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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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

>>This is incorrect.  Music Composer has its own internal format.
>>Music saved as Music Composer sequences CANNOT be
>>double-clicked from Finder and played using Ministrel or
>>MegaBox.
>>
>>Again, (and I actually went back and checked) you must
>>EXPORT TO SYNTHLAB in order to generate something
>>synthLAB can play when using Music composer.  You
>>are wrong, Mitch.  MIDIsynth does not equal synthLAB.
>>MIDIsynth is a sound TOOL.  synthLAB is a player and
>>has its own internal format, just like Music Composer
>>does.
>
>    Your obscuring the issue here. All the programs mentioned
>above use the MIDIsynth toolset (same synthesizer application
>player, same instrument bank configuration and same waveform).
>You convert the MIDI file and regardless of what special file
>format it is saved in, internally it will be 100% *IDENTICAL*
>since the same data is sent to the MIDIsynth toolset. There is
>no difference in how it will sound, it is the same sequence
>played under different programs.
>
>    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?"

Obviously, Music Composer is not doing as much "converting"
as MIDI Surgeon.  MIDI Surgeon 2.0 is already highly
optimized as the GS+ article talked about how Dave Tribby
fought the program to make it faster.

The reason Music Composer is faster is because its internal
format is much closer to MIDI than synthLAB.

Do you realize that Music Composer takes a long pause
when exporting to synthLAB?  Do you realize that
sometimes (if the sequence uses blocks), you must
fiddle with it before you can export to synthLAB at
all!  Yes, you must copy each block to the first block
because Music Composer only exports the first block
because synthLAB does not support blocks!

>    In order to qualify as a MIDI player it must do more than
>simply just translate the note information into an Apple IIgs
>music format (forget about HOW it is saved, just remember it
>is played by MIDIsynth and that is the bottom line). To be a

So if it a Windows MIDI player has to do some internal
conversion to use one type of sound tool or the Mac
(which plays MIDI in a similar fashion to MIDI Synth)
has to do a conversion for its MIDI tool, suddenly it
is not a MIDI player?

EVERY music program does SOME type of internal
conversion!

>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.

Is my MIDI keyboard not a MIDI keyboard because it
was made before GS/GM?  No.

>    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.

>>I've ran it when my computer was a P200+ before
>>I accidentally static zapped it when installing a
>>hard drive.  Now I have to underclock it, but I
>>am sure that a P200+ is fast enough.  And don't
>>think you can provoke me into a lunatic rage by
>>insulting both my units.  Even as a P166+, it is
>>faster than a Pentium-166.  That's why it is called
>>a P166+.  ;-)
>
>    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.

>>Do you know that some bands are still using the
>>ESQ-1, which utilizes the same Ensoniq 5503 unit
>>as the IIGS?  Mostly the ones that work at weddings
>>and parties, granted, but they are still in use.
>>
>>If it is good enough for musicians, why is it so hard
>>for you to believe that it is good enough for some
>>people to use to listen to some music?
>
>    Exactly what does this have to do with the Apple IIgs?
>The ESQ-1 and Mirage may use the same chip, but they have
>double the amount of dedicated sample RAM (128K vs 64K)
>which alone makes a huge difference, and don't forget they
>have different support (software) for utilizing the same
>chip. I made a perfect example above, the OPL3 is used by
>old PC sound cards and arcade machines, however, they can
>sound *very* different because of the software controlling
>them (a lot of old PC games sounded awful, yet not arcade
>games using the same chip).

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!

>>I understand that, but I'm telling you...I've got
>>better results by just recording either onto
>>audio tape, into the IIGS, or (if you think I am
>>somehow biased to the IIGS) even through my
>>PC sound card.  In either 8-bit or 16-bit mode.
>>
>>That's why I'm saying MP3 sounds like it
>>degrades the sound more than reducing from
>>16-bit to 8-bit.  Not putting the IIGS in the
>>picture, it sounds like this way to me USING
>>MY PC SOUND CARD!
>
>    This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you've been
>really unlucky and have been downloading poorly digitized
>and encoded MP3 audio files. Exactly what is the issue
>that has you believing the IIgs (or analog casettes)
>sound better? Is WinAmp skipping or stuttering perhaps?
>That can be attributed to your computer being too slow
>to handle on the fly decompression and playback (this
>was the case with my old 5x86-133, equal to a P75). If
>your getting popping and skipping, your PCI video card
>may also be at fault. Try playing the MP3 and not
>touching the mouse or moving around any windows.

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

Listen to the base carefully.

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.

>>>    MPEG-3 (that is THREE, not two) is CD quality. In
>>>all truthfulness, there is *no* percievable difference
>>>between music played on a CD player and MPEG-3 audio.
>>>Of course I could take a scratchy music recording off
>>>a 30 year old casette tape, digitize it and encode it
>>>in MP3 format, but keep in mind I could do the same
>>>to create a compact disc recording.
>>
>>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.

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.

>[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.

MPEG-3 is a lossy compression format, just like
JPEG.  SOMETHING's gotta give.