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:
>
>>    Okay, let's stop arguing over the definition of "player"
>>versus "convertor". Let us just look at the bottom line here:
>>The Apple IIgs, with currently available software, cannot
>>accurately playback _most_ MIDI files. MIDI is *forced* into
>>the confines of MIDIsynth format, which limits it in the
>>following ways:
>>
>>- 7 voices
>
>You can go over seven by "stealing" time.  This is the point
>you keep neglecting.

    That may be so, but you get note clipping on the lower
voices, either so they are prematurely halted before the
complete note is played, or worse, cut out completely. I
don't know about you, but makes things sound awful and
above all, inaccurate as far as playback is concerned.

>Have you ever considered what
>happens when you type a song into synthLAB using a
>MIDI keyboard?  synthLAB physically prevents you from
>entering more than 7 notes.  Music Composer does not.

    So your saying if I convert/play a MIDI sequence using
Music Convertor rather than MIDISurgeon, it will support
more voices? I find that doubtful since the 7 voice limit
is an inherent part of the MIDIsynth toolset, not the
programs using it.

>Look at it another way, Music Composer simply loads
>the MIDI file.  You can use a synthesizer OTHER THAN
>MIDI Synth.  You can use, for example, a MIDI keyboard.
>Does that suddenly make Music Composer a real
>MIDI player?  I mean, if your keyboard is GS/GM
>compliant, then Music Composer will play it exactly
>like how a PC would to such a synthesizer.

    Sure, in that scenario Music Composer would be a MIDI
player. The MIDI sequence is played by external hardware
that support everything correctly.

    The issue here is we're sending that MIDI data to the
INTERNAL SYNTHESIZER INSIDE THE IIGS. That is what ends up
playing it, and there is nothing available *currently* that
does anything to make sure the MIDI file comes out sounding
the way it should using that internal synthesizer. Sure, if
sent to an external keyboard or PC sound card it will have
the right number of voices and correct instruments. I know
this is so since I've converted MIDI files with MIDISurgeon,
loaded them up in synthLAB and then had it play my Roland
live in my PC (through the MIDI-out function in synthLAB).
I could do the same thing using an Apple II Plus or VIC20
that has a program that reads MIDI sequences and then does
MIDI output.

    I really don't care for debating this anymore. Someone
needs to write a piece of software that reads a MIDI file
and then loads up the instrument patches it is looking for
AND support a _reasonable_ amount of voices. If your naive
enough where you think the IIgs does a fine job as-is using
MIDIsynth for playing MIDI files, great. Go on believing
that, it has no ill-effect on me. *I* know MIDIsynth is
in charge of playing the MIDI sequence, *I* know the MIDI
sequence is limited by that, *I* know I can use better
alternatives and do.

    If you want the best possible solution for your IIgs
purchase a Roland SC-55 or SC-88 external synthesizer box
along with a MIDI interface. Then purchase a used copy of
MasterTracks Pro (Music Convertor may be useable if the
commercial version fixed the tempo bugs, etc) and output
MIDI files to it. Now you have a true MIDI player and
professional high quality MIDI playback.

>>- No stereo support
>
>MIDI Synth does support stereo.

    Not for MIDI files, notes ignore left/right stereo assignments.
Go listen to "FF2Crystal.seq" which I converted a couple of years
back, it's the main theme for the Final Fantasy RPG game. Listen to
the harps under synthLAB, they are always played on both speakers.
Now, if you listen to the sequence on your PC (even through an old
FM card) you'll hear the harp drift slowly from the left channel
over to the right channel, then back again.

    MIDIsynth itself uses stereo for instrument sounds, but cannot
support left/right channel mapping for notes.

>What are you talking about?

    More issues surrounding MIDIsynth which you are ignorant about.

>>    Also, on a modern SVGA display the dot pitch is lower
>>so the dithering in the 640 mode becomes more visible. Are
>>you disputing any of this? Is there a scanline emulation
>>the Second Sight firmware supports I'm not aware of?
>
>The image looks better than XGS.  I'm talking about
>just looking at the specs and jumping to conclusions.
>This is what I see with my own eyes.  Ask any Second
>Sight user.

    Perhaps it may look better than XGS, but it still overall
won't look very appealing if it does scanline doubling and
undoes the effects of dithering in the 640 mode. For someone
who claims to pick up almost unpercievable differences in
sound, I'm surprised you've not noticed pixels the Second
Sight makes (in the 320x200 mode at least) are square and
chunky looking. Do you SEE this difference or not?

    It *is* a matter of preference, some people prefer more
solid colors and don't mind chunky pixels as a side effect.
Then there are others who don't mind thin black lines running
through their graphics (visable scanlines) if it means pixels
look small and rounded. It's a question of what do you like
better: rounded pixels or solid colors?

>>    How many times must I explain it. Your FPU is slower
>>than that of a P166, you may get some decent results in
>>MS-Office 98 but go try comparing the FPS you get in a
>>game like QUAKE or Unreal. Better yet, why don't you
>>take this arguement over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
>>and debate it there (first off because we've now way
>>overstepped the boundary of off-topic discussion for
>>an Apple II newsgroup, and secondly, there are people
>>there who know what they're talking about and will tell
>>you the correct facts).
>
>If what you are saying is true, then I must not only
>be deluded about the IIGS, but also about my 6x86,
>right?  I must be imagining it when I see Creatures 2
>(see alt.games.creatures) running faster on it (clocked
>as a PR166+) than on a Pentium 166, right?

    Some software will run faster, but overall that won't
be the case. Please, go run QUAKE, turn on the frame rate
counter and tell me what you get in 320x200 and 640x480.
We can then compare it to what I get on my P166 and then
we can talk. This should really be moved to the group
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware or similar.

>>    And what programs use more than 64K? MOD players are the
>>only examples, and don't forgot how much CPU time this swapping
>>kills. Essentially it is akin to using 3200 color mode.
>
>Hmm...there are some Noisetracker GS players that play
>music on the desktop.  Seems fine playing Noisetracker
>GS songs in the background.  Same with background MOD
>players.

    Well first off, I find you *need* an accelerator if you
want to play MOD files in the background and continue using
IIgs applications. With my 15 MHz accelerator, playing MODs
slow my IIgs down to about the speed of a stock IIgs, if
not a fair bit slower. Go have a look at DOCVu CDA, it will
tell you how much CPU time is being used by the Ensoniq.

    MIDIsynth itself takes up a fair bit of CPU time, and
it does not swap in and out of DOC RAM. If you wanted to
do everything required to support MIDI _and_ bypass the
64K limit by swapping between RAM, it would squeeze just
about every drop of CPU power the IIgs has available (it
may not even be enough).

>Also, what is the deal with your analog cassette
>player.  Don't you have a good deck?  With
>modern analog decks, the quality is VERY close
>to CD quality and it won't mess up your bass like
>MP3 compression.
>
>I can hear the MP3 shortcomings.  Reducing to
>8-bits is less annoying, GS or no GS (do it on a
>PC if you want) and MP3 is CERTAINLY no
>match for the best analog cassette tapes.
>
>I'm saying TO MY EARS today's modern analog
>cassette tapes are superior to MP3 squished songs.
>
>Modern analog decks are very close to CD
>quality.
>
>As far as frequency response at the bass frequencies
>is concerned, yes, I find 8-bit recordings and
>modern analog cassette tape superior to MP3
>recordings.

    This really is another topic that now needs to get moved to
a more appropriate newsgroup.

    You know, the fact that I'm still debating with you whether
analog casettes and waveforms captured in 8-bit resolution are
*superior* to MPEG-1, Layer 3 (proven beyond a shred of a doubt
to be CD quality) makes me a fool. Yes, _I_ am the fool, wasting
my time arguing this nonsense.

    Every other week you feel it necessary to debate the silliest
of things with me, and I'm having a hard time beliving you can
be serious. Are you just trolling here to get a reaction from me?
I mean look at the discussions we've had, about how you claim HFS
has no problems associated with it as a main filing system on the
IIgs, or that the TransWarp GS is superior to the ZipGS, that DMA
is an overrated concept for SCSI controllers, that there is no
noticable difference between 8-bit and 16-bit sound, the IIgs has
no serious problems playing MIDI files. I'm forgetting probably
a dozen other debates you've pulled me into. Don't get me wrong,
I welcome a difference of opinion on subjects, but you just seem
to ignore logical and valid counter arguements and feel you must
always give an opposing view on anything sitting on solid ground.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca