Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

GUDATH@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (Henrik 'Ratte' Gudat) wrote:
>In <4NOV199615033782@vax2.concordia.ca> spec@vax2.concordia.ca writes:
>
>> are like listening to a *real* live orchestra! What does the
>> Macintosh do for music, in say a game? Digitally record real-world
>> music and loop that short clip over and over. Or in some cases, just
>> have you insert a compact disc and play pre-recorded music off that.
>> No better than listening to a
>[..]
>> a hobby and enjoyment of mine, one of the reason I wouldn't be happy
>> with a Macintosh. I don't believe there is even a decent way to play
>> MIDI files on a Macintosh, unless you hook up an expensive MIDI
>> synthesis keyboard.
>
>Just the facts (PowerMac):
>- the Mac offers 44kHz/16bit compared to ca. 25kHz/8bit
>  This is a huge difference in dynamic range.


I believe that in the first paragraph above, about the orchestra,
Mitch was refering to the 16-bit wavetable cards for the PC compatibles
that use an Ensoniq chip.  These chips are the descendents of the
Ensoniq chip used in the IIGS, but they have been extended to
support a 16-bit wavetable.

Just like the IIGS's 8-bit resolution Ensoniq outperforms the sound
of the Mac Plus, the 16-bit wavetable Ensoniq based sound cards for
the PC outperform the sound from PowerMacs.

The maximum rate of the IIGS's Ensoniq is not 25kHz/8 bit.  It is
65.491kHz (SoundShop supports the maximum, some programs are limited
to 44kHz or thereof).  Some of the cleanest sound output comes from
setting the record rate at 26.362kHz, for example, because that's
the frequency at which the power supply, etc. operates.  The maximum
frequency of the Ensoniq DOC is inversely related to the number of
oscillators active.  The Ensoniq has 32, but if you are playing
sound on only one, you can push it to the maximum 65.491kHz.

The PowerMacs can do 16-bit sound at 44kHz, but the IIGS can do
65.491kHz if only with 8-bit resolution.  Give credit where
credit is due.  :)


>- The Mac can play 8 channels (66Mhz) and more thru the toolbox, more
>  if you provide your own sound routines.

But, like Mitch said, the modern Mac's sound chip is still not a
synthesizer.  They are simply playback devices: like a CD quality
tape recorder.  Don't get me wrong, the dynamic range is great, but
you can't do things like you can with the IIGS.

With the IIGS's Ensoniq (and 16-bit wavetable cards for the PC based
on a modern model Ensoniq), you have 32 oscillators to play with that
can be manipulated with different play modes, paired, and controlled
to generate many different sounds from one wave.  It is literally the
heart of a Mirage sampling synthesizer in a computer.

Giving credit where credit is due: the modern Mac, as a sound
playback device, is superior to IIGS hardware (16-bit resolution
vs. 8-bit resolution).  For synthesis, however, the IIGS's Ensoniq
is STILL more flexible.

All this is in reference to non-AV Macs, of course.


>- There are decent MOD players: PlayerPro and SoundTrecker.

The best MOD players are on the Amiga because they set the standard
(and therefore support all the effects).  The Amiga's sound is
8-bits in resolution.  Even the Amiga can't do synthesis very well,
however, because its sound chip isn't a synthesizer chip (MODs are
not synthesized music).


>- QuickTime 2.5 offers quite good MIDI support. This is what I was
>told on the phone by a friend who's working with a lot with
>synthesizers (M3R, SY-22 etc).

No doubt you can attach a MIDI instrument to the Mac.


>- You can play MIDI data on the Mac without MIDI peripherals
>(CyberSound VS for example)

But it dosn't do this by synthesis.  It basically has a bank of
samples and plays them in accordance with MIDI data.  This is more
like playing MODs or SoundSmith than something like synthLAB, which
was what Mitch was refering to.


>What I'm trying to say is that the hardware is more or less up to
>date. If entertainment software makes use of it is a totally different
>questions. However, it's rather pointless to say that the Mac sounds
>awful.

Article Unavailable