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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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

>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>
>>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>>
>>>    I consider Music Composer a MIDI convertor application. It is
>>>no different from MIDISurgeon, except that the converting process
>>>is more or less transparent to the user. MIDISurgeon has you wait
>>>a minute or so as the sequence is converted, Music Composer just
>>>takes a short pause. The end result is both programs convert the
>>>sequence into MIDIsynth format, which you can listen to or save
>>>to disk.
>>
>>Not exactly.  Yes, Music Composer uses MIDIsynth
>>to play the song, but that's no different than a Windows
>>player using Windows sound tools or Mac player using
>>Mac MIDI tools to play a song.
>
>    Both MIDISurgeon and Music Composer use the MIDIsynth toolset
>for playback. Fundamentally they are FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL, with
>the difference that one is faster at converting MIDI->MIDIsynth.
>Neither program does anything to match instruments to the right
>tracks, which is not the case with PC/Mac MIDI *players*.
>
>    Neither programs is a MIDI player. Granted once the sequence
>measures are converted into a native Apple IIgs music format (in
>this case, MIDIsynth) you can click a button and listen to them,
>but this is merely a shortcut, saving you the trouble of having
>to load up a MIDIsynth player to listen to them (e.g. synthLAB,
>Ministrel, MegaBox, WaveLAB, etc).

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.

Similarly, MIDI is simply a different internal format, but
Music Composer can just load it up.

>>MIDISurgeon is different.  The first thing
>>MIDISurgeon does is convert the actual song to
>>synthLAB format.  synthLAB format is COMPLETELY
>>different than simply using MIDIsynth to play a song,
>>which is what Music Composer does.
>
>    Um, synthLAB format *is* MIDIsynth. Are you aware synthLAB
>is merely a demo application Apple wrote that demostrates the
>MIDIsynth toolset? (It was to have been much more, but the
>program was never completed).

Earth to Mitchell!  Earth to Mitchell!

That's like saying "the Apple Flatbed Scanner program
on the System 6 Golden Master IS the driver" or
"Advanced Disk Utilities IS the Apple High Speed
SCSI driver."  Each of these APPLICATIONS use the
driver, but they are NOT the driver.

Once again, Music Composer must CONVERT its
sequence (which has its own internal structure) to
synthLAB format via an "Export to synthLAB..." menu
item before synthLAB can work.  Once again, synthLAB
is NOT MIDIsynth.

>    What would happen if Dave highly optimized the converting
>process in MIDISurgeon so it took as much time as MIDIConvert
>or Music Composer? Would MIDISurgeon suddenly be a MIDI player
>and not a convertor?

Once again, MIDISurgeon actually CONVERTS to
synthLAB when you hit the Translate button.  Music
Composer DOES NOT automatically translate to
synthLAB.

Once again, Music Composer sequences CANNOT
be played using synthLAB or synthLAB players.

Once again, if you want to translate to synthLAB,
Music Composer must EXPORT to synthLAB.

Once again, synthLAB is NOT MIDIsynth.  It uses
MIDIsynth, but the two are not the same.

>>Look at it another way...Music Composer has to
>>EXPORT the song to synthLAB format.
>
>    Wrong, because it already is in that format. You have the
>option of whether or not you want it saved to disk (otherwise
>it'll just sit there in memory, just like MIDISurgeon).

Negative.  You cannot play a Music Composer
sequence using synthLAB.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Music Composer has an "Export to synthLAB..."
option under the File menu.

Just because a program uses MIDIsynth does not
mean it is a synthLAB clone.  Music Composer
has its own internal format.  MIDIs loaded into
Music Composer are not directly converted into
synthLAB format.

>>what's so great about MIDIsynth?
>
>    MIDIsynth on its own is quite respectable, but it quickly
>becomes less than stellar when used to playback MIDI files.
>As a native Apple IIgs music program/toolset I think it is
>probably the best one written to date. It certainly sounds
>better than Music Construction Set, Music Studio, Instant
>Music, Diversi-Tune, or when it comes to classical music,
>even Soundsmith. With perhaps the exception of Soundsmith,
>all those programs are now defunct and no one uses them in
>in their programs.

Actually, I disagree.  I think Diversi-Tune does classical
better and NoiseTracker with the right samples also
does it better.

>>What makes it superior to something like NoiseTracker?
>
>    Well for one thing NoiseTracker, like just Soundsmith,
>is just a 14-track MOD player with most note-effect support
>stripped away. In fact, there is no difference between them
>except than Noisetracker gets around the 64K DOC-RAM limit.

NoiseTracker has 15 tracks normally tracks A and B
and tracks 01 through 13.  RAM tracks can be added
at the expense of Ensoniq tracks.

>>If I record all the instrument outputs from a particular
>>synthLAB wavebank and directly digitize the output
>>to another IIGS and take those samples and make
>>them into NoiseTracker instruments, I get exactly the
>>same sounds in NoiseTracker only it is guaranteed
>>to by definition support 16 voices.
>>
>>What is so great about MIDIsynth?  What can
>>MIDIsynth do that NoiseTracker cannot?
>
>    Heh, have you ever converted a MIDI sequence into MOD format
>and listened to it? That should give you a rough idea what the
>differences are with going technical. MOD players are even worse
>off than MIDIsynth for MIDI playback--far, far worse.

That's because (at least with the programs I've used) the
converter generates an Amiga Protracker MOD.  Of
course that's going to sound bad...you've just mashed
the MIDI into a 4 voice format.

I'm saying, why not use GS NoiseTracker's 15 voice
format.

>>>>Diversi-Tune supports 32 voices and sounds GREAT!
>>>
>>>    Not quite. Anything you read about Diversi-Tune using that
>>>many voices was referring to the fact it used 32 oscillators
>>>whereas other programs used 30 oscillators (2 were reserved
>>>for timing interrupts, unless you bypassed the firmware).
>>>
>>>    Other programs would use the oscillators in pairs, while
>>>Diversi-Tune utilitized them individually. The high-hat used
>>>only only 1 oscillator per note, but the piano and organ each
>>>grabbed 4 oscillators per note, so in a case where a piano or
>>>organ are used you'd get 8 voices maximum (it depended on the
>>>instrument, you could potentially have 32 high-hats voices at
>>>once). Any stereo sound always took up 2 oscillators, so you
>>>had half the oscillators used for the left channel and half
>>>for the right channel. In practice this gave you something
>>>close to 16 voices, but usually even less.
>>
>>I have this song, "Daybreak" on Diversi-Tune that sounds
>>amazing.  It sounds like a whole band playing.  I have
>>not heard anything even remotely comparable coming
>>out of my PC sound card!
>
>    Well despite how it may sound, it is still no where near
>having 32 voices which you were boasting. If it is as good as
>you claim it is, could you upload a copy to the Ground FTP
>site so I could have a listen to it? (not to critize, I do
>like to see the IIgs being pushed to its limits and if you
>have an example of that, well... :)

First, read above.  I never claimed "it has 32 voices."
Second, I'm in the process of archiving the better songs
in my Diversi-Tune collection and I'll be uploading it
soon.

>>Diversi-Tune is MUCH better than FM synthesis.
>>The IIGS can't do FM synthesis, remember?  It
>>has no FM voices!  Diversi-Tune is as much
>>wavetable synthesis as MIDIsynth, only the samples
>>are stored in a proprietary format.
>
>    That is debatable. There are many examples of FM music
>that *really* blow Diversi-Tune away. If you have MAME the
>arcade emulator on your PC, which can use the OPL3 for
>direct music playback (I believe it is hardware compatible
>with the YM-2203/3812 used in arcade games) have a listen
>to Bubble Bobble, Ghouls'n Ghosts, Lengendary Wings, Robocop,
>Jackal, Marble Madness or Gauntlet II as some notiable examples.
>If you've ever played these in local arcades you'll get the
>point (heh, I'd like to see you do the background music in
>Bubble Bobble using Diversi-Tune).

I've played MAME (yuck, what's wrong with the graphics?
They look a lot worse than XGS and you know I don't like
XGS).  I am not impressed.

I admit, I never used it to play the games you mentioned,
but I did fool around with a lot of old arcade titles like
Moon Patrol, Xaxxon, and Asteroids.  Brings back
memories, but I wouldn't call the music great!

>>However, the most sickening thing I find in PC mid
>>files is what I call "instrument overkill."  Too often,
>>people try to use too many different instruments.
>>It sounds terrible on the PC sound card.  A little
>>MIDI Surgery via MIDISurgeon to shrink instrument
>>usage down to one to two or so instruments make
>>the mids sound A LOT better.  NOT decreasing the
>>amount of VOICES, by the way, only combining
>>them into fewer instruments.
>
>    Could you give me some specific examples I could listen to?
>Obviously you should utilize instrument selection within reason,
>too much of anything isn't necessarily good. However, it sounds
>like you LIKE having a limited instrument selection on the IIgs,
>and that is not a good thing.

I could dig some up and email them to you.

It is not that I like a limited selection, but in most
cases, a limited selection sounds better.  This is
true on a PC too.  Sometimes, I convert a post-
surgery song BACK to .mid format so that I can
have a nicer sounding MIDI on the PC.

It is just preference.

>>Why not use the "MOD players" like the 15 voice
>>NoiseTracker in the first place?  Make a version of
>>MIDISurgeon for NoiseTracker, for example.
>
>    That wouldn't be worth the effort, unless you wanted a MIDI
>to MOD convertor and as mentioned above, "MOD" is not a very
>useful format for MIDI playback.

Not MIDI to Protracker, which would be bad.

MIDI to GS NoiseTracker.  We are talking about
the difference between a 4 voice format and a
15 track format.

>>I mean, FTA even provided a NoiseTracker TOOL
>>for GS/OS.  Why not totally replace MIDISynth
>>with NoiseTracker?  NoiseTracker allows practically
>>unlimited number of instruments.
>>
>>WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT MIDISYNTH?
>
>    I think I'll let Dave Tribby step in to explain how MIDIsynth
>differs from something like NoiseTracker GS, but the bottom line
>is it does much more than a simple MOD player. From what I know,
>MOD players just take digitized samples and play them back at
>varing rates, plus add some effects (NoiseTracker and Soundsmith
>supports relatively few however). MODs work great for techno and
>rock type songs but terrible for classical pieces. I believe
>it has to do with the fact MIDIsynth has all sorts of control
>over the waveform's attack, decay, sustain and even how EACH
>separate oscillator is treated (you can mix four separate
>waveforms to create one instrument). You have full control over
>each oscillator, which is not the case with NoiseTracker GS
>which just plays back a sample at different frequencies.

I'd like to hear an explanation too.  I'm pretty sure GS
NoiseTracker has sustain and fade in, fade out and
volume.  The other ones, well you can simply use
different samples.

But you make it sound like, effects aside, the
QUALITY of MIDIsynth sound is superior to GS
NoiseTracker sound.  Why is that?

>My P166
>machine doesn't support MMX, so I'm limited to using the
>player at 22 kHz, but it is good enough where it is almost
>comparable to my Roland SCC1--that alone says much. For sure
>it blows away FM synthesis and *anything* the IIgs Ensoniq
>is capable of for MIDI (not just talking about MIDIsynth).
>
>    The minimum requirements for the program are a Pentium
>processor running at 166 MHz (MMX is recommended, but not
>required). I think you told me you had a "P166+" (6x86)
>chipset which is slower than a Pentium-166. Definitely its
>internal math coprocessing is equivalent to a Pentium-90
>and not one on a Pentium-166, so perhaps your machine isn't
>up to speed for running it?

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 really wonder about your tastes versus mine sometimes.
>
>    I'm beginning to feel that myself.

Yup.  Perhaps it might be due to the fact that you
listen to mostly classical MIDIs while I listen
to easy listening ones?

For classical, many many different instruments
might not be instrument overkill, but for easy
listening it almost always is.

>>I find the IIGS an excellent and great sounding music
>>machine, yet you seem to can't stand it.
>
>    For a machine produced 12 years ago, the sound built-in
>of the Apple IIgs is downright *incredible*. Comparing it
>to any other machine produced in the 1980's (and to a point,
>even the early 90's) puts it well at the top of the class
>for sound capabilities.
>
>    Today however, in 1998, it is no longer state-of-the-art.

I'm not saying it is.  However, that does not mean
it can't do the things it once can.

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?

>I think your just taking a
>illogical stand defending it because your stuck on brand
>loyality. I stopped doing that not too long ago, and I'm
>glad I did since it makes me more opened minded to what
>tools are out there for certain computing jobs.

This, coming from the person who tries to claim
that the 44.1Khz sampling rate actually captures
44.1Khz FREQUENCIES...(it does not...44.1Khz
sampling...CD quality...captures 22Khz audio
frequency).

>>On the flip side, I've fooled around with the MP3 things
>>you rave about and I am not impressed.
>
>    Are you sure your listening to MP3, and not MP2?
>Even if you are listening to actual MPEG-3 audio, why
>not tell me what bit-rate (Kilobytes per second) and
>sampling rate (in KHz) they were encoded at? Are you
>using WinAmp or some obscure old player?

128kbps, 44Khz, stereo.

I'm using WinAmp.

>    Remember that if the song encoded was not digitally
>extracted from a compact disc, it was digitized. That
>leaves it open to people recording off poor sources
>(e.g. old VHS tape, audio cassette) and leaves it up
>to them to choose the sampling rate and compression.
>A good MP3 is one recorded at 44 KHz and encoded at
>a bit-rate of 128K+, 44 KHz, stereo. Mind you, I've
>encoded some very decent MP3's recordings off a VHS
>tape I rented.

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!

>>Digitized sound files on a IIGS sounds better.  Yes, I
>>know the IIGS does 8-bit samples but I swear that the MP3
>>compression makes music sound worse than taking a 16-bit
>>sample to 8-bit ever will.
>
>    Thanks, I haven't had such a good laugh in quite a
>while. :-) Seriously, obviously *something* is  wrong
>here because that make no sense whatsoever. I'm sorry,
>but that statement is simply rubbish. That is like
>telling me a crank-shaft phonograph from the 1920's is
>superior in sound quality to a current day compact disc
>player. Your statement above is just about as ridiculious.

And you've been trying to tell me that CDs can
actually reproduce 44.1Khz AUDIO FREQUECIES.

THAT's a good laugh.

44.1Khz sampling can only reproduce 22Khz audio
frequencies.

>>What's so great about MP3?  Ok, I can see that it
>>makes music piracy over the internet possible, but
>>the sound is so bad and the digitzed sound on the
>>IIGS is so much better.  Music publishers have nothing
>>to fear.  I would not be caught dead listening to an
>>MP3 recording seriously (like on a real stereo).  A
>>good cassette tape even sounds much better.
>
>    Do you even know what your talking about? I really
>don't know what the issue is with you or your computer
>setup, but I can tell you with great confidence and
>certainy, MPEG-3 audio (when done right) is *by far*
>superior to analog casette tapes and especially, the
>waveforms output by the IIgs's 8-bit DAC.

Well, it is not a IIGS issue.  I'm saying I hear
a smaller difference when switching from 16-bit
to 8-bit ON THE PC SOUND CARD compared
to switching from .wav to MP3 ON THE PC SOUND
CARD.

>    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!

>    To recap, you claim the Apple IIgs is better for MIDI
>playback than current options available today (i.e. Yamaha
>Soft Synth), and is superior for digitized audio playback
>over MPEG-3 audio.

Where did you pull this rabbit out of a hat?

I NEVER claimed this.

Again, I said that many songs have instrument overkill.
I never said the IIGS is BETTER for playing MIDIs
than something like a Roland SCC.  I'm saying that
I'd rather use less instruments.  That's why I sometimes
convert post-surgery sequences back to MIDI to
play on the PC.

>You also once claimed you could not hear
>a difference between 16-bit and 8-bit audio, but that is
>going a couple of months back.

I never once claimed that.

>It is OKAY
>to like the Apple IIgs and have a fondness for it (I certainly
>still do) but don't let yourself become so obsessed by it
>that you start believing things that aren't true. I'm not
>trying to flame you, but much of what you've stated is just
>absurd, and I can think of no reason for it other than the
>fact you seem to be overly loyal to the IIgs.

Grasshopper, let me tell you a story:

Once, there was a man that was very enamored with
JPEG graphics.  He thought that JPEG graphics
were photographic quality.  He sung praises about
JPEG, tried to spread the word and get people to
use JPEG viewers, etc.

One day, this man encountered a GIF supporter.
He tried to convert the GIF supporter.

Said he to the GIF supporter, "I used to be like you,
pretending that GIF was the best graphics format
in the world, but then JPEG opened my eyes.  Look
at these colors.  Look at these images.  Amazing.
Photographic quality!"

But unknown to him, the GIF supporter happened
to be a photography enthusiast.  He corrected the
JPEG supporter.

"See here, look at the sky.  That's where your JPEG
compression artifacts show up.  See here too,
look at the lines.  JPEG is a far cry from
photographic quality," said the GIF supporter.

Then the GIF supporter said something that threw
the JPEG supporter into a fit of rage.

"GIF is better than JPEG in many ways.  In fact,
I can say that in the respects that count to me,
GIF is superior to JPEG" said the GIF supporter.

The JPEG supporter went on the attack.

"Are you THAT loyal to JPEG?  Obviously, JPEG
is better.  You are deluding yourself.  I used to
be like you before I saw the light," shouted the
JPEG supporter.

The JPEG supporter ran off in a fit of rage.

Had the JPEG supporter stayed and listen, he
would have heard the GIF supporter explain that
the pixel by pixel sharpness of lines and the
nature of color transitions was important to him.
The JPEG supporter would have saw that in
some respects, GIF was indeed superior.  In
other respects, JPEG is superior.  But in the
respects that mattered to the GIF supporter, GIF
really was better.

He would have known that the GIF supporter
was not crazy.

Grasshopper, believe me when I say that to
my ears, MP3 is NOT CD quality and
furthermore, even reducing 16-bit sound to
8-bit playback is not as degrading as converting
audio to MP3.  You might not think so because
you are listening to other things, but this is
what I hear.