Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[GUDATH@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (Henrik 'Ratte' Gudat)]

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.
> (the extension QuickTime-MIDI, before it's brought up, is quite poor from
> what I heard).

Just the facts (PowerMac):
- the Mac offers 44kHz/16bit compared to ca. 25kHz/8bit
  This is a huge difference in dynamic range.
- The Mac can play 8 channels (66Mhz) and more thru the toolbox, more if you
provide your own sound routines.
- There are decent MOD players: PlayerPro and SoundTrecker.
- 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).
- You can play MIDI data on the Mac without MIDI peripherals (CyberSound VS for
example)

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. It's adequate
for most tasks, including real-time sound editing (Deck II).

I'm sorry for this pro-Mac message, but credit where credit is due. The Mac
still can't play Alien Mind, so all these advantages are worth...nothing. :-)

- bozo