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:
>>
>>>In article gavp@gis.net writes...
>>>
>>>>Is there a MIDI player for Apple 2 GS ?
>>>
>>>    No, not really. There are however a handful of programs which
>>>will convert MIDI files into a native Apple IIgs music format and
>>>then attempt to play them back. The most feasible music format for
>>>that job is called "MIDIsynth"--a toolset included with System 6.
>>>Anyone who's used Apple's synthLAB program is familar with it.
>>
>>Then what do you call Music Composer?  It simply LOADS
>>the MIDI (.mid) file, allows you to play it, even edit it, and
>>allows you to save back as a .mid file playable on a Windows
>>PC unit.
>
>    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.

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.

Look at it another way...Music Composer has to
EXPORT the song to synthLAB format.

Now, instead of being a synthLAB converter, Music
Composer can simply load a MIDI file, play a MIDI
file, edit a MIDI file, and SAVE a MIDI file.

It really IS a MIDI player/editor.

>>If THAT's not the definition of a MIDI player/editor, what is?
>
>    How about something that lets you double-click on a MIDI file
>and play it back as easily as if it were in Apple IIgs format. Oh,
>and as a player, perhaps do its best to play the sequence with the
>proper instrument/track assignments?

Hrmph, you think all Windows players get it right the
first time?  I've used both Willow Pond Audio's
player and Yamaha's and both flub in the wrong
instrument assignments some of the time.

>>Well actually I've converted songs with many more than
>>seven voices.  The 4 oscillator voices of MIDI synth are
>>real overkill.  You can have more than 7 voices easily, it
>>is just that MIDIsynth will steal time from each 4 oscillator
>>unit to generate the "over 7" voices.
>
>    Yes, but when it hits the 8th voice or higher, it "steals"
>lower voices and cuts them out. Notes get clipped prematurely
>and the result is less than pleasing. MIDIsynth would be more
>effective if it used 15 voices, but I don't see anyone willing
>to reprogram the toolset (if it's documented anything like FSTs
>then it would not even a viable option).

I don't find most 14-16 voice MIDI conversions a probem
for MIDIsynth.  However, if you fear the idea of "stealing"
time, what's so great about MIDIsynth?  What makes
it superior to something like NoiseTracker?

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?

>>This is really not much of a problem if you have about
>>14-16 voices, I've found.
>
>    That's a strict matter of opinion. :)

I like my conversions!

>>>often sounds much worse (e.g. Diversi-Tune, which is similar to
>>>FM-synthesis or Soundsmith, which is a 14-track MOD player). The
>>
>>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!

>>It is nothing like FM-synthesis.  It is just that the waveforms
>>are defined rather than loaded as a separate wavebank
>>file.
>
>    As I recall, its high-hats and drums sounded like white
>noise generators, and the organ and pianos sounded quite
>similar to FM versions (especially if you hit high piano
>notes). I spoke to Bill Basham about a year or two ago,
>and he himself described his program as having a "very
>rich, kind of FM sound". :)

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.

>>I actually like the sound better than my OPL3 equipped
>>PC sound card AND MIDIsynth.  The only reason I
>>don't use it more is because MIDIsynth is more of the
>>standard.  This is a real shame...DiversiTune is great!
>
>    Diversi-Tune is a fantastic and great sounding program,
>but it is not suitable as a MIDI player. It has almost the
>same voice limitation as MIDIsynth (though maybe not quite
>as severe) and lacks instrument variety. You had what, a
>piano, organ, banjo, harpsichord and percussion?

It had several more, if I remember correctly.

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.

>>>7 voice limit of MIDIsynth is the real crippling though, so much
>>>so, I've found a crummy OPL3 (FM based) card in my PC can do a
>>>better job at supporting MIDI playback. At least it has 20 voices
>>>and can simulate very decent bass and bell-like instruments.
>>
>>I wouldn't go this far.  I've done conversions with songs
>>having 14-16 voices.  The results, played with MIDIsynth,
>>still sound significantly better than the original .mid files
>>played through my FM (OPL3) sound card.  But that's
>>to be expected...my PC sound card costs less than $20 USD.
>
>    I didn't necessarily say it sounded better, just that
>it is much better supported. With the OPL3 on the PC you
>get 20 voices and General MIDI compatibility. While it may
>sound very synthy and cheesy, its does its best to accurately
>match real instruments with FM based ones (on the GS there
>are only a handful of instruments, and *very* few available
>at once). Someone _could_ have written a IIgs MIDI player
>that would use more voices and swap instruments in and out
>on the fly (from a 256K-1MB set of patches or so) much
>like MOD players have done.

Why not use the "MOD players" like the 16 voice
NoiseTracker in the first place?  Make a version of
MIDISurgeon for NoiseTracker, for example.

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?

>    Unfortunately, we're stuck with MIDIsynth for now. There
>is a better alternative open to _you_ at least, and you should
>take it instead of suffering with MIDIsynth and Diversi-Tune
>to hear MIDI files. :) Assuming your FM card has a DAC and
>your running with a P166 or better, download the Yahama Soft
>Synthesizer S-YXG50 for Windows 95. It emulates a hardware
>synthesizer with a 2-4 MB instrment patch set. Download the
>(fully functional) 30 day trial version from this URL:
>
>http://www.cyber-bp.or.jp/yamaha/s-yxg50/index_e.html
>
>    It is easy to install and it's transparent to the user,
>you just double-click on MIDI files as you did before when
>playing through your OPL3/FM chipset. Warning: Once you try
>this you may never want to use your IIgs again to play MIDI
>files. ;-)

I actually have the Yamaha Soft Synth, but I don't find
what's so great about it.

I really wonder about your tastes versus mine sometimes.
I find the IIGS an excellent and great sounding music
machine, yet you seem to can't stand it.

On the flip side, I've fooled around with the MP3 things
you rave about and I am not impressed.  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.

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.