Re: MIDI files on IIgs?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
>>    The problem with using Diversi-Tune for MIDI though, isn't
>>just its FM-like sound quality, but the lack of instruments
>>available overall. You have a piano, organ, banjo, percussion,
>>and harpischord. Not a exactly a suitable selection for most
>>MIDI files out there.
>
>Was there ever any WaveLab type programs for building new instruments
>for Diversi-Tune?

    No, Diversi-Tune had its instruments as an intergrated part of
the program, it was not modular for patch sets (like synthLAB or
even Music Construction Set). The only time new instruments were
added was when new releases of Diversi-Tune were made, and the
program hasn't been updated for 7 or 8 years now.

>>    Of course I don't listen to MIDI through FM-synthesis, I just use
>>my Roland SCC-1 which is probably about the richest, most realistic
>>music synthesis available for personal computers today. :) Using the
>>GS for listening to MIDI just doesn't cut it for me anymore, the
>>software available is just too limited. Even so, writing new software
>>wouldn't drastically help, since there are fixed limitations in the
>>Ensoniq 5503, like it being only 8-bit (16-bit samples are nicer for
>>wavetable), having only 64K of available RAM and it's kind of hissy
>>and noisy in the GS too.
>
>_IF_ there was an effort to write new software, the 64K limit can
>be bypassed by DOC RAM swapping.  The ROM 3 was much quieter.

    That is possible, but it would require lots of speed and CPU
time (just look at how much CPU time playing a MIDIsynth sequence
takes up alone). In any case, *who* is going to write this software?

>Here's a question for you: what does 16-bit resolution gain?  It
>seems to me that it makes for more subtle differences in volume.

    16-bit resolution does more than just increase volume levels,
it directly affects the quality of sound. Believe me, there is a
huge difference between, say, a cymbal crash or hit-hat note sampled
at 8-bit, compared with one sampled at 16-bit. The latter is just
so much sharper and crisp, and most of all, more realistic sounding.

>>    Here's a thought, find a Roland SC-55 (which is the original Roland,
>>an external box device which the SCC-1 card is based on) and connect it
>>up to the IIgs using a MIDI adapter. With software like MasterTracks Pro,
>>you should be able to play GM/GS MIDI files and even have control over
>>things like reverb (I think there is an LCD panel on the SC-55). I toyed
>>with this idea awhile ago, but then just decide to get an SCC-1 card
>>instead when I was given a PC.
>
>It would probably sound great, but I'm not _that_ much of a music
>junky.  Such hardware probably has a very high price tag.

    I found my Roland SCC-1 board (used) for $100, and I've seen them
available for as little as $60. I was able to afford it by selling off
some old software titles I no longer used, combined with the small fee
SQC paid me for writing some articles for II-Alive. :)

>I did connect up the GS to an old synthesizer keyboard once.  It was not
>a professional quality keyboard, just the ones for people who
>want to play some tunes.  It had about 100 synthesized instruments
>built in, but you couldn't sample sounds.
>
>Playing synthLAB sequences through this keyboard produced some
>problems.  It was playing the wrong instruments.  Also, the
>keyboard was "all or none" in the sense that it could not interpret
>velocity.

    In most cases, synthLAB itself is better suited for playing MIDI
files than those old amateur keyboards. Years ago, I tried using a
Casio PMP-300 MIDI keyboard; it lacked velocity, the ability to use
more than two instruments at once, was only 10-note polyphonic and
generally sounded flat and poor.

>A consumer level synthesizer keyboard such as this really does not
>sound better than a GS. :)  That's the difference, I think.  For
>a serious musician like yourself, you need the latest hardware.
>For most folks who just want to play the tunes, the GS is still
>a fascinating machine.  I know that I would still be very happy
>with a Mirage or an ESQ-1 (which are a step above consumer level
>keyboards, even if they are old in the professional world).

    I'm not a serious musician, I just want to hear MIDI sequences
as they were meant to be heard. As I said before, there are cases
where the GS is relatively suitable (sequences where there are less
than 7 voices used and only a small sprinkling of instruments) but
generally most MIDI files use countless more voices and instruments,
and that is just so it sounds right. If you want it to sound more
than just "right", you'll want 16-bit samples and effects like
reverb and such. :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca