Re: Is there a MIDI player for Apple 2 GS ?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>
>>    Look, if you somehow prefer MIDIsynth over the Yahama
>>Soft Synthesizer S-YXGS50 on your PC (or an AWE64, Roland,
>>Ensoniq PCI, SoundBlaster Live or even a crummy, for the
>>PC at least, Gravis UltraSound) so be it. To each his own.
>
>Those are your words, not mine.  What I said was that
>I prefer using the IIGS to play music compared to my
>FM synthesis sound card on the Windows unit.  I also
>said that I hate instrument overkill and liked the way
>MIDIs sounded POST SURGERY (using MIDI Surgeon
>to reduce not the voices/notes, but the number of
>instruments....combining them into key voices) so much
>that I've converted some back to MIDI format so that I
>can play them on the Windows unit.

    As I recall, you claimed Yahama's S-YXGS software synthesizer
wasn't to your liking, and because of that, continue to use the
Apple IIgs with MIDIsynth for listening to MIDI files instead.

    Comparing MIDIsynth with S-YXGS50 is like debating the merits
a child's plastic toy piano with a real concert grand piano.

>>    I respect an opinion saying you question MP3 format not
>>comparing to CD audio, even if I may not necessarily agree.
>>However, when you tell me analog audio casettes and 8-bit
>>sampled waveforms are not just equal (which in itself is a
>>total absurdity) but superior sounding, then yes, I would
>>say "delusional" is an accurate term.
>
>Mitch, what kind of analog cassette deck do you have?
>Have you been using crummy normal bias tapes or
>something?
>
>Modern decks using metal or metal oxide analog
>cassette tapes and the latest Dolby (Dolby S) sound
>much closer to CD quality than MP3.

    Uhuh, analog casette tapes are near CD quality.
Your creditability level just continues to soar.

>Frequency response is almost indistinquisable from
>CD.  You do get a little more noise, but not annoying.
>
>Contrast this with MP3, in which frequency response
>suffers, especially at the bass end.

    Where the heck are you getting this information from?
Are you making assumptions on the way it sounds based on
YOUR ears, or did you read this somewhere? There are no
issues of lower frequency response and bass.

    What kind of speakers are you using, or sound card for
that matter? Did it ever occur to you something on your
system is degrading the sound quality? At this point I
couldn't care, I told you the FACTS and if you want to
disbelieve them and perfer analog casettes, that's fine.

    More importantly here, the Apple II and IIgs cannot
and *NEVER* will be able to handle MP3 format in their
current hardware form. The topic of MPEG1, Layer 3 has
absolutely no relevance whatsoever to comp.sys.apple2,
and as such, I can't imagine anyone here taking an
interest in this pointless debate. As I said countless
times before (on this and other non-related Apple II
subjects) move it an appropriate newsgroup.

>>>And by the way, I checked the CPU groups and
>>>it is far from a consensus that a Pentium 166 is in
>>>any way superior to an IBM 6x86 PR166+.  Half
>>>the posts I've read say the PR166+ is clearly faster
>>>at most tasks.  The other tow your Intel party line
>>>that the Pentium 166 is better.
>>
>>    Funny how you'll use a group of unknown persons debating
>>in newsgroups as cold hard facts to prove your point. Funny
>
>You are the one who said "check the newsgroups."

    Yes, as a matter of fact I did, and in doing so you found
people who knew the right answer (unfortunately, like in most
newsgroups, you undoubtly also came across a person or two who
has no idea what they're talking about and generally misinformed).

>>how you've also ignored my request that you do some tests
>>using QUAKE to see what frame-rate you get. Give me the FPS
>>rating you get in 320x200 and 640x480 and we'll compare. As
>>I said, some things can run faster, but the vast majority of
>>things will be slower because of the crippled FPU (i.e. games).
>
>I don't play Quake.  What about you ignoring my
>requests to do some tests using CREATURES 2?

    Nor do I. I find QUAKE a mindless shoot-em-up with no plot,
no imagination and the all too common theme of crawling around
in dark caves shoting everything that moves.

    I told you to use QUAKE *not* because it's a fantastic game,
but because it is a good REALWORLD benchmark of your machine's
FPU performance. Creatures 2 is not.

>How about the fact that we use different programs?
>How about the fact that, maybe, our processors are
>better at our respective programs (just a thought,
>still unproven).

    *Sigh*. The ONLY point I have been hammering here over and
over again is the FPU (Floating Point Unit) in the "PR166+" is
far lesser than the FPU found in an Intel P166. Many programs
and especially _games_ make use of the FPU and that will cause
the overall speed to drop.

    Answer this please. Is the PR166+ FPU lesser than a P166:
YES or NO?

    Now, you cannot use Socket 7 Pentium CPU chips in the
Apple II, so once again I feel this has no relevance here
and needs to get moved to the appropriate newsgroup.

>>    I have no brand loyality over my Intel CPU, nor Windows
>>or MP3 format or even my Roland SCC1 card. I just use what
>>works best and I can admit shortcomings, I don't try and
>>hide them. You on the otherhand will defend the IIgs to no
>>ends, I rarely if ever hear you make any critical remarks
>>about it (all you do is praise it).
>
>Um, Mitchell, you DO defend the Intel CPU and
>Windows and MP3.

    No, Scott. There is a difference between defending a product
out of loyality and correcting blantently false statements. If
I correct you about CPU's and file formats, I am not doing it
because I have a fondness for the them, I'm doing it because I
don't like to see misinformation spread about (especially when
my name is mixed in there).

>At least I don't drag in my Windows world into
>comp.sys.apple2 (at least I didn't until you started
>attacking my 6x86).  This is an Apple II newsgroup.

    When do I drag such things in here? I never, *ever*, start
a message thread about non-Apple II related subjects. Sure, I
may occasionally make a passing reference to other computers or
even non-computer subjects if it fits into the Apple II topic
being discussed, who doesn't? OTOH, out of the blue you started
dragging PC-related subjects in and thought it necessary to
debate those with me here. I am gulity of one thing though, and
that is allowing myself to get dragged in.

    An example, someone asked if there was a MIDI player for
the Apple IIgs. I told the person no direct players existed
(at least nothing that works in the same fashion as on the
PC or Mac) and that basically he would have to use a convertor
instead. I stated what options were available to him and what
their limitations are, then YOU, and ONLY YOU, jumped in and
began attacking me for (god forbid) mentioning limitations
about the IIgs and playing MIDI's.

>attacking my 6x86).

    I stated a _fact_, its FPU is very weak. If I say the IIgs
has a 1 MHz bus, is that stating a fact or "attacking" it? The
very fact that pointing out a computer's limitation qualifies
as an attack shows where this is going.

>As for praising the IIGS, that's what we do here
>in csa2.  If I wanted to criticise it, why would I still
>use it?  I can think of critical remarks about the
>IIGS or the 6x86, but what would be the point of
>griping about them?

    Yep, you certainly do praise the IIgs. Unfortunately if someone
happens to say _anything_ (such as facts and technical statements)
that make it sound anything less than perfect, you immediately jump
on the defensive.

    There are LOTS of things I can criticize about the IIgs
(limitations, shorting comings, a lack of certain things)
but I still use it. The very same thing is true of my PC,
yet I continue to still use it. Perhaps it is because I see
it as a machine, a tool--something that I just use and not
something to worship. In the past I used to get just as
defensive about critical remarks made about the IIgs as you
do today, but now in retrospect, I can see that just ended
up blinding me. I refused to believe the Amiga could do more,
I judged PC's without ever using them, referring to them as
"Windoze" machines. I even refused to believe an 8-bit machine
like the C64 could move graphics around faster and more
fluidly than the newer and more powerful IIgs.

    I'm not saying we should sit here complaining about each
and every limitation in the Apple IIgs. We should use it and
appreciate it for what it CAN DO, and if there some types of
computing tasks that are too difficult or impossible for it to
do, we should be able to ACKNOWLEDGE IT without feeling like
we've comitted some form of blasphemy.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca