate Reality isn't the same b/w C64 and Atari so, as other people said, this isn't apples-to-apples. And results are expected: I like parts of SID and parts of Pokey but I don't think it has much to do with the chips as folks think. What about the loudspeakers that are driven to make the sound? That's another factor. Lots of moving parts. Regardless, I know what a pain it is to rip music at the highest fidelity possible so ty for making this.

[@ecernosoft3096]

The POKEY is great!

[@cbfrider]

Thank you for this video, it shows differences between the two worlds quite good, I think. But: Funny how you found games with really not so good music on C64, even though for a fair comparison this seems to be needed. My guess: Games with good 64-music were not ported to the Atari?

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

I have the impression that even very good musicians on Atari spent less hours to port their game music - possibly because they had specialized on C64 by considering SID more melodical. E.g. "The Last V8" by Rob Hubbard is arranged much simpler on Atari 8-Bit. POKEY could play that song much closer to the C64 version when ported properly.

[@PeBoVision]

Starting with Alternate Reality was perfect...The opening abduction scene had sound effects that made sense to the visuals on the Atari, but seemed random on the C-64, otherwise both machines sound indistinguishable. I have a large collection of .SID files, and when well executed, that chip has the superior sound, but in general, under the tight dealines of 80's game development, the Pokey and Sid usually sound pretty close. Now if we move into the 16 bit era, Atari was not well served by Yamaha, and the Amiga wins with no contest...and the STe was too little too late.

[@zbdot73]

"Atari was not well served by Yamaha", unfortunately Atari used the cheapest sound chip around. Yamaha made a number of knock out audio chips that were already quiet well utilized in the home and arcade industry. The particular sound chip used can also doubled as a joystick input, again saving dollars on the design.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

@@zbdot73 Not at all! - The amazing part of POKEY is the shiftregister feedback noise engine. It is as versatile as FM, although in a different way and has its strengths exactly there where Yamaha OPL totally sucks (hiss, hum, rough massive buzz and drone sounds). I wish someone had combined POKEY and FM into the same PC soundcard. It would have been the best non-sample based digital synth of all computers. Unlike FM, POKEY still sounds unique today.

[@Miesiu]

Both silimar or the same. Depend who - what - had in the childhood.

[@thedrummerboycr]

They are a different sound chips design. The SID was designed by musician and engineer thinked as synth. The Pokey was more like arcade SFX. The SID features are more versatile and able to do something than the Pokey can't do, even having 4 voices. Anyway I would summarize it. If you want music, then SID is the option, but if you want classic computer Sound effects, so Pokey will do better.

[@sighin]

Commodore sounds good, however I usually preferred the Atari track versions, though not sure why. Maybe Commodore was a bit "silented", and Atari "exponent" (or whatever terminology should I us). Good examples of Atari sounding better to me were Draconus or Panther. The Atari's Draconus' sound is much clearer.

[@ToxicCrayon]

The trouble with these kinds of comparisons is that many times the music and sound was typically created for the first system the software was developed for. "Written to the hardware" as we say. As such, other versions rarely sound as good. The Ballblazer music is a great example of this. it was written for the POKEY and not well suited for the SID. The converse is true of other games.The real test would be to take various pieces of music not written for the hardware and then see which one can do better overall.

[@LeelooMinai]

Could be. I just listened to C64 version of Boulder Dash (my favourite tune on Atari 65XE/800XL,) and it was pretty disappointing - could not touch the original imo.

[@cmr2079]

I know the SID is the more technically capable chip, but I tend to like the Pokey's tones more. It kind of sounds like the NES or Gameboy, which is probably why. Plus, a lot of composers used the SID in ways that I just don't find appealing. All that said, I don't think this comparison really represents the best of either chip.

[@Gamevet]

The NES sound chip copied what the SID did on the C64.

[@herbertzegarra7161]

I agree with you at your first announcement.

[@KarjamP]

Even if it's still the same game but over different consoles, the comparison's still going to be unfair or bias. This is because assets have to be recreated entirely from scratch; they may seem the same songs but played on differing chips, but in actual fact, one is always an arrangement of the other. This is because of the differing chip's capabilities; what one chip can do, the other can't, or at least, not without true emulation in some manner, but even in regards to chip emulation, that just means that the song would be at the mercy of the emulator. Sound chips should be seen as individuals, neither objectively better, nor worst, than the other. After all, their true purpose is to provide sound for those who use them for their intended purposes. Using comparisons to judge things, even between differing versions of the same song, is going to cause bias as one programmer used their chip correctly, but not the other, or the same programmer does not know how to properly wield one or the other chip. Even those who do know how to wield both, it's still going to be two independent versions of the same song, unless, of course, true emulation is achieved.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

By that logic, nothing is comparable. Even when they clearly are.

[@KarjamP]

@@JohnnyOrgan That's the whole point: that nothing's comparable. Just as you're not your own parents in spite of having their genes, so aren't alternate versions the same thing as what they're based on. The existence of logical paradoxes prove that rationality does not cover any and all situations, just as how irrationality can lead one completely astray. Therefore, the best bet would be just to accept what I have to say, unless you have a better argment than "It's just nonsense".

[@sebastianpawlak]

I played this test to a musician, without prior telling what music comes from which computer. She chose Atari's music as of better sound.

[@elfenmagix8173]

You call this an actual test? Emulated systems can not do what the real machines can. Yet such a test on music and sound on machines you did not have the classic: M.U.L.E. by Electronic Arts.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

No. No one called this a test.

[@another3997]

Emulated systems can do what the original machines did. Cycle exact emulation has been possible for years, even with much more complex systems than these two. It all depends on how good the emulators are. Modern hardware won't break in to a sweat running several of these at the same time.

[@zaphod77]

you STILL cheated by comparing dungeon on c64 to city on atari 8 bit. the fair comparison would be dungeon to dungeon.

[@richard.c.guitars]

SID is a far better chip. Easily. I owned an Atari 130xe and I can say I was jealous of the c64 sound abilities - I have an analogue monosynth and after learning about sound synthesis...... I know the Atari pokey has rudimentary waveform generators ...square and noise? Whereas the c64 has triangle, saw, square and noise...plus it has controllable filters and envelopes that can be applied . It's an unfair comparison - the sid chip is probably the best non sample based non fm chip made for a home computer

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

This is common misconception. Pokey High Pass Filter wasn't utilized during it's commercial life and this is why many people think it was an inferior chip. History showed that non synthesizer chips were the future . Paula (Amiga) was the proof. Pokey had the same ability with Paula, to retrieve and reproduce samples directly from the memory allowing the machine to play either CPU or digitized samples (PWM) without demanding any CPU time. This is the reason why pokey can play clear digitized sounds so well and during heavy load(Space Harrier). Also demos like Gene and cyberpunk(Agenda), triple threat(noise) and many more homebrew games and modern demos demonstrate this feature that became the standard for future sound chips

[@illegalquantity]

C64 sound better except Ballblazer which sounds really cool on Atari .

[@ks-bg5uk]

If you compare Alternate Reality music, you'll hear that there are more sounds, effects, and even a beat on the Atari version. Commodore sounds good too. Better can be subjective.

[@rpocc]

Strictly speaking, the SID is the most advanced chip along Atari, Nintendo and ZX Spectrum-128 just due to the fact that it has analog sawtooth waveform generator and analog LP filter. But in terms of crispiness and cut through the mix, POKEY is superior. Pokey has aggressive, unfiltered sound of pure pulse waveforms with limited PWM, 1 more voice and unique short LFSR for generating engine-alike bass sounds. And also, it has wide range of logical gates which can combine tonal and noisy sound producing effects reminding VCO Sync, distorted filter self-oscillation, ring modulation, etc, so it can produce very wide palette of percussive sounds and unusual leads. Also it has kind if memorable pitch inaccuracy in 8-bit mode, which sometimes adds some unnatural, futuristic feel but not as “teethgrinding” as Yamaha-style FM with its chaotic high harmonic content. I’d take POKEY for bright bass, percussion and bright leads and SID for PWM arpeggios, mild leads and more gentle basses.

[@time4advancement244]

An excellent and detailed technical explanation. I just wish I understood what you wrote 😐

[@barts.517]

SID has noticable distorsion, POKEY sound very "digital". Since Im Atari man POKEY wins

[@jssonstevens59]

It's sad. Every expert will say how awesome the SID is. Blasts the POKEY out the water. That's like saying Man Utd were the better team in a 5 nil drubbing against Liverpool.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@jssonstevens59 SID is a good sound chip, but lacks the number of Pokey's channels , it has noise in its non square-wave sounds and its SFX are weak compared to Pokey's raw power. On the other hand Pokey has a distortion but its can be addressed by the "new" trackers plus it can emulate SID tone and bass. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKjFZKWBgKidd9k SID is a synthesizer chip and it has a distinct sound without much diversity.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

​@@nickolasgaspar9660 SID is only yet another analogue synth imitation (for its time not a bad one) while POKEY/TIA functions and sounds unique even by todays standards. I never found real successors of that shiftregister sound. The only interesting variant is the toy synth "Sound FX Phasor" made in 1980 by Electroplay, which contains a monophonic softsynth on a tiny PIC microcontroller.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@cyberyogicowindler2448 One would say that is more an appeal to personal taste. I am talking about the future of sound in computers. Pokey's high pass filter (the ability of the chip to retrieve and reproduce samples directly from memory) was the cause of the demise of synth chips. Sure Pokey had a relative simple but unique 4 channel "beeper" that could produce really good results (candy mountain , return of atarians) but the main feature of the chip can be found in all modern games and demos.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

​@@nickolasgaspar9660 Definitely not. Multipulse squarewave is still an exotic waveform generator that never became part of generic FM or subtractive ("analogue") synth engines (beside a fixed prewired hiss noise in many chips). Only Casio used it for melodic tones in small monophonic keyboards like VL-1, PT-30, PT-50, PT-80 etc. And Holtek made the chip of the Hinh Hon EK-001 with 2 note polyphonic VL-1-like waveforms and analogue envelope.

[@juliusheide3643]

For us collectors don't matter much,we have both systems so..

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

lol true.

[@gamedoutgamer]

To me, the C64 AR:City sounds overly synthesized. Also the C64 AR intro is so colorless. The original musician made it on the A8 and that one is better to me. There are a lot of talented composers who did amazing stuff on the C64 but as with any musical instrument, it needs to be used skillfully. I remember many C64 games not using the SID well and misusing the synthesizer. Now Panther sounds great on the C64. Hear how the synthesizer effects aren't over the top but are tastefully and skillfully done. A8 Panther sounds good too. Good to have both versions.

[@jammerc64]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJitnX16YsuVptE ;)

[@jeanlesueur6936]

It's impossible to judge the capabilities of these sound chips with so few games. Few mean biased : As an example, Alternate Reality is originating from Atari 8 bits. The only one where sound is really finely "worked". Versions on other computers are ports with little efforts to use advanced capabilities of the sound chips. So pokey version is obviously better but SID version could have been better with more work... That said, as I know well these two sound chips and the music of games on these two computers. There is really no winner when you make a good and objective comparison. Each with it's own force and it's particular signature. These two chips are better than the AY on ST and Amstrad. If you want to make the perfect computer, add a pokey on the C64 and a Sid on the Atari...

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

Unfortunately Draconus fades silent at the moment where the music really becomes interesting,

[@zorglub667]

its actually pretty easy - SID is more versatile and offers a bit more flexibility for the synthesist. POKEY has a bit more of that 8bit weirdo appeal, but is more limited sonically. on the other hand, having one voice less polyphony (when you already have so little to work with) really hurt SID in many cases, often not allowing full chords where soundtracks that originated on POKEY needed them - M.U.L.E. being a well known example, but it basically applies anywhere where you need a bassline, drums, and chords. bottom line IMO: question of taste / draw.

[@gamedoutgamer]

Yes. Ultima III on A8 sounds great with that extra channel. Hearing on C64 it is clearly missing some of the music. However U4 on A8 had no music. They did a great job with U4 on C64. This video shows to me how Panther sounds great on both machines and programming+musical talent is what is most important.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

E.g. the omitted drums in C64 "Pitfall II" were plain embarrassing. (But I am sure they could have inserted them on another channel by masking other tones.)

[@almo2001]

This is totally not what Ballblazer sounded like on my C64. The melody part was a slightly muffled triangle wave, not a sawtooth. I'm not sure what it sounded like on the 64C with the new sound chip; I had the old model.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

+almo2001 The music has been converted directly from .sid and .sad files to high quality .wavs. Directly from highly reputable sites - www.hvsc.c64.org/ and www.asma.atari.org respectively. Perhaps you had a different version of the game or have heard a slower version online. Or the high quality of the recordings reveal how the music was originally intended and not through analogue or mono sound.

[@almo2001]

+Johnny Organ I'm betting different version. I bought my copy of BB at retail and played it on a stock 1984 US NTSC C64; perhaps they shipped slightly different versions of the game.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

almo2001 I know there were different versions. Ballblazer and Ballblaster, for example. NTSC and PAL versions and whatnot. What is interesting is I thought the Atari version of Alternate Reality was slower and deeper too. Again, I have a feeling I played a NTSC version which was slowed on my PAL machine because of the 50-60Hz thing.

[@discoHR]

+Johnny Organ The problem is that many of the SID players on modern computers don't sound even close to the real SID. For instance, I'm using sidplay component in foobar2000 player and many of the sounds are missing, mostly fx. It would be best if you used the actual hardware for comparison.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

+discoHR Be my guest.

[@zaphod77]

you probably grabbed the wrong c64 draconus, as noted you got this one csdb.dk/sid/?id=5474 which is made by a different musician. It IS more similar to the atari tune, though. the real c64 draconus one, by the same musician, is kzbin.info/www/bejne/naWypJibesqYgqc yes it sound very different. there are also 2 c64 ballblazers. the one you have is not the final release, though it DOES sound more like the atari version. and props for actually getting the tempo right. And alternate reality the city on c64 does't even HAVE title music. so you can only compare the dungeon fairly. Here are the correct versions for missing tunes. Alternate Reality: The Dungeon Atari: kzbin.info/www/bejne/omW8c4ifbZathpo (needs to replasce city in this video) Draconus c64:kzbin.info/www/bejne/naWypJibesqYgqc Ballblazer c64: your tune is from THIS version kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5q4n3pqqdSWhM0 not the actual release. there is no sid for the actual released c64 game either. :(

[@etele1256]

The Panther soundtrack from the SID is an alien feeling music. Sorry my english is like the pokey music.

[@Raketenclub]

there was a game in mode 8 on the atari with awesome slow graphiocs and unbeatable sound... i dont remeber its name, anyone?

[@JohnnyOrgan]

What style of game?

[@Raketenclub]

@@JohnnyOrgan mmmh, som ecity, and alienships.... animation was also ultraslow. ill try to find out.

[@sirdosk9968]

@@Raketenclub AMAUROTE kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2jPenaij9Zoj68

[@Raketenclub]

@@sirdosk9968 OH YES, thats it. Thx. :D

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Bioptronid ,Barnaby , Kult, Isohunter, Alien 8,Artefakt Przodkow, CastleDefender, Dizzy - The Ultimate Cartoon Adventure, Great escape, Gilp, Klony 2010, Kowalsky's Fury, Lunar Jetman, Plan B,rodman hires, Starquake, The Rescue Expedition, x8, Bertyx.....

[@daylightbigboy]

Commodore is clearly superior

[@NickSBailey]

You had to put a lot more effort into getting nice sounds from POKEY but it can do them, it's just much more DIY it does very little for you other than basic bleeps and hisses. Alternate Reality is an example of when it goes wrong, the Atari version has the volume on each channel too loud and slightly odd sound choices. Other tracks like Warhawk and Draconus sound better on the Atari to me. The C64 is much much better. POKEY used properly can sound great and very clean, it does good percussion and that pulse waveform makes iconic basslines. SID has a dirtier sound but is a fully-fledged synthesizer with a wider palette from the start.

[@johnny5wd567]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIDJdWqoj5t6mKs kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5m4gY13qdCse6M

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

this effort is called "trackers". Now that there trackers for the Atari we can enjoy this chip in all its glory.

[@HiskoArt]

Pokey 80s vs SID 80s - SID slightly wins in 80% of time due to filers and the complexity of the waveforms. Pokey 21st century vs SID 21st century - SID wins hands down with new techniques, almost unbelievable. Examples: LMan - Hi Fi Sky, Jammer's "Mr Marvellous" and dozens of other songs.

[@cyberyogicowindler2448]

SID was just yet another analogue synth clone, while POKEY/TIA sounds completely unique (even today). It is as versatile as FM, but in a completely different direction (rough hum, buzz, hiss and noise timbre stuff where FM soundcards miserably failed).

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

History ruled that synthesizer chips like SiD were to become extinct, while Pokey's pass filter became the way to go (Paula/Amiga). Sid is a great chip and I enjoy all modern techniques, but even if Pokey came 3 years earlier....it was the future of sound in the industry.

[@lovemadeinjapan]

I think the epitome of chiptune is the 6 channel wavetable synth in the PC Engine, as it is the first that nailed stereo imaging, and the 6x6-bit wavetables give it a very unique sound, often outperforming arcade cabinet versions, even SEGA ones (and SEGA is the king of game music). The MT-32 also sounds really good, but that feels a bit like cheating. It is a budget Roland D50 in a box, a serious expensive instrument.

[@carmelo08]

Siempre a Mataró lo ponen en modo PAL, en el modo NTSC el sonido es un poco más rápido, y se escucha mejor

[@tdc6502]

What is with Atari video? I think You have to select PAL and NTSC...

[@JohnnyOrgan]

tdc6502 It's just a visual representation to entertain your eyes whilst you listen to the tracks and compare. Recorded with free software on an AMD FX machine, so there's a few frames skipped along the way I'm sure. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@cucho69]

Siempre SID, un chip de sonido impresionante. Commodore hizo una revolución aunque sea poco mencionada en la historia de la informática.

[@zaphod77]

You still are comparing c64 dungeon to atari city. that's cheating. (city has no music for intro at all!) Also you did not use the release version of ballblazer. you used the eearly pre-release conversion by K*BYTE instead of the tournament certified version.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

+zaphod77  Alternate Reality - Nope. I'm using video game footage of both games. Music is from the same games. This isn't a comparison of graphics. Ballblazer - I'm using the original, not pre-release - Activision published on C64 and Atari published version on Atari - version for both.

[@almo2001]

+Johnny Organ Activision... interesting. My copy didn't say Activision on it! Had no idea they got involved. :)

[@zaphod77]

Johnny Organ I have both alternate reality games for c64. the city DOES NOT PLAY MUSIC IN THE INTRO AND SKIPS THE KARAOKE COMPLETELY! Only The Dungeon has music in both. So if you wish to compare them, you have to compare apples to apples. Using The Dungeon. And i'm right about the music in ballblazer too. You used video from the release version, but audio from the pre release conversion. Anyone who actually fires up those games can hear for themselves. I agree the atari is better in that case, though.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

zaphod77 I only used The City graphics for visual purposes. It's a lovely intro on both machines. I never used the karaoke section in the music, so that is irrelevant. It's music for both games, the same tune, created by the same musician. It stands. I'll definitely look into the Ballblazer thing and add an annotation if need be. I only wanted to use Ballblazer as it was created by an algorithm program and not a musician. I'm only human. I may have used a pre-release version by mistake. But I'm pretty sure (85%) that this music is from the Activision (1984) release.

[@zaphod77]

I'm 100% sure it isn't. :) Atari City and Atari Dungeon sound quite different, even if that part is the same tune pretty much. You made a big deal about comparing the same tune, so they better actually be the same. :) I linked the proper comparison videos.