• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Adlib Reproduction PCB

I dunno...I think it's fine to reproduce the functionality. Or even make an "almost clone" like the MTM Scientific 5150.

But when you are cloning it down to the logo, part number and "Ad Lib Inc (C) 1990"...I start to question the motive of such a project.
 
It's as close as I could make it to the original. I only had a few reference photos which is why I used Sergey's design as a starting point. There are a few differences that I found while routing the traces to match the original board.

I had fun doing it, and wanted to share the design.
 
Plasma said:
I dunno...I think it's fine to reproduce the functionality. Or even make an "almost clone" like the MTM Scientific 5150.

But when you are cloning it down to the logo, part number and "Ad Lib Inc (C) 1990"...I start to question the motive of such a project.
Click to expand...

Maybe if originals weren't so damn expensive I might agree. But they're not made anymore, the supply of cards is dwindling, and this is a unique way to get one that costs less! Though perhaps a marker (like 2016 copyright date) should've been made to distinguish a reproduction from an original to prevent unscrupulous sellers from getting any funny ideas.
 
The originals being expensive is why I have a problem with it. It would be easy to sell these on ebay and make a nice profit while fooling unsuspecting buyers.
 
Other than the copyright issue (we can dedicate a thread to that and notice that the copyright is still in force), what's the practical functional difference between the reproduction and the echt object?

Does one perform better? In a double-blind test, can one be told from the other? Or is it some intangible "ghost" inhabiting the original that matters?

Just trying to satisfy my own curiosity.
 
Chuck(G) said:
Other than the copyright issue (we can dedicate a thread to that and notice that the copyright is still in force), what's the practical functional difference between the reproduction and the echt object?

Does one perform better? In a double-blind test, can one be told from the other? Or is it some intangible "ghost" inhabiting the original that matters?

Just trying to satisfy my own curiosity.
Click to expand...

The original is a piece of computing history. A reproduction is not. The same reason a replica Altair or Apple I aren't worth anything near an original.
 
Interesting points all around. There's no audible or functional differences (within reason, since it depends on the components that you use). I did think about adding a "REPRODUCTION" label but it wouldn't stop the jackals; having the source makes it too easy to change that, unfortunately.

Some of the differences between the repro and the original are:

* The "MADE IN CANADA" copper text is missing from the back.
* No FCC sticker on the back (admittedly easy to fake)
* The dimensions of the bracket are different
* The volume potentiometer on the repro has a metal threaded collar, where the original had none. The original potentiometer is no longer available, so this would be hard to fake.
 
Eh, and here I am with a measly SoundBlaster 1 :)

How much do genuine Adlib cards normally go for? I see one that sold on eBay with a buy-it-now for only $28. Sounds like someone got a good deal.

I guess there are still enough 8-bit compatible Sound Blasters and clones out there not to bother with with a new sound blaster clone?
 
Today we can clone Adlibs, MPU-401s, Disney Sound Sources, Innovation SSI-2001, but the Sound Blaster is a greater level of complexity. You need to design a micro controller to handle the digitized sound function.

Despite the differences between the real 1990 Adlib and the replica 1990 Adlib, I would not be surprised if some unscrupulous seller did try to sell reproductions now.

There was no functional difference between Sergey's Adlib clone and the real thing or this replica.
 
Somebody on the Vogons forum is working on a SB clone. Apparently the "DSP" is really an 8051.
 
yes it more or less is, now replicate the binary instructions to perform at least 80% as good on available generic hardware

ah there's the problem ... "DSP is really an 8051".. it is a 8051 instruction set with some bullshit added onto it specific to the application, or else guess what? They would have used a 8051 instead of making a custom chip that was a 8051 + bullshit!

amazing isnt it
 
cr1901 said:
REALLY?! How'd they figure this out? Decap?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. The thread is here. I think the issue they have right now is trying to read the code out. Since it is probably mask ROM the obvious method is to decap, but there might be a clever way to get access externally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top