Genesis and SNES, which had better version of a game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

(Genesis Turbo sounds a bit off)

---

You realize SF II Turbo for Genesis is an unlicensed pirate game, right? SCE and Super are the only official SF II ports to the Genesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Comparing World Warrior (or Turbo) to Genesis's SCE, this is true (Genesis Turbo sounds a bit off), at least for music as the voices are rather poor on Genesis (and it's capable of better than that), though the PC Engine's Voices and digitized effects are better still. (some would even say Music)

Super SFII on the SNES otoh has great music (naturally, with the Arcade equivelent having sample based music), though depending on taste you may prefer SCE's FM (or even the PCE's music), definitely better than Genesis's SSFII though (rather poor FM aproximation), and again, Turbo on Genny is a bit off as well.

I think the SNES versions also use stereo effects while Genesis doesn't (at least SCE), though this may just be the particulars of the arcade versions they're based on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christuserloeser

These are my headphones: http://reviews.cnet.com/headphones/a...-31062024.html

I don't know why, but I do hear a difference between a 96khz recording and a 48khz recording. Pretty much like I do hear a difference between a 22khz recording and a 44khz recording.

Edit: I think this would explain it:





This 1khz difference is the difference I hear between a 96khz recording and a 48khz recording ? If I had headphones that 'only' allowed 24khz I wouldn't hear any difference at all ?!


- Also, I heard that humans are supposed to hear only 14-20khz or something, yet a CD offers 44khz and is perceieved as superior to an LP or MP3.

---

I'm confused about this as well, only with FPS. Supposedly 30 FPS is the most that can be perceived by the human eye, others say 60, still others claim 200 plus. Which is it? And if, say, 60 is the limit, why would someone brag that their graphics card can boost a game up to 500 FPS when they can only perceive 60? Its like having a car that can theoretically do 200 MPH but is electronically limited at 120.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christuserloeser

These are my headphones: http://reviews.cnet.com/headphones/a...-31062024.html

I don't know why, but I do hear a difference between a 96khz recording and a 48khz recording. Pretty much like I do hear a difference between a 22khz recording and a 44khz recording.

Edit: I think this would explain it:





This 1khz difference is the difference I hear between a 96khz recording and a 48khz recording ? If I had headphones that 'only' allowed 24khz I wouldn't hear any difference at all ?!


- Also, I heard that humans are supposed to hear only 14-20khz or something, yet a CD offers 44khz and is perceieved as superior to an LP or MP3.

---

You're confusing sample rate playback with frequency response. For a frequency response measurement, you need a forward movement and return movement. 44khz sample rate of a CD has a 22khz frequency response. A CD can provide that max frequency response are max amplitude/decibel difference. Though I've only see the frequency response of speakers rated with a -/+3 decibel range.

Your earphones are rated up to 25khz frequency response. From a PC that's 50khz sample playback raw PCM. But they don't give any other clear specs, so I would assume it's probably inaccurate at max response. Any higher frequencies are automatically filtered by the speaker. Maybe your earphone speakers are providing a better filter than that program you used to downsample it to 44khz sample rate ;)

I also doubt it's the 24bit VS 16bit. I mean, it's only one source. 24bit is nice when mixing a bunch of sources (and with software volume) into a single output. It gets into a whole 'nother discussion about recording from real life source and doing synth stuff (it's easier to have a higher final output DAC than to try and model higher rate down to a lower one - be it sample rate and quantization/amplitude levels).

On a side note: a lot of early CD players didn't even have 16bit DACs. The 16bit audio was clipped in the lower bits. To like 10-12bits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes

I'm confused about this as well, only with FPS. Supposedly 30 FPS is the most that can be perceived by the human eye, others say 60, still others claim 200 plus. Which is it? And if, say, 60 is the limit, why would someone brag that their graphics card can boost a game up to 500 FPS when they can only perceive 60? Its like having a car that can theoretically do 200 MPH but is electronically limited at 120.

---

For the latter part, it's just to show-off.
I don't believe you can actually notice if a game runs at a constant 60FPS or a constant 100FPS.
About 30FPS it's probably if a game drops below 30 you'll notice the lag/slowdowns. But between 30 and 60FPS, maybe just the 'feel' or 'smoothness' is better on 60.
The main difference is probably with screen refreshrates on CRT's, there's definately a difference between 60 and 100Hz. But it's not exactly the same thing as Frames per second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cornugon

The main difference is probably with screen refreshrates on CRT's, there's definately a difference between 60 and 100Hz. But it's not exactly the same thing as Frames per second.

---

Yup. Refresh rate is different than FPS. Well, on CRTs because the phosphorus is fading - causing a flickering effect. So a higher refresh rate is required/desired. LCDs don't have this problem.

Kinda like higher frequencies that we can't really make detail out of, higher FPS is similar. There's only a tiny fraction amount of detail that we could obtain from higher frames per second (temporal resolution), but our eyes filter it into motion blur. This is probably what people are putting a lot of emphasis/importance on by claiming they can notice higher frame rates. The perception of noticing higher temporal resolution when in fact they are just experiencing the blur artifacting from their own eyes.

ZAMN genesis>SNES
Sunset riders Snes> Genny
Raiden PC engine> snes or genesis

44KHz sample rate can represent up to 22KHz freqs, the higher ones will not be too well represented, but human ear will not make any really significant difference on them. Nyquist theorem says one needs at least 2x higher sampling freq to represent the highest freq being sampled. You have 16KHz as max freq in your signal, you need at least 32KHz sample rate to sample the sound.

Anyone know how Lady Stalker stands up to Land Stalker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

Anyone know how Lady Stalker stands up to Land Stalker?

---

From the tiny bit I've played I'd say it's not as good. It has random battles and no jumping. The graphics and sound are about the same.

Lady Stalker is almost as bad as Time Stalkers.

What's the difference's between Langrisser 2 for the MD and Der Langrisser for the Snes?. Other than the added branching paths and updated graphics, was there anything else added/missing? in Der Langrisser.

Sorry if its already mentioned in this thread, I'm just wondering if L2 is worth playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GriskaGyoran

Lady Stalker is almost as bad as Time Stalkers.

---

Lady Stalker is a totally different game though. It's okay on it's own. It doesn't stack up well when compared to LandStalker though. Dark Savior is really good though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

From the tiny bit I've played I'd say it's not as good. It has random battles and no jumping. The graphics and sound are about the same.

---

That's all I need to know. :p

Don't know if it's been mentioned before or not.

But Rampart is far superior on the Genesis compared to the SNES version. Graphics as well as gameplay.

I haven't played the Genesis version of Rampart, but I have played the SNES and Arcade versions. The SNES game has a cool Mode-7 swoop down to the next playfield. The gameplay seems pretty intact as well.

What was unique about the Genesis version?