Talk:SP0256 - Revision history

Nocash: moved Talk:SPO256 to Talk:SP0256

2010-01-05T01:59:50Z

moved Talk:SPO256 to Talk:SP0256

MacDeath at 01:51, 2 October 2009

2009-10-02T01:51:11Z

MacDeath at 01:50, 2 October 2009

2009-10-02T01:50:42Z

Executioner: /* Rename */ GI datasheet link

2007-10-11T12:37:18Z

‎Rename: GI datasheet link

Stuart Brady: /* Rename */

2007-10-10T15:54:22Z

‎Rename

Executioner: /* SPO256 internal phoneme ROM */

2007-10-10T01:13:53Z

‎SPO256 internal phoneme ROM

Executioner: /* SPO256 internal phoneme ROM */

2007-10-10T01:12:19Z

‎SPO256 internal phoneme ROM

Executioner: /* Rename */ I do object

2007-10-10T01:03:50Z

‎Rename: I do object

Stuart Brady: Rename

2007-10-08T19:08:45Z

Rename

Stuart Brady: /* SPO256 internal phoneme ROM */

2007-10-08T18:37:09Z

‎SPO256 internal phoneme ROM

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 2 October 2009
Line 42:		Line 42:


		+	'''Edition :'''

	I did a brief edit thanks to Hermol from CPCRulez who gave me this list of games using the vocal synthetiser from amstrad.		I did a brief edit thanks to Hermol from CPCRulez who gave me this list of games using the vocal synthetiser from amstrad.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:50, 2 October 2009
Line 40:		Line 40:

	::: Yes, I was looking at that, and now I see it's actually OCR'd. The GI datasheet is here [http://baec.tripod.com/datasheets/SPO256.pdf]. [[User:Executioner\|Executioner]] 14:37, 11 October 2007 (CEST)		::: Yes, I was looking at that, and now I see it's actually OCR'd. The GI datasheet is here [http://baec.tripod.com/datasheets/SPO256.pdf]. [[User:Executioner\|Executioner]] 14:37, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+
		+
		+	I did a brief edit thanks to Hermol from CPCRulez who gave me this list of games using the vocal synthetiser from amstrad.
		+	He also made some video (available on youtube/cpcrulez) demonstrating such "performances"...
		+	Also it's a shame those hardware weren't more documented, nor implemented in emulators or soundtrackers...
		+	The demoscene did nothing with it !
		+	But this had a good potential in fact.
		+	Imagine a song from Daft Punk with this card used...Harder, Better, Faster Robot rock.
		+	Sort of.
		+
		+	---MacDeath. 2 oct 2009.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 11 October 2007
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:: Were you looking at [[:Image:Sp0256al2 datasheet.pdf\|this copy]] of the Archer datasheet? If so, please do take a look at [http://support.radioshack.com/support_supplies/doc17/17517.htm these scans]. However, the GI datasheet would seem to be a more authoratative source. Any chance of a link to that? :) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 17:54, 10 October 2007 (CEST)		:: Were you looking at [[:Image:Sp0256al2 datasheet.pdf\|this copy]] of the Archer datasheet? If so, please do take a look at [http://support.radioshack.com/support_supplies/doc17/17517.htm these scans]. However, the GI datasheet would seem to be a more authoratative source. Any chance of a link to that? :) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 17:54, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	::: Yes, I was looking at that, and now I see it's actually OCR'd. The GI datasheet is here [http://baec.tripod.com/datasheets/SPO256.pdf]. [[User:Executioner\|Executioner]] 14:37, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 10 October 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:
	I feel as if I should probably fix this each time I leave a comment on this page, so here goes. Unless there are any objections, I'll rename the page to SP0256 and mention that it's often referred to as the "SPO256". (The datasheets certainly use an '0'.) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 21:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST)		I feel as if I should probably fix this each time I leave a comment on this page, so here goes. Unless there are any objections, I'll rename the page to SP0256 and mention that it's often referred to as the "SPO256". (The datasheets certainly use an '0'.) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 21:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

−	: The ARCHER datasheet definitely uses an 'O'. The GI datasheet is not a particularly good scan, and the font doesn't distinguish between the '0' and the 'O'. Look at the word 'ROM' and compare that to 'SPO256A' at the top of the page, they look the same. The last two pages of the GI datasheet show the chip in the circuit diagrams with as 'SPO256', the 'O' is identical to the word 'OUT', and slightly different to the '0' where it says '10,11,13'. The chip I have does not have any other '0' or 'O' printed on it to compare. This would suggest that it is supposed to be the letter O.	+	: The ARCHER datasheet definitely uses an 'O'. The GI datasheet is not a particularly good scan, and the font doesn't distinguish between the '0' and the 'O'. Look at the word 'ROM' and compare that to 'SPO256A' at the top of the page, they look the same. The last two pages of the GI datasheet show the chip in the circuit diagrams with as 'SPO256', the 'O' is identical to the word 'OUT', and slightly different to the '0' where it says '10,11,13'. The chip I have does not have any other '0' or 'O' printed on it to compare. This would suggest that it is supposed to be the letter O. [[User:Executioner\|Executioner]] 03:03, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	:: Were you looking at [[:Image:Sp0256al2 datasheet.pdf\|this copy]] of the Archer datasheet? If so, please do take a look at [http://support.radioshack.com/support_supplies/doc17/17517.htm these scans]. However, the GI datasheet would seem to be a more authoratative source. Any chance of a link to that? :) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 17:54, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::::::::: You ''assume'' so? — I thought I just said that it ''does'' have such a ROM! :)  I'm still not sure whether to believe you.  What's the MD5SUM of the ROM in Spectaculator?  Is it <tt>54db0ac274146f8c95f8fbd7bab62cdf</tt>, <tt>052f6af718337e35e76693723e1d73e3</tt>, or is it something else? —[[User:Stuart Brady|Stuart Brady]] 20:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
-:::::::::: Yes, I ''assume'' that's what the Z80 code is for, you didn't say what the Z80 was used for :) The md5 is not the same as either of those above, and the ROM does not appear to be Z80 code. It may well be encrypted, but I don't really care since I've got the official download now and Joe was also good enough to provide a disassembly to go along with it :)
+:::::::::: Yes, I ''assume'' that's what the Z80 code is for, you didn't say what the Z80 was used for :) The md5 is not the same as either of those above, and the ROM does not appear to be Z80 code. It may well be encrypted, but I don't really care since I've got the official download now and Joe was also good enough to provide a disassembly to go along with it :) [[User:Executioner|Executioner]] 03:13, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
 == Rename ==

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:59, 5 January 2010
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 10 October 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:

	::::::::: You ''assume'' so? — I thought I just said that it ''does'' have such a ROM! :) I'm still not sure whether to believe you. What's the MD5SUM of the ROM in Spectaculator? Is it <tt>54db0ac274146f8c95f8fbd7bab62cdf</tt>, <tt>052f6af718337e35e76693723e1d73e3</tt>, or is it something else? —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 20:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)		::::::::: You ''assume'' so? — I thought I just said that it ''does'' have such a ROM! :) I'm still not sure whether to believe you. What's the MD5SUM of the ROM in Spectaculator? Is it <tt>54db0ac274146f8c95f8fbd7bab62cdf</tt>, <tt>052f6af718337e35e76693723e1d73e3</tt>, or is it something else? —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 20:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	:::::::::: Yes, I ''assume'' that's what the Z80 code is for, you didn't say what the Z80 was used for :) The md5 is not the same as either of those above, and the ROM does not appear to be Z80 code. It may well be encrypted, but I don't really care since I've got the official download now and Joe was also good enough to provide a disassembly to go along with it :)

	== Rename ==		== Rename ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:03, 10 October 2007
Line 32:		Line 32:

	I feel as if I should probably fix this each time I leave a comment on this page, so here goes. Unless there are any objections, I'll rename the page to SP0256 and mention that it's often referred to as the "SPO256". (The datasheets certainly use an '0'.) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 21:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST)		I feel as if I should probably fix this each time I leave a comment on this page, so here goes. Unless there are any objections, I'll rename the page to SP0256 and mention that it's often referred to as the "SPO256". (The datasheets certainly use an '0'.) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 21:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	: The ARCHER datasheet definitely uses an 'O'. The GI datasheet is not a particularly good scan, and the font doesn't distinguish between the '0' and the 'O'. Look at the word 'ROM' and compare that to 'SPO256A' at the top of the page, they look the same. The last two pages of the GI datasheet show the chip in the circuit diagrams with as 'SPO256', the 'O' is identical to the word 'OUT', and slightly different to the '0' where it says '10,11,13'. The chip I have does not have any other '0' or 'O' printed on it to compare. This would suggest that it is supposed to be the letter O.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 8 October 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:

	::::::::: You ''assume'' so? — I thought I just said that it ''does'' have such a ROM! :) I'm still not sure whether to believe you. What's the MD5SUM of the ROM in Spectaculator? Is it <tt>54db0ac274146f8c95f8fbd7bab62cdf</tt>, <tt>052f6af718337e35e76693723e1d73e3</tt>, or is it something else? —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 20:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)		::::::::: You ''assume'' so? — I thought I just said that it ''does'' have such a ROM! :) I'm still not sure whether to believe you. What's the MD5SUM of the ROM in Spectaculator? Is it <tt>54db0ac274146f8c95f8fbd7bab62cdf</tt>, <tt>052f6af718337e35e76693723e1d73e3</tt>, or is it something else? —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 20:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	== Rename ==
		+
		+	I feel as if I should probably fix this each time I leave a comment on this page, so here goes. Unless there are any objections, I'll rename the page to SP0256 and mention that it's often referred to as the "SPO256". (The datasheets certainly use an '0'.) —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 21:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 8 October 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:

	:::::::: Yes, this is the correct ROM. I assume the Currah has a ROM to add functionality under BASIC etc. There may also be some other software for the SSA-1 for the CPC, maybe even a Z80 one to provide RSX's like \|say,"hello", can't remember. [[User:Executioner\|Executioner]] 06:21, 8 October 2007 (CEST)		:::::::: Yes, this is the correct ROM. I assume the Currah has a ROM to add functionality under BASIC etc. There may also be some other software for the SSA-1 for the CPC, maybe even a Z80 one to provide RSX's like \|say,"hello", can't remember. [[User:Executioner\|Executioner]] 06:21, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	::::::::: You ''assume'' so? — I thought I just said that it ''does'' have such a ROM! :) I'm still not sure whether to believe you. What's the MD5SUM of the ROM in Spectaculator? Is it <tt>54db0ac274146f8c95f8fbd7bab62cdf</tt>, <tt>052f6af718337e35e76693723e1d73e3</tt>, or is it something else? —[[User:Stuart Brady\|Stuart Brady]] 20:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)