charles@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Chuck the GREAT) (06/06/90)
I would like to know how estblished the amiga is in the world of sight and sound. As far as the industries' standards, which computer holds the title? A friend of mine argued for the Crapintosh. I just want a little reassurance and opportunity to dispell this myth. All replies may be made directly to me or over the net. Thanks Charles Edward Moore University of Pennsylvania Charles@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/06/90)
In article <25719@netnews.upenn.edu> charles@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Chuck the GREAT) writes: >I would like to know how estblished the amiga is in the world of sight >and sound. As far as the industries' standards, which computer holds >the title? A friend of mine argued for the Crapintosh. I just want a >little reassurance and opportunity to dispell this myth. All replies >may be made directly to me or over the net. Charles, if you want to start a flame fest this is the way to do it. There are two problems with this posting, 1) If you don't already know the answer to your question then why would you believe what we told you, and 2) calling a Macintosh a "crapintosh" is a particularly childish and needlessly provacative statement. You see, people who buy Macs think they are just as nice as you presumably think the Amiga is. And "nice" is a subjective term so they are correct in what they think. Now calling the machine that they think is pretty decent a "crapintosh" implies that you think it is not a very nice machine, and the implication is that someone who would like it is very silly indeed. This will cause these people who have feelings just like you do, to jump up and defend their computer of choice and probably go off a little over the deep end and make disparaging remarks about the Amiga. Being demonstrably immature you will probably feel the need to "set them straight" about which machine is better and no doubt some of the other inexperienced people on the network will come to your aid and help out. Then the Macintosh supporter will appear out numbered and some folks will come to his or her aid and suddenly there are 150 messages a day flying back and forth full of inuendo and disparaging remarks. Meanwhile the poor people who are trying to ask questions or give answers will be swamped out by all the name calling as people who could answer those questions will miss those messages because they will be skipping ahead 100 messages at a time trying to find the end of this particular flame fest. I apologize in advance for such a public dressing down as it were, however, this kind of stuff has to stop on this group if it is to remain viable. Needless to say there will be others contemplating their first message to Usenet and they may feel this is a "safe" topic since everyone in the group would presumably agree with them right? Wrong. We will all agree that the Amiga is a decent machine, but it is not "better" than any other machine, it simply is. If anyone who is reading this feels that deep in their heart they will simply not be able to hold their head up amongst their friends if they don't own the "best" machine. Then take the following advice : Ask your friends what they think the best machine is and buy it. But don't be suprised when you get a new set of friends and they have a different "best" machine. There is no right answer, and there never will be. -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
wakres01@pa.usl.edu (1712 Stelly John B) (06/06/90)
In article <25719@netnews.upenn.edu> charles@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Chuck the GREAT) writes: > >I would like to know how estblished the amiga is in the world of sight and >sound. As far as the industries' standards, which computer holds the title? >A friend of mine argued for the Crapintosh. I just want a little reassurance and opportunity to dispell this myth. All replies may be made directly to me or over the net. Unfortunately, I would have to agree with your friend. As an amiga owner & synthesizer/piano player, I have to admit that I used a Macintosh to do all of the sequencing on an album I recorded with a band last year. At that time there was _NO_ way to do 64 channels of MIDI and sync to SMPTE with the amiga. A regular Mac+ with a MIDI interface (4-line) and a good sequencing package did all of the above (and did it well). It's not the machine itself, it's simply that the software is not available for the amiga to do these things well. I use my amiga alot for music related things (primarily sample editing with Synthia professional which rivals the best Mac software!), but given the same choice today (and I will probably be recording another album beginning this fall) I think I would choose the Mac again. (I hate Macs, but I don't know of a way to get the Amiga to do SMPTE synchronization, or a package that will work with such a device and do a good job of sequencing) But I hear Music-X is great (haven't seen it yet) and I hear a SMPTE box for it is in the works, so things may be looking up... John B Stelly III wakres01@pa.usl.edu
jcfst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John C. Fossum) (06/07/90)
In article <136734@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > In article <25719@netnews.upenn.edu> charles@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Chuck the GREAT) writes: > >I would like to know how estblished the amiga is in the world of sight > >and sound. As far as the industries' standards, which computer holds > >the title? A friend of mine argued for the Crapintosh. I just want a > >little reassurance and opportunity to dispell this myth. All replies > >may be made directly to me or over the net. > > Charles, if you want to start a flame fest this is the way to do it. > There are two problems with this posting, 1) If you don't already know > the answer to your question then why would you believe what we told you, > and 2) calling a Macintosh a "crapintosh" is a particularly childish and > needlessly provacative statement. If you want flame wars, THIS is the way to start it. I'm sick and tired of listening to complaints about the way people use language as a means of communication on this net. If you're offended by the message, don't read it...and furthermore, don't go taking up net space with some whine about how someone honestly feels about a subject. If he wants to use the word Crapintosh, let him. It's not vulgar, he's just telling it how it is. Give me a break. Next you'll want us all to conform to correct grammar usage, have an outline of our net presentation before we post, a rough and final draft, and a later post of all the people who passed. And of course, slang is forbidden. Listen to the words and thoughts instead of analyzing sentences for god's sake. What we need is more communication and less speculation. Well, if this bores you or makes no sense to you, I'll let you crawl back in your corner and program 'Marxism...The Game'. Freedom of speech...let's keep it that way. > > this kind of stuff has to stop on this group if it is to remain viable. > Needless to say there will be others contemplating their first message > to Usenet and they may feel this is a "safe" topic since everyone in > the group would presumably agree with them right? Wrong. We will all ^^ Thank you for speaking for all of us. Lead us master.... > -- > --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems Steve M. Suhy [Not a habitual flamer...or a sheep]
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/07/90)
In article <24751@unix.cis.pitt.edu> (John C. Fossum) writes: > ... I'm sick and tired of listening to complaints about the > way people use language as a means of communication on this net. > If you're offended by the message, don't read it...and > furthermore, don't go taking up net space with some whine about > how someone honestly feels about a subject. Hey, chill out. It is absolutely no skin off my back to unsubscribe to this group. I am not spouting opinion, I don't care what anyone says or how they say it. It is a fact that computer users on this network go off half cocked when they disparaging remarks about "their" machine in _any_ newsgroup. When a lot of people do this the signal to noise ratio drops to near zero and everyone except the flamers leave. Those of us who have been around for the last 5 or 6 years see the utility of trying to keep a lid on things. Again, I don't want to legislate morality and I don't care if people wish to indulge in childish flaming contests about which computer is better than another. Call me cynical, call me cranky, call me the guy to used to post a lot to comp.sys.amiga. Have fun, go wild. -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
kosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) (06/08/90)
Hey, chill out. It is absolutely no skin off my back to unsubscribe to this group. I am not spouting opinion, I don't care what anyone ... Call me cynical, call me cranky, call me the guy to used to post a lot to comp.sys.amiga. Please, DON'T LEAVE, CHUCK!!! (1/4 :-) For a lot of us, c.s.a* is the only real good source of real information on the amiga (sw, hw, programming and stuff like that). Apparently for some others, it's a forum for childish bantering back and forth about mine is better than yours....well, maybe *somebody* will learn something from what you have to say.
djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) (06/08/90)
I've been running Music-X with a J.L. Cooper's "PPS-1" (Poor Man's SMPTE) for almost a year with few problems. The PPS-1 will send out MIDI clocks or MIDI Time Code, your choice. 250 tracks, plus full Amiga support - most of the features you'll find in the best Mac software, except for graphic entry of controller information. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dallas J. Hodgson | "This here's the wattle, | | Metaphor Computer Systems | It's the emblem of our land. | | Mountain View, Ca. | You can put it in a bottle, | | USENET : djh@metaphor.com | You can hold it in your hand." | +============================================================================+ | "The views I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer" | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bbs00187@uafcseg.uucp (Don Kennedy) (06/08/90)
I think the Amiga has been neglected in the music world, as if a built-in if not standard MIDI implementation somehow made the ST inherently a better music computer. Mac has had a real advantage in the software arena, but I think that will change soon. I've heard a lot of good stuff floating around by people who seem to know their stuff. My company is developing a DSP 56001 based digital audio card that will allow any enterprising MIDI software company to link, either by AREXX or written-in features, to two tracks of 16 bit high-end CD quality digital audio, synched via MIDI Time Code or SMPTE. This should allow Amiga hardware/software to surpass the features of Vision, the Opcode/digidesign sequencer with the forementioned characteristics. Don Kennedy Vision Quest
OPMANOJ@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (06/08/90)
========================================================================
Hi,
I have to agree with Chuck McManis here. We should have the sense not to
start religious wars here. This is not curbing free speech, it is just common
sense (IMHO).
Publicly announcing "I think computer X is crappy" simply starts a war that
just wastes bandwidth and changes NOBODY's mind (the owners of X have their
own reason for liking X). As far as the free speech aspect goes, I do not think
a person has the right to subject many users of the net to a flame-fest. (No -
I do not think the "k" key is the answer, many flamers like to use different
subject lines for each post).
I realize that I am myself "wasting bandwidth" here. I originally sent
e-mail to Chuck McManis agreeing with him, but when I saw a public attack on
him I felt I should respond.
BTW, I am new to the Amiga community, having just bought an A1000. I am
VERY impressed with the community - everyone is so freindly and helpful it is
truly incredible. Thanks to all who helped, I hope I can return the favors
someday :-)
See Ya,
Manoj Patel
(Finally an Amiga owner)stelmack@sunrise.ec.usf.edu (Gregory Stelmack) (06/08/90)
(Note: My first posting. Tell me if I screw up...) In article <25719@netnews.upenn.edu> charles@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Chuck the GREAT) writes: > >I would like to know how estblished the amiga is in the world of sight and >sound. As far as the industries' standards, which computer holds the title? >A friend of mine argued for the Crapintosh. I just want a little reassurance and opportunity to dispell this myth. All replies may be made directly to me or over the net. For those interested, the Fine Arts department here at USF has an entire Amiga lab for their Art department, and has in fact done a play in which three Amiga 2500s were used as a major part of the production. The Amiga is infiltrating quite a lot here at USF... -- Greg Stelmack (stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu)
jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz (John Bickers) (06/08/90)
Quoted from - kosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma): > > Hey, chill out. It is absolutely no skin off my back to unsubscribe > to this group. I am not spouting opinion, I don't care what anyone > ... > Call me cynical, call me cranky, call me the guy to used to post a > lot to comp.sys.amiga. > > Please, DON'T LEAVE, CHUCK!!! (1/4 :-) Add 1 more to the list of those who would not like to see Mr McManis disappear. Just out of interest, whatever happened to Leo Schwab? Someone implied a while back (when Marc Barrett was doing his thing) that Schwab had been hounded out of c.s.a too. If anyone wants to reply, please use email - use the .sig address and make AmigaUUCP happy... :) -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz *** *** Let them figure it out, Come on and step across, *** *** Just remind yourself, We are here to code. - munged Devo ***
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (06/09/90)
In-Reply-To: message from stelmack@sunrise.ec.usf.edu >From recent information distributed to dealers by Commodore, the Amiga holds about a 14% share of the electronic music world...this isn;t much when you consider it;s really only competing with three other computers, but it;s pretty good considering there isn;t as much software for MIDI available for the Amiga as say an ST or a Mac...(sorry about the ";" where there should be a " ' ", but I;m using my brother;s C128 to type this...damn nonstandard keyboard!) Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/10/90)
In <24835@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) writes: >Adding to the problem, the hardware is REALLY primitive; only one OUT port, >and (the kiss of death) no SMPTE sync capability. If the Amiga won't follow >SMPTE, no one in the music industry will take it seriously, because SMPTE >is simply vital for all major music applications-- not only audio/video >lockup, but audio/audio lock as well! Nobody will install a computer that >can't chase-lock to a tape recorder; it'd be useless. So there aren't many >studios that are willing to give the Amiga a second glance. You should talk to Mike Berro, who has done a lot with SMPTE. He has a program he is considering releasing to the public as free/shareware that does SMPTE goodies. Don't know any details, since I am not into that sort of thing. He can be reached at: 76004.2001@compuserve.com -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (06/10/90)
In article <24751@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, jcfst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John C. Fossum) writes: > > If you want flame wars, THIS is the way to start it. I'm sick and > tired of listening to complaints about the way people use language > as a means of communication on this net. If you're offended by the Why don't you follow your own advice then...? > message, don't read it...and furthermore, don't go taking up > net space with some whine about how someone honestly feels about > a subject. If he wants to use the word Crapintosh, let him. It's > not vulgar, he's just telling it how it is. Give me a break. Next It is vulgar, and if you don't know the meaning of the word, I suggest you purchase a dictionary. > you'll want us all to conform to correct grammar usage, have an > outline of our net presentation before we post, a rough and final Arrant nonsense, how can you extrapolate from a request for simple courtesy and plain speech to this? > draft, and a later post of all the people who passed. And of course, > slang is forbidden. Listen to the words and thoughts instead of > analyzing sentences for god's sake. What we need is more communication > and less speculation. Well, if this bores you or makes no sense to you, Exactly, more communication, not pejorative emotive flatulence by someone who has not asked themself what it is they are really saying. > I'll let you crawl back in your corner and program 'Marxism...The Game'. > Freedom of speech...let's keep it that way. Who do you think you are to flame in this manner? > ^^ > Thank you for speaking for all of us. Lead us master.... > > -- > > --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems > > Steve M. Suhy I have disagreed with Chuck on a number of occasions but I'll offer this much, he has cut to the heart of many a flame fest more succintly than you probably can even comprehend. Anycall to plain, comprehensible and efficient discourse is worth the time it takes to read, a defence of self indulgent adolescent whining is not. > [Not a habitual flamer...or a sheep] Then please take your own advice... neil
mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) (06/11/90)
(Please Email me and let me know if I've violated any basic etiquette rules;
I've been posting to rec.music.synth for years now, but this is my first
post to comp.sys.amiga, and I don't know if I remember ALL of the ground
rules in the intro post (thanks to Dan Barrett for sending it to me).)
I'm having a terrific time with this thread. It's fascinating to see how
music software brings out the worst in everybody |-> |-> |-> . I'd like to
skip over the entire "How Dare You" section of this, and offer
something about the music systems themselves.
First off, I don't know how many c.s.a readers are familiar with the Godawful
mess that music synthesis programming is these days. Unlike a lot of other
areas of computer use, music tends to attract users who desire, at least at
first, NOTHING other than music utilities; they're new to computing (which
means that everything has to be not only foolproof, but DamnFoolProof |->),
they're new to the concept of expandability (which means that modular or
expandable systems don't sell, and code has to be comprehensive as possible),
and they're new to the ethical questions of software distribution (which
is why the music world is the only major remaining software area where copy
protection is the rule rather than the exception). Each platform has its
own advantages and pitfalls, and informed users make choices based on these.
The problem is that most musicians haven't the time or resources to become
as informed as they need to be.
Here are a couple of thumbnail sketches of the current state of the various
computers with respect to MIDI. These are meant only to give a taste for
what's going on, not a comprehensive outlook....
1. The IBM and clones are under a great disadvantage, in that the first MIDI
interface board for the PC, the Roland MPU401, established a de facto
standard that all programmers must follow. In "intelligent" mode, the
MPU does a lot of the work of bit-shuffling itself; this was vital when
8088s were the rule, but in the days of the 80386 it's now more of a
hindrance than a help. People are slowly rediscovering the MPU's "dumb"
mode now, and one fellow named Robert Keller markets a dumb-mode program
called 64 Track PC which basically eats the competition alive, and competes
well with the priciest programs on other machines. This trend will probably
continue as PCs get faster and programmers get smarter; the code quality
out there now, given the MPU botleneck, is quite high in most cases.
2. The Atari ST has the advantage of a built-in MIDI port, making an interface
unnecessary, at least for simple applications. It's primarily a window/mouse
sort of interface, which is less intimidating than a command-line setup for
the novice, and it's almost as cheap to set up as a cheap PC clone. The
software is quite good, especially the stuff written in Germany, where the
ST is the computer of choice for musicians due largely to high Apple prices.
Multiport interfaces do exist for it, and there's a lot of power to be had.
Software is generally cheap and reliable, but the really big packages tend
to follow the Mac in price as well as features.
3. The Macintosh is the computer of choice for American musicians, weighted
heavily toward the pro end of the scale due to its very high cost. Why?
Because to the end user, it's not a "computer" unless he or she WANTS it
to be; music software totally separates the musician from the machine,
and does so cleanly and elegantly. Because of the high price point of the
Apple machines, the hottest and costliest software tends to be written for
them; it's not uncommon to pay $495 for a sequencer, and the best notation
program to date debuted at $1000 a pop. The interfaces tend to be the most
feature-laden as well; this falls in line with the Apple policy of getting
everything one needs into the smallest possible number of boxes, a trend
which also has the MAc II leading the pack in terms of onboard DSP cards.
4. The Amiga is, well, none of the above. It trails the pack by a long margin
in terms of number and variety of available MIDI peripherals, programs, and
musician support. That 14% figure actually surprised me when I saw it; based
on what I know about the MI industry, I'd have thought it would be smaller.
The earliest MIDI packages for the Amiga had severe timing problems; they
had difficulty keeping time while multitasking. By the time these problems
had been licked, the Amiga had lost its shot at an early lead in the music
race, and music became less of a first-line priority for Commodore than,
say, for Atari. As a result, interfaces have been cheap but comparatively
primitive so far, and the programs, written as they are by a small but
committed group of programmers, are quite powerful but very low-profile.
Does this sound harsh? If it does, I'm sorry; I should point out that after
several years of working on all of the available platforms and watching the
trends, I have just purchased and am preparing to install and teach myself
to use an Amiga 500, with which I'm very pleased. The reasoning behind my
choice was, I think, the reasoning that guides most music computer buyers
when they make their choices... the relationship of music to the programmer's
own Big Picture.
When a person buys a computer, they usually don't have a particular use in
mind; the whole concept of a computer is that one can get it to do a lot of
things, depending on what one needs at any given moment. There ARE exceptions,
of course, like the firm that has many computers already and decides to
dedicate one to, perhaps, telecommunications nets. Or the musician who
decides to computerize his studio.
There is a strong differentiation between the musician who decides to get a
computer and the computer user who decides to add music abilities; their
priorities are different, their outlloks are different, and different things
make them happy or frustrate them. The huge advantage of the Mac is that
it's non-scary. Everything does what you'd expect; point, click, drag, point,
click, drag. It's clean and efficient, it does its job with a minimum of fuss
and it does it VERY well (after all, money talks and bullsh*t walks, and if
you paid megabux for this thing it had BETTER work; the music industry loves
slinging mud, and companies that release bad products get hit hard and often
don't survive). The primary disadvantage of the Mac, frankly, is its cost.
To set up a basic studio Mac (using new equipment at student discounts) would
cost about $1000; a reasonably powerful rig would be closer to $2000, and one
with DSP capability, well, never mind. If you can't afford a Mac, then you
get an Atari. Sure, it may look a little cheesier and feel a little cheaper,
but it does the job well and it saves you a lot of bucks; a 1040 can be ready
to go for $700, and DSP for the Atari is powerful and affordable. These two
packages, then, tend to attract the musician rather than the computer user;
you plug them in, turn them on, and they work. There's a strong community
of power users of both machines, but these people usually come to such things
later on, after they've become comfortable enough with their machines to want
more.
On the other hand, the IBM and Amiga tend to appeal to people who'd be using
computers anyway, for one reason or another; the IBM, because of its wide
range of acceptance and the many ways in which it can be customized, and the
Amiga for its unique graphics and multitasking capabilities. The Amiga music
software market, as it currently exists, will never win over people who are
trying to decide on a music system AND WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT COMPUTERS.
Video compatibility? Animation? Multitasking? Who cares... all of the really
glitzy stuff out there's on the Mac and the Atari. To appreciate the Amiga,
one must know enough to know what makes it special, and the punter who's
adding MIDI to his rig probably won't. This is neither "right" nor "wrong,"
neither "fair" nor "unfair"-- it merely IS. You can't get a feel for the
tremendous advantages the MAc and Atari enjoy from the the perspective of a
computer user...you have to start reading the magazines from MY side of the
tracks, like KEYBOARD or ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN or HOME AND STUDIO RECORDING,
and see who's publishing the ads and who's spending the bucks to grab the
newcomer. The Amiga DOES get mentioned, probably more than its 14% share
would lead you to expect, but it isn't able to compete with the others; there
isn't enough novice appeal.
Adding to the problem, the hardware is REALLY primitive; only one OUT port,
and (the kiss of death) no SMPTE sync capability. If the Amiga won't follow
SMPTE, no one in the music industry will take it seriously, because SMPTE
is simply vital for all major music applications-- not only audio/video
lockup, but audio/audio lock as well! Nobody will install a computer that
can't chase-lock to a tape recorder; it'd be useless. So there aren't many
studios that are willing to give the Amiga a second glance.
So what does the Amiga have going for it? A lot; that's why you're here.
(Hell, that's why I'M here! |-> ) But there are going to have to be some
major changes on a fundamental level before the Amiga's already excellent
software can claim its place among the best of the best. For one thing,
someone has to build and market a reliable MIDI interface that can handle
more than one OUT port (preferably multitasking at the same time, so, say,
a librarian program can configure a synth at one port while two others send
out sequence data, etc.) and read, write, jamsync, and refresh SMPTE. Until
such an interface exists, then the Mac and Atari, and the IBM clones, will
be the only machines of professional choice. Another area is the development
of software that really USES multitasking in a practical way; the other
companies are scrambling to kludge together multiprogram environments (there
are, at last count, five competing standards for the Atari), and the Amiga
developers are squandering their lead in this area. Part of the problem here
is that there aren't very many of the pieces of such an environment in
existence yet; there are a couple of good Amiga sequencers, and some sample
editors, but where are the notation programs and librarian/editor software?
We have a long way to go, and not a lot of time to do it in....
So why didn't I save my pennies a little longer and buy a Mac, or bite the
bullet and get an Atari? Because I can't see spending that kind of money on
a Mac, and I don't personally LIKE the Atari. What it comes down to is, I
LIKE what the Amiga is going to do for me; AmigaTeX with a previewer is going
to pay for itself, then pay for the Amiga, in the time it takes me to write
my doctoral dissertation. I have friends with all of the different computers,
but the ones with whom I have the closest rapport (hi, Dan) and the closest
regular contact (hey, Kurt; what it is, Eelman) all use Amigas, and I like
the way their studios work for them. I guess I'm just trying to say that I'm
enough of a computer user to appreciate a good machine when I see it, and not
enough of a musically-focussed studio hound to desire the less distracting
environment of the other machines. And I can wait for the developments I've
mentioned above; they ARE coming, and in the meantime there's a lot of fun
to be had and a lot of music to be made.
Thanks for letting me ramble; if there's anyone out there who's an AMiga
music user who wouldn't mind helping a newcomer (to the Amiga, not to MIDI)
get started, please Email me...I'd apreciate your input.
Looking forward to reading this newsgroup,
--
metlay | METLAY'S LAW:
| If you can't go into your local store, ask for
mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu | it, pay for it and walk out with it, then it's
metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu | vaporware, and you shouldn't waste time on it.dgold@basso.actrix.co.nz (Dale Gold) (06/11/90)
I read your lengthy discussion of computers & music with great interest, and it was refreshing to see a more objective view of the situation than some of the others that I've read. In the early days of MIDI, I decided to buy a computer to have access to the tremendous potential that seemed to be developing. A few years ago, I visited a shop in Vancouver (Data Sound??) and spent a lot of time talking to the very helpful staff about my desire for a system to do mostly music DTP, and hopefully a bit of film music. They suggested a Mac, which I couldn't afford. (If you think they're expensive in the US, you would faint at the prices down here!) The 2nd choice was am Amiga, which suited me fine, as I had friends thinking of buying them, & I figured I'd have a bit of local support. I bought Soundscape & Deluxe Music from the shop & got an Amiga when I returned home. (those were just about the only programs available back in the days of 1.1) Soundscape proved to be the most frustrating, bug-ridden thing I've ever used, although I really liked the basic idea of a modular system which you could (theoretically) upgrade on your own. Deluxe Music is nice for what it is, but NOT in the DTP category by any means, although I've used it professionally to print scores & parts on occasion. Music software for the Amiga has improved bit by bit since then, but nowhere near the rate of growth for the other computers. It's VERY frustrating to read Keyboard magazine, etc, and see the wonderful things that have come out for machines I'd rather not have to own. > The Amiga music software market, as it currently exists, will never > win over people who are trying to decide on a music system AND WHO > DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT COMPUTERS. Video compatibility? Animation? > Multitasking? Who cares... History will probably prove you to be right, but I have to differ. If the software existed for the Ami, it would leave the others in the cold for music applications due to the built-in multi-tasking. Now that I've got Dr. T's KCS & an editor/librarian for my MT32, I can have my sequencer playing and tweak the synth voices on the fly. I wouldn't trade this one aspect for my friend's nice Mac setup which requires him to exit the sequencer in order to play with the synth voices. > Adding to the problem, the hardware is REALLY primitive; only one OUT > port, and (the kiss of death) no SMPTE sync capability. Well, my MIDI interface is primitive! I built it myself for a few bucks with minimal technical skill. It's got 3 OUTs, and has worked fine with DX7/MT32/RX11 & lots of Amiga sound samples. Granted, the Ami samples are not pro quality, but they can be very useful on a low budget, and it's a snap to take the computer to a studio & play channel 15 through one of their nice synths. > If the Amiga won't follow SMPTE, no one in the music industry will > take it seriously, because SMPTE is simply vital for all major music > applications-- Doesn't Dr T offer some SMPTE compat software? I think Music-X does, too. > well! Nobody will install a computer that can't chase-lock to a tape > recorder; it'd be useless. So there aren't many studios that are > willing to give the Amiga a second glance. Can't you buy a little black box to take care of sync-to-tape? Yamaha makes one, anyway, and I thought an SMPTE system would do that, too. ) But there are going to have to be some major changes on a fundamental > level before the Amiga's already excellent software can claim its place > among the best of the best. Yup. Mostly in the marketing area, I believe. > there isn't enough novice appeal. In the REAL novice area, the Amiga exels. Any kid who can find PD sources can have lots of fun with things like Soundtracker, MED, etc & the multitude of sound samples floating around. In the Expert-Musician/ Novice-Computer-User category, I'm afraid you're right. The Amiga needs more software & better marketing to become established in a field where it should be able to surpass all the competition. Cheers, Dale -- Dale Gold dgold@basso.actrix.co.nz ========================================
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (06/11/90)
In article <1199@metaphor.Metaphor.COM>, djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: > I've been running Music-X with a J.L. Cooper's "PPS-1" (Poor Man's SMPTE) > for almost a year with few problems. The PPS-1 will send out MIDI clocks or > MIDI Time Code, your choice. 250 tracks, plus full Amiga support - most of > the features you'll find in the best Mac software, except for graphic > entry of controller information. > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Dallas J. Hodgson | "This here's the wattle, | > | Metaphor Computer Systems | It's the emblem of our land. | > | Mountain View, Ca. | You can put it in a bottle, | > | USENET : djh@metaphor.com | You can hold it in your hand." | > +============================================================================+ > | "The views I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer" | > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (06/11/90)
In article <1199@metaphor.Metaphor.COM>, djh@dragon.metaphor.com Dallas J. Hodgson writes: > I've been running Music-X with a J.L. Cooper's "PPS-1" (Poor Man's SMPTE) > for almost a year with few problems. The PPS-1 will send out MIDI clocks or > MIDI Time Code, your choice. 250 tracks, plus full Amiga support - most of > the features you'll find in the best Mac software, except for graphic > entry of controller information. > > Dallas J. Hodgson > Metaphor Computer Systems > Mountain View, Ca. > USENET : djh@metaphor.com I've not used the product but an Aussie Amiga Magazine I've just bought has announced Master Tracks Pro for sale (AUS$549) here in Australia. The article states it supports SMPTE. My friend has to use it on an MS-DOS machine but it looked cool to me {yeah! some great recommendation man. :-)}. In the name of "our" newsgroup I proclaim loudly in my he-man voice: "Information goes in! _NO_ garbage goes out!" yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) (06/12/90)
Dale, I agree wholeheartedly with your elaborations on my post. To clarify a few things: 1. Apparently we are seeing the first glimmers of SMPTE compatibility in the Amiga world as of now; I have received several notes from people who have heard about upcoming developments in MasterTracks Pro (by the company who INVENTED computer MIDI software, btw) and Music-X (a sick, twisted, pervert's view of MIDI that I plan on buying instantly, SMPTE or NO SMPTE...yum....) that will allow SMPTE chaselock and tempo maps. Big fat hairy f*cking deal. With no interfaces to stripe the code itself, and I have heard of NONE, the software's still useless. (See Metlay's Law, below. Note that this was developed by me for application strictly to synthesizers; it does, however, occasionally apply elsewhere |-> ) SMPTE isn't a subset of MIDI; it's an audio tone on the tape that time-stamps the music in an absolute frame of reference. The one kluge that WILL work, one that you mentioned, is to buy a device that converts SMPTE to a type of MIDI message that IS software dependent, the so-called MTC (MIDI TimeCode). It's worth noting that sync boxes like this were the rule rather than the exception, until fairly recently; nowadays everyone buys MIDI interfaces with SMPTE built in; they sell for $500 or so, and usually attach to a Mac. |-< 2. I stand my ground on the backwardness of the Amiga music world; they're squandering their lead as Apple develops utilities like MIDI Manager (no, it's not true multitasking, but it works and it does more, faster, than an Amiga can, end of discussion), and there's no sign of anything more than a feeble twitch in the direction of improvement. Why not? Because with very few exceptions, the pro-level software for MIDI on the Amiga are ports of programs written for other machines, done by the companies who make most of their revenue from those other machines. Dr. T's KCS? Ported from the C64 and the Atari ST. Texture? Ported from the PC. MasterTracks Pro? Ported from the Mac. And so on. The big guns in the business aren't devoting any muscle to the Amiga because they have a vested interest in keeping the Mac afloat! There's a totally devastating piece of hardware out there called the MIDI Time Piece; it's a MIDI interface, 8x8 MIDI router and data processor, and when combined with the right software it can totally automate a MIDI studio. It was, of course, developed for the Mac, and the company who built it claims that they're working on software ports to other machines. Yeah, sure. I hate to sound like I'm bellyaching, but these are the facts as they stand at this point in time; I buy what works and I make music with it, but I don't get dewy-eyed over promises of great things to come. The Amiga is a powerful, creativity-unlocking computer, and that's why I bought one. But as things stand right now in the MIDI world, I'm going to have to find a used Mac to run the few pieces of software that I can't do without, and that I simply can't get on my Amiga. If the people who make AMAX are listening--MIDI stuff won't work on the Amiga with AMAX, but if it did, your sales would go WAY up with an ad or two to that effect in the right magazines.... *sigh* -- metlay | METLAY'S LAW: | If you can't go into your local store, ask for mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu | it, pay for it and walk out with it, then it's metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu | vaporware, and you shouldn't waste time on it.
Jim.Perry@f210.n110.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Perry) (07/12/90)
AREA:UUCP_AMIGA
AMAX II is coming out in about a month. It will have perfect MIDI
compatibility for the 2000, plus will allow the 2000 to read Mac disks
from it's internals...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFIT Amiga Users BBS/UFGateway |Jim Perry - via FidoNet node 1:110/300
1:110/300 Dayton, Ohio |UUCP: afitamy!210!Jim.Perry
(513)-252-7681 |ARPA: Jim.Perry@f210.n110.z1.FIDONET.ORG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) (07/14/90)
In article <274.269D6BC1@afitamy.fidonet.org> Jim.Perry@f210.n110.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Perry) writes: > AMAX II is coming out in about a month. It will have perfect MIDI >compatibility for the 2000, plus will allow the 2000 to read Mac disks >from it's internals... I'll believe it if and when I see it demonstrated as doing so. MIDI is the ultimate test for a hardware emulator, and nobody's managed it yet on any emulator running any MIDI software on ANY platform; even the much-vaunted Spectre GCR is only vaguely supposed to be able to do "some" MIDI stuff in its next rev, due out Real Soon Now. The AMAX has a better track record than any emulator to date, but MIDI's a whole new ball game. On a more technical note, how can an AMAX emulate a Mac drive with Amiga hardware? Forgive me for my naivete (I know MIDI, but I'm still learning about microcomputers), but I thought that Apple drives were variable- speed, and couldn't be directly emulated by Amiga drives (hence the common practice of selling AMAX bundled with a Mac drive).... -- metlay | | I may be crazy, but I'm NOT stupid. mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu | metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu | --zrgynl
galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Knight of the Mystic Sword) (07/14/90)
In article <25872@unix.cis.pitt.edu> mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) writes: >In article <274.269D6BC1@afitamy.fidonet.org> Jim.Perry@f210.n110.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Perry) writes: >> AMAX II is coming out in about a month. It will have perfect MIDI >>compatibility for the 2000, plus will allow the 2000 to read Mac disks >>from it's internals... > >I'll believe it if and when I see it demonstrated as doing so. MIDI is >the ultimate test for a hardware emulator, and nobody's managed it yet There are two versions of AMAX being released. Amax 2.0, and Amax 2.0+. Amax 2.0 is similar to Amax 1.0. It uses the same hardware, and cannot read macintosh format disks off of the standard Amiga drive. However, it adds support for Macintosh sound, Amiga hard drives, and a better Amiga<=>Mac transfer program. (The current one is only for text.. the new version will supposedly handle pictures and sounds as well) Amax 2.0 also will (supposedly) run under AmigaOS 2.0 Amax 2.0+ includes a Zorro-II card that fits in the A2000. It allows the internal drives to read Macintosh format disks (presumably by passing the controller through and taking direct control of the drive when A-Max needs the Mac drive. This is how the Copy-II PC Option Board + reads Mac disks on an IBM). The hardware interface will also include the MIDI interface.. so it will not be emulated in software. There will also supposedly be an AppleTalk connection on the card. I have NO idea how much $$$ this will be, when the official release date is, or even how accurate this information is. (This was gleaned from a conversation with the Readysoft people a couple of days ago) - Dan >-- >metlay | > | I may be crazy, but I'm NOT stupid. >mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu | >metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu | --zrgynl -- ****************************************************************************** * Amiga // * Short (TM) Signature * DISCLAIMER: * * \\ // * galpin@UCSCB.UCSC.EDU * This space reserved for a * * \X/ Only* COMP. QUOTE: Only time will tell* clever disclaimer someday. * ******************************************************************************