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

[Dave Tribby <tribby@cup.hp.com>]

I hate to get caught in the middle of a Supertimer vs. Spector
debate, but since Mitch asked me to comment, I'll chime in.

Supertimer wrote:
> 
> spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
> >
> >    Um, synthLAB format *is* MIDIsynth. Are you aware synthLAB
> >is merely a demo application Apple wrote that demostrates the
> >MIDIsynth toolset? (It was to have been much more, but the
> >program was never completed).
> 
> That's like saying "the Apple Flatbed Scanner program
> on the System 6 Golden Master IS the driver" or
> "Advanced Disk Utilities IS the Apple High Speed
> SCSI driver."  Each of these APPLICATIONS use the
> driver, but they are NOT the driver.

I =agree with Mitch=. Your disagreement is seems to be about
the definition of MIDI Synth and synthLAB rather than about how
they work.  When I hear MIDI Synth, I think of
  * The tool set
  * The file formats (wave, instrument, and sequence)

When I hear synthLAB, I think of the program by that name.

synthLAB reads the file formats and plays music using the tool set.
The same thing is true for three programs I wrote: synthfile,
waveLAB and MIDI Surgeon.  (Since I don't know the internals of
Music Composer, I don't know whether it uses the MIDI Synth toolset
to play a converted sequence. You could check to see if it
uses the MIDI Synth toolset while it's running.)

 
> >    What would happen if Dave highly optimized the converting
> >process in MIDISurgeon so it took as much time as MIDIConvert
> >or Music Composer? Would MIDISurgeon suddenly be a MIDI player
> >and not a convertor?

An aside to Mitch: I hope you are using MIDI Surgeon version 2.0.
It's *much* faster than version 1.0.

I think a MIDI player would have to do one additional piece of work
that I haven't seen on an Apple II: scan the MIDI file for
definition of instruments then create and load a compatible
instrument bank.


> >>what's so great about MIDIsynth?
> >
> >    MIDIsynth on its own is quite respectable, but it quickly
> >becomes less than stellar when used to playback MIDI files.
> >As a native Apple IIgs music program/toolset I think it is
> >probably the best one written to date. It certainly sounds
> >better than Music Construction Set, Music Studio, Instant
> >Music, Diversi-Tune, or when it comes to classical music,
> >even Soundsmith. With perhaps the exception of Soundsmith,
> >all those programs are now defunct and no one uses them in
> >in their programs.

Hey...don't forget Apple's Sequencer toolset!  I tried playing
around with that one before MIDI Synth was available.


> >>WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT MIDISYNTH?
> >
> >    I think I'll let Dave Tribby step in to explain how MIDIsynth
> >differs from something like NoiseTracker GS, but the bottom line
> >is it does much more than a simple MOD player. From what I know,
> >MOD players just take digitized samples and play them back at
> >varing rates, plus add some effects (NoiseTracker and Soundsmith
> >supports relatively few however). MODs work great for techno and
> >rock type songs but terrible for classical pieces. I believe
> >it has to do with the fact MIDIsynth has all sorts of control
> >over the waveform's attack, decay, sustain and even how EACH
> >separate oscillator is treated (you can mix four separate
> >waveforms to create one instrument). You have full control over
> >each oscillator, which is not the case with NoiseTracker GS
> >which just plays back a sample at different frequencies.
> 
> I'd like to hear an explanation too.  I'm pretty sure GS
> NoiseTracker has sustain and fade in, fade out and
> volume.  The other ones, well you can simply use
> different samples.

Sorry, guys, but I don't know much about NoiseTracker or some of
the other music players you were discussing.  I do know that MIDI
Synth allows you to do some fairly sophisticated instrument
definition (within the limit of 64Kbytes for waves).  Someone who
is talanted with sound editing and had access to waveforms could
spend time with waveLAB and come up with *very* interesting
instruments. 

> >>I really wonder about your tastes versus mine sometimes.
> >
> >    I'm beginning to feel that myself.

In matters that are purely of taste, it's hard to have a rational
argument. Physological differences between people may make their
perception of the same sound different.


> >    To recap, you claim the Apple IIgs is better for MIDI
> >playback than current options available today (i.e. Yamaha
> >Soft Synth), and is superior for digitized audio playback
> >over MPEG-3 audio.
> 
> I NEVER claimed this.
> 
> Again, I said that many songs have instrument overkill.
> I never said the IIGS is BETTER for playing MIDIs
> than something like a Roland SCC.  I'm saying that
> I'd rather use less instruments.  That's why I sometimes
> convert post-surgery sequences back to MIDI to
> play on the PC.

Sometimes "less is more".  Removing clutter can improve the
quality.

As long as a sequence doesn't play more than seven
sustained notes simultaneously, and you've got a reasonable
set of instrument definitions, the IIGS sounds good.


-- Dave Tribby (expressing his own opinions, not HP's)