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:
>
>>    The process may appear transparent, but your missing the
>>point. All three programs *CONVERT* MIDI sequences so that
>>they can be handled and played by MIDIsynth. Is there any
>>difference between they way they come out sounding? No.
>
>This is crazy.  So what you are saying is that Windows and
>Mac MIDI players do not qualify as "converting MIDI
>sequences so they can be played by their respective synth
>drivers?"

Sigh...

    No, they read the MIDI data and then pass it on to either
a hardware or software based synthesizer. There is no "format"
it has to be converted into which LIMITS THE NUMBER OF VOICES
OR INSTRUMENT SELECTION, it is up to the synthesizer to play
the sequence. The number of voices, selection of instruments,
support of General Standard or General MIDI then depends on
the HARDWARE RECEIVING AND PLAYING IT, not a music program.

    With current Apple IIgs software it is converted into a
music format called "MIDIsynth", and that format is limited
to 7 voices and instruments patches no larger than 30K each.
What's that you say? The Ensoniq can support more than just
7 voices and play patches larger than 30K? Ah ha! Now do you
see my point? If it were a *MIDI PLAYER* there wouldn't be
artifical limits set, but a *MIDI CONVERTOR* confines MIDI
to the limitations of that specific music format, not the
synthesizer itself.

    When Media Player in Windows 95 tells the OPL3 to play
a sequence it uses all its 20 voices and a look up table to
make a bell sounds like a bell, a organ sound like a organ
(or as close to it as possible). What would happen if I wrote
a specialized PC music format that "talked" to the OPL3 and
used only a squarewave and 4 voices, and then had an import
function for MIDI and had imported sequences played under
this format. Is this a "MIDI player" or a "MIDI convertor"?

    Let me give you another example. What happens if I write
a program that extracts the note information from a MOD and
convertors it into MIDIsynth, but it throws away all the
instrument patches (leaving you to try and make close matches
with existing bnk/wav available in MIDISynth). Would you call
this a "MOD player" or a "MOD convertor"? Come to think of it,
there is Ian Schmidt's MODifier program which converts MODs
into Soundsmith format (just the note information and not
instrument samples). Do you consider this a MOD player?

>>player it has to make an effort to match instruments to the
>>ones the sequence calls for. If a saxaphone, general MIDI drums,
>>piano, guitar, trumpet and timpani are required, it had better
>>load up those patches and then match them to the right tracks.
>
>Wait, wait, wait.  There is a difference between GS/GM
>compliant MIDI players and non GS/GM compliant
>ones.

    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
- 30K per instrument patch
- 64K total for all patches
- No stereo support

(I won't even get into the lack of not supporting chorus, reverb
and a dozen other things which many MIDI files now use).

>>    You should have MAME emulate scanlines (I believe the DOS
>>version does by default) this avoids games having large square
>>pixels. XGS, as far as I can tell, has no scanline emulation
>>and makes everything look gross. Funny you should bring this
>>up since XGS is basically a preview of how the Second Sight
>>will make your IIgs graphics appear--blockly, square pixels.
>
>This is nonsense, although I can see why you would say
>this if you've never seen the Second Sight in action.
>
>The Second Sight's picture is better than XGS.

    Rubbish. The Second Sight does scanline doubling, so each
pixel will be square and chunky. Have you ever looked at a GS
Super-Hi-Res 320x200 image on the IIgs monitor, and then on
the PC's VGA screen in 320x200 with a GIF convertor?

    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?

>>    I already explained this, in most cases it will not be
>>faster because it has crippled internal math coprocessing
>>(equivalent to a P90 rather than a P166). Anything that is
>>intensive in this area, such as games (try Quake), will be
>>far slower than a real Pentium 166. This may very well be
>>the reason your having such poor results with WinAmp and the
>>Yamaha Soft Synt,h which heavily depend on your chip's math
>>coprocessing as far as I know.
>
>Hmm, you can come up with anything to support your
>own chip.  The IBM 6x86 may look slower on some
>benchmarks, but using Winstone and others, it comes
>out ahead of the IBM chip of its PR rating.
>
>For example, as a PR200+, it has a better Winstone
>than a Pentium 200.  As a PR166+, it has a better
>Winstone than a Pentium 166.

    Heh, the Winstone benchmark. That does NOT give you an
accurate measurement. You do know there are some benchmark
programs that will show figures that put your PR166+ off
the scale while something like a real P300 will show as far
below it. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "There are lies,
blantent lies, and then there are benchmarks". :)

    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).

>You make it sound like 64k is a brick wall.  Remember,
>128k is MAX for an ESQ-1, but the IIGS can support
>up to 8 MEGS of waveform data.  It is a computer and
>even in the beginning, Apple saw the 64k to be used
>more as a temporary storage than anything else.  Data
>is moved into and out of that 64k space from the 8 MEG
>RAM space of the IIGS!

    Apple saw nothing about it being temporary storage,
they saw 128K as being *more costly* so decided to put in
only 64K to save money (with the possibility of boosting
that when RAM prices fell and a revised GS would be created).
A lot of the initial limitations put in the GS had to do
with cost issues, though Apple was at fault when they later
refused to address those issues when hardware costs fell.

    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.

>Not skipping.  The frequency response is not CD
>quality, especially on the base end.
>
>Listen to the base carefully.

    Yeah, if you encode the MP3 using a low bit rate
like 5K/sec this might be an issue. When you use a
high bit rate (128K+/sec) then there is no loss in
terms of bass or treble quality. It is not percievable
to the human ear. This at least is something I could
see being debated, but what really got me is your
claims analog casettes and the GS digitized sound
are superior over MP3 format.

>There is no way around it.  MPEG-3 is a lossy
>compression format.  SOMETHING's gotta give.
>The MPEG programmers can claim it is CD quality
>until hell freezes over, but that won't make it true.
>Time magazine cites this as the reason why the
>Sony MiniDiscs have not succeeded in becoming
>the dominant form over CD media or even
>recordable CD media.

    Your making vage assumptions here. Your assuming
because JPEG compress leaves artificating, MP3 is
going to do the same and lower sound quality. You
could probably debate that (although I seriously
doubt you'll get far. I'm judging it not only on
technical information, but my OWN EARS) but your
orginal arguement about Apple IIgs digitized WAV's
and analog casettes being *superior* does very
little for your creditability in general. It also
has me wondering why I am wasting my time debating
something so absurd.

>>>COME ON MAN!
>>>
>>>MP3 is NOT CD quality!
>>
>>    Sorry, but it is. You don't have to take my word for
>>it either, there are plently of sound dicussion groups
>>out there you can visit or read up some FAQs.
>
>The FAQs are not unbiased because they are written
>by supporters.

    Uhuh, it's a conspriacy. Very well, you go continue
listening to music off analog casettes and your IIgs's
(you forgot 8-Tracks) and I'll suffer using low quality
MP3.

>Try to look up the pros and cons of the Sony MiniDisc,
>audiophile technology that actually makes use of
>MPEG-3.  See what people say are the cons of the
>MiniDisc.

    The Sony MiniDisc does *not* use the same format as
MP3's. "MP3" format uses MPEG-1, layer 3. There is a
different kind of sound compression used, and from what
I know of it, there *is* an issue with sound quality over
CD's. You though, have drawn the conclusion that if Mini-
Disc has sound issues problems, so must MP3.

>>[GIF vs JPEG stuff snipped]
>>
>>    I see your point, about artificating (although you may be able
>>to avoid that if you compress JPEG using maximum quality under
>>save preferences). However, unlike JPEG's, there is no percievable
>>difference to the human hear between a plain WAV and that same WAV
>>file compressed into MPEG-3. Why don't you research this a bit and
>>you'll see I'm not making up stories. I'm sensitive to discrepancies
>>in sound quality (however minor) and I can personally tell you I
>>cannot hear a difference between CD's and MP3's.
>
>This is impossible and audiophiles will never claim
>that a Sony MiniDisc (which uses MP3) can match
>a real CD.

    Your in error once more. MiniDiscs do not use MP3 format.

>MPEG-3 is a lossy compression format, just like
>JPEG.

    That is a blind assumption (either that or you've convinced
yourself of it and hearing things). I have converted several of
my CD's into MP3 format and actually compared them to see if I
could pick up any sound discrepancies, I heard none. You claim
it is more than a subtle difference however, so much so that a
IIgs with its noisy 8-bit output is *superior* and I don't think
you were poking fun here either.

>SOMETHING's gotta give.

    How about your stubborness as far as believing the truth? ;-)
Anyhow, this is starting to get tiresome and a fair bit of it
off topic for comp.sys.apple2.


Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca