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

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

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.

>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.

    Yep, the sound output is the relevant part. How does your
average MIDI file sound played by the Ensoniq inside the IIgs?
That is what counts.

>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.

    It has nothing to do with preference, we're talking about
limitations that affect the MIDI sequence before it is even
played. 1/3rd of the voices or more are missing, stereo notes
are ignored and your missing hundreds of instruments (and if
require instruments are present, they're not always mapped to
the correct track).

    Even when you encounter a MIDI using under 7 voices--plus
you have all the correct instruments present, mapped correctly
and there is no stereo--it still falls short. Remember the
patches are no bigger than a couple of Kilobytes and sampled
at low frequencies (between 8 and 22 kHz). It may be faithful
to how it was originally intended to sound, but overall it
will sound thin and flat. This second aruguement is being kind 
of picky since I'm comparing it modern wavetable synthesis, but
the above one (lack of voices, instruments, stereo) is more
than just a matter of preference. It is a matter of things
MISSING that should be present.

    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.

>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.

>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
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 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).

>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.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca