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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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

>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>
>>Ok, that's it.  Enough is enough.
>
>    No arguement from me, this debate is getting quite tiresome.
>More than that, it's been going around in circles.

It is safe to say we're both getting wise.  ;-)

>    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.

That's not exactly the same as your words above.  ;-)

>>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.
>
>    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.

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.

>>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."

>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?

Creatures 2 (see alt.games.creatures) is an "artificial
life" game in which a virtual ecosystem is created
complete with genetics, organ systems, biochemistry,
and neural systems.  Why don't you time how long
it takes for an egg to hatch or how virtual time
compares to real time?  (PS. This game is more
fun than it sounds because the object is to rear the
little critters, teach them language, and explore
the world to find the secrets of the creators that
built it and left long ago....a little like a combination
of Myst, Little Computer People, and science).

You are assuming again.  What is the more logical
explanation than "we're ignoring each other's request?"

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).

>    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.

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.

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?

>>It is obvious we are not going to agree.  Let's lay it
>>to rest, ok?
>
>    That's good advice, especially since this is starting
>to walk the fine line between a heated debate and flamming.

Agreed.  Let's agree to disagree.  ;-)