Re: CDR's & MP3 for GS???

[Will Smith <wsmith@ctron.com>]

On 14 Dec 1998, Mitchell Spector wrote:

> In article Will Smith <wsmith@ctron.com> writes...
> 
> >On 12 Dec 1998, Supertimer wrote:
> > 
> >> digital audio which Oversampler can play, try a few
> >> stereo samples created by the Sonic Blaster.  These
> >> are true left-right separate stereo.  rSounds from
> >> this board go into the right and the left speakers
> >> as separate channels (NOT doubled as you claim).
> >> Play the samples with Oversampler and then tell
> >> me it is not outputing true stereo.
> > 
> >seeing as i HAVE a Sonic Blaster, i'll vouche for you there...  :)  they
> >have a "bouncing ball" sound sample that's INTENDED to show the Stereo
> >capabilities...   does so rather nicely, i think.  :)
> 
>     Vouche for what specifically? That the Apple IIgs is capable of
> outputting true stereo waveforms, or that the _program_ Oversampler
> is capable of recognizing and outputting stereo waveforms?

that the GS (through add-on boards) is capable of stereo output.

>     I never disputed the former, only the latter. I have the same
> demo samples on my Audio Animator disks and just tried the one I
> think your referring to ("LEFT.CEN.RIGHT"?). When I try and play
> it through Oversampler (not the AE SonicBlaster software) both of
> the stereo channels are mixed together, making it monorail sound.

so... what's the difference between the Oversampler and the SonicBlaster
software?  why would one dump stereo and the other mono?

>     If Oversampler *does* support spooling of stereo waveforms
> then I would like an example to try. This is not a flame, I am
> curious if it does or not since Supertimer keeps insisting it
> does.

since i don't have Oversampler, i can't comment on it.  all i know is
based on what i have.  the Sonic Blaster CAN put out stereo.  i'm not sure
what good this is, since (aside from listening to stuff out of the Sonic
Blaster instead of the internal speaker) the Sonic Blaster is basically a
PSA ([P]ower-[S]ucking [A]lien) to me. the only software that i know of
that takes advantage of it is the software it came with.  i hope i'm
wrong.

> >not necessarily...
> > 
> ><humor type="sad attempt">
> >  maybe he's an intel fanatic or getting kickbacks from them...
> ></humor>
> 
>     Me, an Intel fanatic? :)

<evil grin>  i favor AMD myself.  won't go near Intel if i had a choice,
after the stuff they pulled with Randal Schwartz...
(www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors for more information)

> Nah, I'm an Apple II user at heart, 

isn't that basically why we're all HERE?

> my PC is just an entertaining appliance box to me that I have no 
> attachment to (that is, if I have to dump the whole thing and get 
> a new one, there is no feeling about it).

i see mine as a tool; i can run Linux on it (can't on the GS.  yet. <g>),
and until my ISP gets their head out of their butt (or i find another
ISP), i have to use it as a go-between....  (my current ISP uses NT
servers, and unless there's something that i'm missing, Marinetti doesn't
care to connect to it.)

> My Apple II's for some 
> reason hold lots of sentimental value and a kind of "magic" that 
> the PC lacks. Never quite been able to put my finger on just what 
> it is, but there's something about it... 

for ME, i describe that 'yearning' to relate to the days when programmers
actually knew what they were DOING.  these days, you could drop a monkey
in front of a wintel box and Visual Anything on it, and tell him to get a
program together to do something with widgets.  when the Apple II,
Commie64, and Atari machines were "the thing", space was at a premium.
resources were tight.  you couldn't build something that would take
forever to run....  <Sigh>

---
William Smith    timex-at-tpau.kluge.net
Biddeford, ME    http://www.kluge.net/~timex