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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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

(BIG SNIP)

>>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

You can go over seven by "stealing" time.  This is the point
you keep neglecting.  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.

You also say that just because the program uses MIDI
synth, it can't be a player and must be a converter.  However,
think about what happens when you try to play MIDI on
a very old PC sound card that has only 4 voices?  Does
it suddenly cease to be a MIDI player and must be a
converter because "the program is using Sound Blaster,
so it must 'convert' to fit the confines of 4 voices?"

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.

>- No stereo support

MIDI Synth does support stereo.  What are you talking
about?

>>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?

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.

(You saying IBM 6x86 sucks snipped)
>>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).

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?

>    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.

If it sucks as much CPU time as 3200 color mode, then it
would be impossible, right?

Also, the tools for playing waveforms support  greater
than 64k.  That's how you can play large rSounds, you
know.  I suppose the IIGS is using some form of magical
compression to squish a 1MB rSound down to 64k if
what you say is true?

>>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.

I'm saying I can hear it in 128k/sec songs.

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.

Just rent a copy of Titanic and listen to the sound
on a Hi-Fi VHS deck if you don't believe me.
Then tell me that you think your MP3 songs can
match that!

>>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.
>
>    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

I am saying I can hear the difference.

>orginal arguement about Apple IIgs digitized WAV's

Don't like the IIGS, how about comparing 8-bit
PC WAVs?  I'm saying the 8-bit samples (on a
PC WAV player) are clearly less altered from
the original CD song than MP3 compressed ones.
Again, listen to the bass.

>and analog casettes being *superior* does very
>little for your creditability in general. It also

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.

>has me wondering why I am wasting my time debating
>something so absurd.

So you want me to say I think MP3 is superior
to modern analog cassette tape or Hi-Fi VHS
analog sound even though I do not hear this.

(Snipped bunch of finger pointing about me saying
IIGS waves and analog cassette tapes are better
than MP3)

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.

Are you saying the Titanic video would sound
better if it were MP3 instead of Hi-Fi analog
audio?