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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:

>In article CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney) writes...
>
>>There can also be some "artificial" limits to the playback depending
>>on the sound hardware you are using in your Windows machine.  Have you
>>ever compared the output from a MIDI file played through an Adlib card
>>to the output from the same MIDI file played through a SoundBlaster
>>AWE 64?  If there were no conversion of the MIDI data into something
>>usable by the hardware they should sound close to the same, excluding
>>any differences in the quality of the audio amps and such.  However,
>>you will find that the AWE 64 sounds vastly better.  How could this be
>>happenning if there wasn't some kind of fiddling with the MIDI file
>>data?
>
>    That isn't really a question of conversion, it is a matter of
>what each hardware synthesizer is capable of. The AdLib uses FM
>synthesis to recreate musical instruments while the AWE64 uses
>wavetable synthesis to do the same (in fact it comes with 1 MB
>or more of ROM based patches on the card to start you off with).

Ok, that's it.  Enough is enough.

There is a difference between the SOUND TOOL/LIBRARY
and the MIDI PLAYER, ok?  You say that Music Composer is
not a MIDI player when using MIDI Synth as the output but
is suddenly a MIDI player when using a GS/GM MIDI keyboard
as the output.

But isn't that the same as using THE SAME Windows MIDI
player to output to the AdLib versus the AWE64?

Like Jeff said, a more reasonable definition is that Music
Composer IS a MIDI player.  That MIDI players are
"black boxes."  What the output synth is is irrelevant.  If
the output synth is better, you get better output.

>>Although, I will agree that MIDI files played through MIDISynth don't
>>always sound the greatest and I'd like to see someone produce
>>something better.  There isn't much stopping someone from using the
>>Sound Tools instead of the MIDISynth Tools to create a 15 voice,
>>unlimited sample size, MIDI Player for the IIgs.
>
>It still wouldn't compare with PC MIDI synthesizer cards
>available today, but at least it would bring the GS up from being
>poor to _respectable_ for MIDI playback.
>
>Quite frankly I care little about the arguement of
>whether the IIgs has MIDI convertors or MIDI players, I care about
>the end result--how it *SOUNDS*. :)

And that is the problem I have with your statements.
They are entirely blanket statements when in fact
they reflect the PREFERENCES of the listener.  For
example, Dave Tribby said he agreed with me that
MIDI Synth can produce great sounding MIDI
output but you take every opportunity to say it is
bad.

Now flip it: you have a love for MP3.  You say you
cannot hear the difference between it and CD
quality.  I say that I can.  You automatically assume
that I'm somehow delusional.

What hypocrisy!  I'm sorry, but I do not think MP3
songs match CD quality.  If you do, fine, but that's
your opinion.

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.

Again, no hard facts, just selective reading and or
hearing.

It is obvious we are not going to agree.  Let's lay it
to rest, ok?