• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

8-BIT OPL2 Sound board

Hi! We have 3 builders signed up for the prototype PCB. If you'd like to join there is certainly room for you and another at least. We need 5 builders to get prototype PCBs. They are $30 each plus shipping. The hardware is already designed and only needs a prototype PCB order to proceed to the next phase.

Although I agree with you that the OPL3 a very nice sound chip (I have one on my trusty Toshiba satellite 335CDT laptop) there won't be a follow on version of the FM Synth board unless we can get through the OPL2 version. Please consider.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Hi! The PCB for the OPL2 FM synth board is designed and basically ready to go pending a few more builders willing to jump on the initial build and test team. The prototype boards will be $30 each and all we need is a couple more to join. The board can stay in stasis indefinitely but it would be nice for this project to see some daylight as I think it is quite worthy.

Like the XT-IDE, this board could be a low cost alternative to rare and expensive vintage gaming audio boards (you know who they are) once the project is complete.

Per, do you have anything to add? Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Thanks Per! Good job and ignore the peanut gallery detractors on Vogons. It is easy for them to criticize especially when they can't do anything themselves! We'll get this project working yet!

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Hi! Well, a new builder joined and another dropped out so we are pretty much where we were.

I think we've given this project "the old college try" but I don't think there is enough sustained interest in it to warrant a prototype at this time.

If builders want to proceed with it anyway then I suggest to use an ISA prototyping board and build a prototype using wire wrap or point to point soldering.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Hi! Just to clear up any possible misperception about what is happening with the FM Synth community project and my role in it. I am *not* offering these boards for sale or some commercial enterprise or even planning to. The FM Synth project started out much like the XT-IDE and AT2XTKBD -- non-profit hobby projects. Per had a great idea that sounded genuinely helpful to the vintage computer community. I offered to help capture it in a schematic and design a PCB for team to help push it along -- just like XT-IDE and AT2XTKBD projects. After spending several hours on the project and capturing their ideas, community review and comment, making changes, adding desired refinements, etc we have a prototype ready initial build and test.

I feel like I've contributed at least something to the FM Synth project. Certainly Per has done amazing work. However, I will *not* also get stuck with the >$150 bill to make the boards. This is a hobby and I don't have the resources to just plunk down significant cash at random. If this is a "community project" like XT-IDE and AT2XTKBD then the participants should have some "skin in the game" as well.

I think participating in a "community project" should be more than standing back and making commentary. There should be some active participation in terms of technical skills (design, build, test, programming, etc) or contributing in other important meaningful ways (program management, PR, funding, etc). For example, see what Hargle and the team did on the XT-IDE project. Multiple contributors with major contributions. This was our shining moment for "community projects" at vintage-computers forums IMO.

Now, I realize that not all "community projects" are going to be successful as XT-IDE. However, after several community projects, I am seeing a trend that makes me think XT-IDE project may have been the exception. There seems to be a pattern emerging that someone calls out a need for a device and a convincing case for it, multiple people jump in to help and it looks really strong for a while, and then support evaporates when it is needed the most (ie, making the prototypes, build and test, etc). This is not an encouraging trend and it makes me think twice about supporting community projects.

So those are my thoughts on the subject. I look forward to discussion.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Don't get too discouraged. I personally think the project is really cool. I just don't have a vested interest in it myself. My only ISA PCs already have some form of FM synth already. As you said, time is the only thing lost to this point and if your time investment in the design wasn't at least somewhat personally satisfying, you probably shouldn't have done it in the first place. So I think the idea and concept is still in the black. It just needs to be paused until there is sufficient interest going forward.

After watching this forum for a while, I think you're an awesome resource to have and we're lucky. If only you would comment on my IDE-USB design!
 
Hi,
Any interest in ISA 8 bit OPL2 FM Synth board project?

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
per said:
That completely depends on the game. Remember that back then, there were no standarized sound interface drivers, so every single game (or engine) had it's own dedicated interface. These interfaces are not well documented, so writing actual drivers for existing games will be quite a complicated task, for example, we will have to disassemble and document existing drivers.
Click to expand...

I've been revisiting this thread, debating about signing up for a proto board to help the project along. Can someone explain this statement in more detail for me? From the sound of it, per, this board won't be usable with existing games/applications as either an Adlib or Sound Blaster clone and will need custom drivers written on a per-app basis?

That sounds improbable, but it's how it reads to me, and I obviously feel that it's worth questioning. Perhaps if the answer is clarified, more people would be willing to jump aboard?
 
Hi! That's probably a better question for Per. I think the hardware could be configured for the IO ports to be compatible via the DIP switches with similar OPL2 devices of the IBM PC era (not mentioning any names but there were some famous brands).

The board is designed to be flexible for builder configuration to support legacy OPL2 and OPM chips with a variety of other options. Those configurations could be configured to be compatible with legacy games hardware assumptions. I am sure Per could comment on this better than I though.

The design is basically ready to go to prototype PCB order at the moment pending enough interest to warrant a build and test cycle.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Maverick1978 said:
I've been revisiting this thread, debating about signing up for a proto board to help the project along. Can someone explain this statement in more detail for me? From the sound of it, per, this board won't be usable with existing games/applications as either an Adlib or Sound Blaster clone and will need custom drivers written on a per-app basis?

That sounds improbable, but it's how it reads to me, and I obviously feel that it's worth questioning. Perhaps if the answer is clarified, more people would be willing to jump aboard?
Click to expand...

You can set the card up to be compatible with the AdLib (OPL2 at the same I/O address as the AdLib uses), but that's all compability this card will provide with existing software. For any other configuration, custom programs/drivers has to be written.
 
Hmm... interesting. So, for now, OPM compatibility is limited/non-existent.

I don't mean this as criticism by any means. Why include the OPM FM synth if new software/drivers must be developed to even begin to use that functionality? Further, if there is no software that can currently take advantage of the OPM, how would one test these features during the build/test phase?

Second.. I tend to get easily confused with the chipset tech used in sound cards. I believe that OPL2, which this design supports via configurable jumpers, was most famously used in the original Adlib card, and this was the driving force behind the decision to create this design. OPM is a 4-op FM chip, but I'm not sure what expansion cards it might have appeared on in the past (I know it appeared in certain Yamaha keyboards and synths, as well as in Arcade machines).
 
Last edited:
Maverick1978 said:
Hmm... interesting. So, for now, OPM compatibility is limited/non-existent.

I don't mean this as criticism by any means. Why include the OPM FM synth if new software/drivers must be developed to even begin to use that functionality? Further, if there is no software that can currently take advantage of the OPM, how would one test these features during the build/test phase?

Second.. I tend to get easily confused with the chipset tech used in sound cards. I believe that OPL2, which this design supports via configurable jumpers, was most famously used in the original Adlib card, and this was the driving force behind the decision to create this design. OPM is a 4-op FM chip, but I'm not sure what expansion cards it might have appeared on in the past (I know it appeared in certain Yamaha keyboards and synths, as well as in Arcade machines).
Click to expand...

The OPM support is still there, but it's a matter of configuration. The pinout of the OPL and OPM are almost identical in many ways, so only a few jumpers were needed to support both. To support the stereo signal of the OPM and the mono signal of the OPL, the card tries to "stereoize" the OPL signal in the OPL configuration. The only problem may be that the sampling-rate is then halfed, which may lead to a tad more noise (one of the reasons why this card needs testing).

The IBM Music Feature Card (MFC) used a variant of the OPM, but not as a low-level I/O device. The card provided a hardware MIDI engine similar to the Yamaha FB-01, so the OPM-variant in the MFC could only be controlled through MIDI.
 
Maverick1978 said:
I believe that OPL2, which this design supports via configurable jumpers, was most famously used in the original Adlib card, and this was the driving force behind the decision to create this design.
Click to expand...

Hi,
I would describe the project differently as a hobbyist ISA FM Synth board. It is configurable and supports a variety of hardware for hobbyist experimentation. While it is true the board *could* be configured to support legacy OPL2 compatibility that is a happenstance not a design goal (at least to me). Legacy support relies on specific builder configuration choices and the design does not lead you there by default.

Per's effort to include the OPM and other hardware, in my opinion, along with the ability to arbitrarily place the IO ports indicates this is project's purpose is not to be a "clone" board. A knock-off clone board would probably invite problems with whomever is the IP owner of the original board. It may be subtle but it is an important point. Reverse engineering (aka cloning) is illegal and I don't think most home brew hobbyist PCBs could withstand any legal challenge.

I hope this helps! Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Hi,

Regardless of how anyone intends to use a hobbyist ISA FM Synth board, the option remains a rather academic issue as we still need $150 to get some prototype PCBs for the build and test phase.

I've given much thought to the issues of hobbyist home brew PCB design and the challenges of navigating in the complicated world of PCB design, reverse engineering, etc. The risks posed by any sort of legal challenge are much broader than just this particular project and it is vital to steer the design well outside the legal gray areas. There is no way I could afford to respond to even a simple C&D letter and the whole N8VEM home brew project could be jeopardized by a blatant IP violation so I am doing my level best to avoid it.

A case in point was the P112 "clone" PCB effort. The P112 project has had issues recently of not being available even though many hobbyists wanted them. Under the false impression that the it was "free/open source" hardware some people created a P112 SBC compatible PCB to allow more hobbyists to make their own. After additional research it turns out the board is copyrighted and rights retained by the owner. Without a specific release, the owner could charge a royalty fee for every board. Once that came out the project was stopped dead in its tracks.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Last edited:
I completely understand the differences between them and was honestly not trying to formulate a "hard" link between commercial efforts and this project - I was only trying to better understand this project in the realm of where it would most likely be used, games, and how best to use it, as I was unfamiliar with OPM hardware.

Hopefully this project will take off.. I do think that the XT-IDE was a one-off, and that duplicating its success will be difficult, but that in no way invalidates this project, nor the scsi->ide project.
 
Hi! Thanks! Not a problem. I appreciate your feedback and candor. Honest, I am not trying to be difficult!

Actually maybe a constructive way forward would be to have a poll as to who would be interested in building and testing a prototype board or at least sponsoring some other builder to do so. All we need is $30 each for the five prototype boards and we are there. This whole discussion changes from a theoretical notion to real hardware on someone's bench.

This general method is the same we used on the XT-IDE project. I contributed the EDA work and built the prototype boards while other bought materials, parts, did the testing, wrote software, etc. Yes, I think XT-IDE may be an exceptional "community project" in the true sense of the words but it was mostly due to the shared labors and leadership of Hargle and a small cadre of other highly interested and motivated individuals.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch

PS, does anyone know how to actually start a poll? Its not obvious to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top