scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) (08/06/87)
According to the "Computers and Music" writer in Keyboard magazine, the Amiga has an unreliable timer chip that causes problems in sequencers written on the amiga. I've considered an Atari ST or one of the new A500's to driver my ESQ-1, and while the ST seems to be the machine of choice for synth stuff, the Amiga seems better overall. If the rumors of A500's showing up in mass retailers for Christmas is true, it should be the better machine for long term support too. The only down side to the Amiga is the report mentioned above. Can anyone provide more info? Scott scottw@ico.isc.com
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (08/06/87)
In article <1408@ico.UUCP> scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) writes: > According to the "Computers and Music" writer in Keyboard magazine, the > Amiga has an unreliable timer chip that causes problems in sequencers > written on the amiga. There is no ulreliable timer chip in the Amiga. The issue is the granularity and precision of the system timer services available to the software. Early software developers considered these to be unsatisfactory, but didn't realize that they could allocate one of the timers on the I/O chips for their own purposes. By doing so, they get access to more than adequate precision. > I've considered an Atari ST or one of the new > A500's to driver my ESQ-1, and while the ST seems to be the machine of > choice for synth stuff, the Amiga seems better overall. The Atari ST has been cheaper than the Amiga and is quite adequate for the role of programmable midi-controller, therfore many of the midi oriented developers targetted the ST, while while the developers intrested in programmable systhesis and sound sampling targetted the Amiga. Try to see a demonstration of the Mimetics/Soundscape Amiga software for some interesting crossovers between Midi and sampled sound. > If the rumors > of A500's showing up in mass retailers for Christmas is true... These rumors sound improbable at this point in time. We do intend to sell lots of A500's through the dealer channels between now and Christmas, however. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (08/06/87)
scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) wrote: >According to the "Computers and Music" writer in Keyboard magazine, the >Amiga has an unreliable timer chip that causes problems in sequencers >written on the amiga. Ah... no. That writer probably used Deluxe Music Constriction Set, which is NOT NOT NOT a MIDI sequencer (even Electronic Arts says so). DMCS is known to crash the machine and cause all sorts of unpleasantries when using MIDI, since the MIDI support in DMCS appears to be a not-very-well-thought-out addition. Many of the other packages for the Amiga, such as Aegis' SONIX -- the sleeping giant of Amiga music software -- and Mimetics' Soundscape MIDI Pro are much better suited to the task, depending on what it is you're trying to do. On the other hand, the Amiga is a multitasking system, and the serial port is not a DMA device. It is possible that right in the middle of a SYS/EX dump, the blitter can decide it needs to decode a track of disk data, interrupting the serial port. It's also possible that you have a number of other processes/tasks running .. in that case, you might see the timing mess up but (at least with SONIX and Soundscape) you won't lose any data. In real life, most people don't/won't run into these problems because of the nature of making music. When's the last time you had the urge to recompile your spreadsheet in the middle of editing a song? I would ignore what the author of the C&M article said. > I've considered an Atari ST A nice MIDI machine, and the Dr. T's stuff is real nice too. The two main problems with it are that you can't put more memory on it (I know, the vapor'ed MEGA will solve that) and (in your own words): >while the ST seems to be the machine of choice for synth stuff, >the Amiga seems better overall. However, don't count on the rumors of >A500's showing up in mass retailers for Christmas The A500's are already selling like hotcakes, the A2000 ships next week, the "$1200 of software for $200" deal is tough for any user to pass up, and developers are (finally?) walking around with dollar signs in their eyes, so the market looks pretty good for the immediate future. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/07/87)
In article <1408@ico.UUCP> scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) writes: >According to the "Computers and Music" writer in Keyboard magazine, the >Amiga has an unreliable timer chip that causes problems in sequencers >written on the amiga. I've considered an Atari ST or one of the new >A500's to driver my ESQ-1, and while the ST seems to be the machine of >choice for synth stuff, the Amiga seems better overall. If the rumors >of A500's showing up in mass retailers for Christmas is true, it should >be the better machine for long term support too. The only down side to >the Amiga is the report mentioned above. > >Can anyone provide more info? This is of course, pure baloney. One of the timers are available to the serial port and the resolution is down their in the microseconds. What Keyboard and others have been misled by was the fact that a lot of people use the serial.device to do MIDI, and while it can handle the baud rate it does not timestamp the incoming events so you have to kludge that in. This is generally not acceptable to 'pro' MIDI muscians. David Joiner of MicroIllusions (author of Faery Tale) wrote a midi.device for their upcoming music program. It was written as a MIDI device, doesn't support any baudrate but 31.25K etc etc. Works fine from what I hear. If anyone cares to write one and wouldn't mind putting it out for not too much money I would be interested in it. I have this strange desire to see to new devices written for the Amiga, MIDI: and SYNTH:. The latter would be similar to soundscape's 'speaker' module in that you could open the device and send MIDI events to it and it would play music out the speaker. To turn the Amiga into a MIDI voice box with 4 voices would then be as simple as 1> COPY MIDI: SYNTH: You might want to have SYNTH0 - SYNTH3 for more accurate Audio channel selection. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
sigel@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (steven sigel) (08/07/87)
In article <1408@ico.UUCP> scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) writes: >According to the "Computers and Music" writer in Keyboard magazine, the >Amiga has an unreliable timer chip that causes problems in sequencers >written on the amiga. I've considered an Atari ST or one of the new >A500's to driver my ESQ-1, and while the ST seems to be the machine of >choice for synth stuff, the Amiga seems better overall. If the rumors >of A500's showing up in mass retailers for Christmas is true, it should >be the better machine for long term support too. The only down side to >the Amiga is the report mentioned above. > >Can anyone provide more info? > >Scott >scottw@ico.isc.com I own an Atari 1040ST and thus am probably a highly bigoted source, but I'd recommend the Atari wholeheartedly. It's got build in MIDI, so there are no problems with it on the hardware side. It's also approximately half the price of an Amiga. There is no lack of software for it, as the detractors would have. Dr. T's Software support the ST heavily on the MIDI side, as their ads in Music Technology would have. If you're concerned about other applications, there is now a software emulator for the ST which turns the ST into an IBM clone running at more or less the same speed as a real PC. There is also a Mac adaptor for it. You effectively get three machines for the price of one. And the original cost is quite low. Direct further queries to JSD@UMASS.BITNET... --Jon Drukman
cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (Carl Weidling) (08/07/87)
In article <1601@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>, page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: > scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) wrote: > >According to the "Computers and Music" writer in Keyboard magazine, the > >Amiga has an unreliable timer chip that causes problems in sequencers > >written on the amiga. ...Lines deleted for brevity....(CW) > > > I've considered an Atari ST > > A nice MIDI machine, and the Dr. T's stuff is real nice too. The > two main problems with it are that you can't put more memory on it > (I know, the vapor'ed MEGA will solve that) and (in your own words): ...Rest of previous article deleted.... Actually, you can add memory through third party vendors, and get up to 4 Megabytes on an Atari 520ST. -Regards, Carl Weidling
sl122057@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (08/08/87)
Can someone explain the details of the serial port and timers, then? The manuals aren't real clear about exactly what is going on in there. Specifically: 1. What is the exact relationship between the 8520's, Paula, and the port on the back? Section 8.6 in the hardware manual seems to imply that you can use the port without messing with the 8520, but then Appendix F seems to say that this is where the work is really done. So is the port connected to both chips, or is one just lower level than the other? 2. If you want to use the serial port, do you need to allocate the 8520A timer A so no other task will grab it? 3. Exactly how do you allocate some part of an 8520? The cia.resources let you allocate the interrupts, etc., but not the bits themselves. So do we just use the interrupt allocation scheme to insure mutual exclusion, even though we may not be actually using the interrupt? 4. For MIDI purposes, one of the TOD clocks would probably be more useful than one of the interval timers. Is one of these clocks free for application programs, and if so, does it count color clocks? If so, Time Of Day seems like a misnomer, since that would only give you a maximum time interval of aobut 5 seconds. Am I missing something? How is the system time maintained? The RKM says something about using the line frequency. Sorry about the length, and I hope I haven't wasted anyone's time by asking obvious questions.
czei@osupyr.UUCP (08/10/87)
[after heavy editing] In article <2654@husc6.UUCP> sigel@husc4.UUCP (Jon Drukman) writes: >In article <1408@ico.UUCP> scottw@ico.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) writes: >Dr. T's Software support the ST heavily on the MIDI >side, as their ads in Music Technology would have. Although I heartily dislike the ST, I believe Dr. T's MIDI sequencer for the ST to be one of the best available on any machine. I currently own the lowly Commodore 64 version of Dr. T's sequencer, and continually find things that it will do, that other fancy programs like Professional Performer and Opcodes sequencer can not. (I've resorted to doing most of my MIDI stuff on the commodore, and transfering the data over to my mac to use Professional Performer for the things it does well.) Michael S. Czeiszperger | Disclaimer: "Sorry, I'm all out of pith" Sound Synthesis Studios | Snail: Room 406 Baker Phone: (614) College of the Arts Computer Lab | 1971 Neil Avenue 292- The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 0895 UUCP : {decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!osupyr!czei
page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (08/10/87)
cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (Carl Weidling) was pretty underhanded in his reply
to my article saying "there's nothing wrong with the Amiga as a MIDI
machine."
He posted the first article that said "Amiga has an unreliable timer
chip" but EDITED out my reply (for "brevity" he said) and then said
"you can put up to 4MB on the Atari ST."
Look, if you can beef up an ST, fine -- I stand corrected. But since
the real reason for my posting was to dismiss the ludicrous claims by
some writer who didn't know better, why repeat the bogus info at all?
It was a swipe against the Amiga, intended to promote disinformation.
Look, I'm not anti-ST. If I didn't have a machine already I might buy
an ST so I could run Dr.T's software, which I think is great. I might
have ANYWAY, even though I already have an Amiga, except that they've
told me they're doing an Amiga port.
Had Carl not included the first (inaccurate) quote, or HAD included my
reply with the innacurate quote, that would have been fine. But to do
what he did was underhanded, unfair and just plain misleading.
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet} higgin@cbmvax.UUCP (Paul Higginbottom SALES) (08/10/87)
In article <18700010@silver> sl122057@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:
$Can someone explain the details of the serial port and timers, then?
Certainly.
$1. What is the exact relationship between the 8520's, Paula, and the port
$ on the back? Section 8.6 in the hardware manual seems to imply that
$ you can use the port without messing with the 8520, but then Appendix
$ F seems to say that this is where the work is really done. So is the
$ port connected to both chips, or is one just lower level than the other?
I don't have the appendixes close by, but I assure you, they're separate
but can be used together, if timing is necessary in conjunction with
serial i/o as is the case generally with midi.
I have written software which (bad boy I know) hacks directly with the
serial registers in the custom chips because I wanted complete control
over serial i/o without layers and layers of stuff in my way. And I
assure you I didn't need to do anything to the 8520's.
$ 2. If you want to use the serial port, do you need to allocate the 8520A
$ timer A so no other task will grab it?
No. You SHOULD use the resource allocation software to make sure you
take exclusive control of the port.
Regards,
Paul.
Disclaimer: I might be completely wrong!Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com (08/19/87)
>> I've considered an Atari ST > >A nice MIDI machine, and the Dr. T's stuff is real nice too. The >two main problems with it are that you can't put more memory on it >(I know, the vapor'ed MEGA will solve that) and (in your own words): That turns out not to be the case. There are third-party memory upgrades for both STs that will take the machine up to 4 megabytes. These memory systems are *all* compatible with the new blitter chip, and, unlike the Amiga, all memory on the ST is created equal (no "fast" and "slow") >>while the ST seems to be the machine of choice for synth stuff, >>the Amiga seems better overall. This is still the case, and will continue to be the case. Unlike the Amiga, the ST was *designed* for MIDI. And if you don't take my word for it, ask Tangerine Dream. They use STs, and I'd venture to say that they know more about electronic music then most anybody (they've been doing it longer). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A member of the David Van Tieghem underground fan club :-) Henry B. Messenger, a DECperson, but in no way representing Digital. USENET: henry_burdett_messenger@cup.portal.com CIS: 72477,3356 m
ralph@mit-atrp.UUCP (Amiga-Man) (08/19/87)
In article <628@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: > >This is still the case, and will continue to be the case. Unlike the Amiga, >the ST was *designed* for MIDI. > Just a minor, but important, clarification. The only *hardware* difference between an Amiga and an ST with respect to MIDI is the "level conversion circuit to MIDI". The ST has it built in, the Amiga needs one plugged into the serial port. I have personally built the needed circuit, which costs $10 in parts and one evening of trivial wiring. They are also available commercially for $40-$50. So when you say the ST was *designed* for MIDI, lets just put things in perspective. The MIDI standard was carefully designed to be extremely simple to use by many types of devices. Any computer with a serial port can speak MIDI with this simple interface (provided it can support the MIDI data rate of ~32K too). If you're talking about some other aspect, like some specific software package or something, well that's different. But for a person considering which computer to do MIDI with, they shouldn't base it on the presence of internal MIDI conversion completely. Ralph
ravi@mcnc.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) (08/20/87)
In article <1472@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> ralph@ATRP.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Amiga-Man) writes: #In article <628@cup.portal.com# Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: ## ##This is still the case, and will continue to be the case. Unlike the Amiga, ##the ST was *designed* for MIDI. ## # #Just a minor, but important, clarification. The only *hardware* difference #between an Amiga and an ST with respect to MIDI is the "level conversion #circuit to MIDI". The ST has it built in, the Amiga needs one plugged #into the serial port. I have personally built the needed circuit, #which costs $10 in parts and one evening of trivial wiring. #for $40-$50. So when you say the ST was *designed* for MIDI, lets just #put things in perspective. # Not quite.. another minor, but important, clarification is that the ST has MIDI in and out ports *in addition to* the serial port; this comes in very handy as one doesn't have to tie up the serial port exclusively for a MIDI device. I think that is what the original poster had in mind when he said the ST was designed for MIDI. -ravi
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (08/20/87)
<<Stuff about my computer versus yours>> I have to disagree about any one computer "being desinged for MIDI" as mentioned in the previous article. In the case of an Atari ST, there *is* already a DIN jack which is convenient that is attached to a serial port. With an Amiga, an inexpensive cord can be plugged into the serial port to provide a DIN jack. In the case of an IBM p.c., some sort of interface card is required to provide an adequate serial port. Depending on the model of IBM p.c. clone, its pre-existing RS-232 port might be able to be used in the same manner as the Amiga's serial port, requiring only an adapter cord. Even an Apple McIntosh (where did they ever come up with MacIntosh anyway? Is the spelling of the edible type of apple copyrighted? 8:-) ) can be used as a MIDI controller. There really isn't anything inate the the architecture of any of the above three computers that makes one better than the other for processing, receiving or transmitting MIDI data. Although, the out-of-the box affordable graphics capabilities of the Amiga and ST are nicer for looking at musical staves (staffs ??) on the screen. Basically all that is required for a computer to receive MIDI data is a serial port capable of operating at 32500 bits/second the ability of the serial port's USART to generate a processor interrupt so that the incoming events may be accurately time stamped. All three of the above named computers meet this requirement. All three computers, in fact, have useful MIDI software written for them. One place an Amiga based MIDI project could get into trouble is if some CPU instensive task wouldn't yield to acknowledge an incoming MIDI event in a reasonable amount of time. I suspect that most people using an Amiga for MIDI input would be multi-tasking unfreindly sotware that would prove troublesome. Ergo, I'll class this as likely a moot area of concern. The McIntosh's multifinder could be a problem since it does not have **true** (preemptive) multitasking (tee-hee). Notice that this article doesn't say which computer I like the best (grin, wink, nod). My theory is that you use what you've got handy, so get to work and use what you've got. Bill Mayhew Division of Basic Medical Sciences Northeastern Ohio Universities' College of Medicine Rootstown, OH 44272-9989 USA phone: 216-325-2511 (wtm@neoucom.UUCP ...!cbatt!neoucom!wtm)
czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) (08/21/87)
In article <628@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: > >And if you don't take my word for it, ask Tangerine Dream. They use STs, and >I'd venture to say that they know more about electronic music then most >anybody (they've been doing it longer). > Boy oh boy. I just can't wait for posts with qualitative judgements that can't be substantiated. (Actually, I get flamed for doing it all the time...) This could start a whole new trend in marketing. High gloss prime time personal endorsements of personal computers by mega recording artists: Peter Gabriel in concert - Sponsored by X Brand Computer The scene would consist of a fake concert spot featuring close ups of Pete typing on a PC has he sings his latest pop single. Michael S. Czeiszperger | Disclaimer: "Sorry, I'm all out of pith" Sound Synthesis Studios | Snail: Room 406 Baker Phone: (614) College of the Arts Computer Lab | 1971 Neil Avenue 292- The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 0895 UUCP : {decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!osupyr!czei
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/21/87)
In article <628@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: >These memory systems are *all* compatible with the new blitter chip, and, >unlike the Amiga, all memory on the ST is created equal (no "fast" and >"slow") Yeah, the ST memory would be all "slow" memory if it's graphics modes had as many bit planes available as on the Amiga, thus causing wait states due to lack of memory bandwith. Since the ST dosen't provide such graphics modes, it may not gain from the advantage of having some memory not affected by memory contention when running with 640x400x4 or 320x200x6 screens. But then again, I don't know, does the ST memory run completely without wait-states when it's new blitter is running? If not, then yeah, all ST memory *is* "slow", if so, then I would doubt that the blitter provides the kind of speed the Amiga blitter affords, not being allowed to use the memory without CPU contention during blit operations. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170 "It's not a bug, it's a FEATURE!"
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/23/87)
They use the ST because there is no cheaper way to get a MIDI sequencer. Apparently even a C=64 (the previous low-end favorite) costs more once you add the MIDI hardware and whatever else you need to run a decent package. The mid-range favorites are the Mac and the PC/AT (with the Roland MPU-401 sequencer or equivalent). For the high end there are dedicated machines. As for the Amiga MIDI problems, I'd like someone to explain exactly what they are without jingoism (on the part of ST people) or mealymouthed platitudes (on the part of Amiga people). Is it just that people building sequencer programs didn't bother reading page whatever-it-is in the ROM kernal manual that explains how to keep time synch? (It's a pain... why doesn't the clock device have a "periodically signal me" mode????) -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (08/24/87)
>As for the Amiga MIDI problems, I'd like someone to explain exactly what >they are without jingoism (on the part of ST people) or mealymouthed I think the problem is mainly the serial driver currently installed. After all, 303uS per character seems like plenty of time for an interrupt handler to queue to a FIFO. Does anybody know how long the copper takes to setup the video chip at 320x200x4? Secondary problems occur when one is in extremely high resolutions, but assuming the MIDI program only uses something simple, like 320x400x4 (16 colors interlace), this is a moot point. The RBF interrupt (Read Buffer Full) is at priority 5. The only things above it are the disk-sync interrupt (5) and external interrupt (6). Neither of these are used normally. The only other thing I can think of is if somebody is calling Disable() for too long a period of time. Could somebody at CATS fgrep the kernel source for Disable() calls????? I'm working on a replacement serial.device, but with school starting up it won't be done for a while. -Matt
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (08/24/87)
In article <533@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >As for the Amiga MIDI problems, I'd like someone to explain exactly what >they are without <terms offensive to both amiga and st people> The Amiga serial.device does not timestamp the serial input events. In a multitasking system you cannot guarantee getting the events exactly as them come in (not without giving up the advantages of multitasking). There are timers available on the Amiga which would allow your program to timestamp the events when your program receives them, but sometimes this isn't good enough. The solution ? There are two...(I like this one) write a small, very fast midi.device (which can leave out a lot of stuff the serial.device has to keep around) or set up a small task, running at a high priority, whose task it is to get bytes from the serial.device, timestamp them, and feed them to whoever asks. (through a message port) andy finkel -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/26/87)
] [Me] ] [What are the AMiga MIDI problems] > [Marshal Matt Dillon] > I think the problem is mainly the serial driver currently installed. > After all, 303uS per character seems like plenty of time for an interrupt > handler to queue to a FIFO. Does anybody know how long the copper takes to > setup the video chip at 320x200x4? Whoa. I thought there was a timing problem... is there really a MIDI problem as well? > Secondary problems occur when one is in extremely high resolutions, > but assuming the MIDI program only uses something simple, like 320x400x4 > (16 colors interlace), this is a moot point. How about 4 colors non-interlace (SoundScape)? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- U <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :->
czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) (08/27/87)
This discussion does NOT belong on rec.music.synth. The
postings have long since degenerated into sensless arguing aobt
which computer is better, and has nothing whatsoever to do with
music.
Michael S. Czeiszperger | Disclaimer: "Sorry, I'm all out of pith"
Sound Synthesis Studios | Snail: Room 406 Baker Phone: (614)
College of the Arts Computer Lab | 1971 Neil Avenue 292-
The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 0895
UUCP : {decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!osupyr!czeibassett@esquire.UUCP (William Bassett) (08/28/87)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Amiga midi problems? Summary: Expires: References: <1408@ico.UUCP> <1601@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> <628@cup.portal.com> <1701@cadovax.UUCP> <139@osupyr.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: bassett@esquire.UUCP (William Bassett) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: DP&W, New York, NY Keywords: In article <139@osupyr.UUCP> czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) writes: > >This discussion does NOT belong on rec.music.synth. The >postings have long since degenerated into sensless arguing aobt >which computer is better, and has nothing whatsoever to do with >music. I think this discussion does belong here. It seems very narrow-minded to exclude discussions on computer music, in this age of MIDI, from rec.music.synth. One could start a rec.music.computers group, but since the line between synthesizers and computers gets fuzzier all the time, it seems natural to keep discussions of both together. If one of the main purposes of this group is for musicians to help each other create, then talking about computers is crucial to the group. What is the point in trying to hook up synthesizers to each other and to computers, if you don't know how to use them to help realise your ideas? Talking about the tools of the synthesizer trade is as important as violinists talking about bows or practice techniques. Computer music is still at such an early stage, that many people are still at the stage of playing "chopsticks", as far as sophisticated use of their instruments. I think any discussion of how to use computers better as instruments is greatly needed. (naturally there will be articles that you don't find helpful, but that's true of the rec.music.classical group as well. If you don't like it, you can just turn the page. In the case of the Amiga discussion, most of it has been concerned with the accuracy of the timing capability of the computer, which of course is vital to its use in music. Craig Anderton had a good answer to a recent letter in Electronic Musician magazine, saying essentially the same thing, that you need to really get down into knowing the details of how an instrument or a computer responds before you can get it to express what you want it to express. What good is having a great idea about a piece, if you have no idea how to realise it? People do lose their perspective on the final goal, sometimes - here, making music. But these people may be the people who'll design the next great sequencer. I'd like to hear what they have to say. Rick Bassett CompuMUC <16natiternu
m204help@cca.CCA.COM (Keith Hedger) (08/28/87)
In article <154@esquire.UUCP>, bassett@esquire.UUCP (William Bassett) writes: > In article <139@osupyr.UUCP> czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) writes: > > > >This discussion does NOT belong on rec.music.synth. The > >postings have long since degenerated into sensless arguing aobt > >which computer is better, and has nothing whatsoever to do with > >music. > > I think this discussion does belong here. It seems very narrow-minded > to exclude discussions on computer music, in this age of MIDI, from > rec.music.synth. One could start a rec.music.computers group, but since the > line between synthesizers and computers gets fuzzier all the time, it seems > natural to keep discussions of both together. etc. etc. etc. > Rick Bassett > cmcl2!esquire!bassett There is a difference between outlining the features of a piece of hardware/ software and endlessly bickering about which is better. I don't think this discussion belongs in ANY newsgroup. Would you like to see 3 weeks worth of argument about which is better a Roland Super Jupiter or a Yamaha TX802, based on each machines internal hardware and software specs ?????? I know I don't. If someone wants to post a note that talks about the good or bad points of a piece of gear fine, but personally, I've heard enough bullshit about which 68000 machine is better. I agree that it is fine to discuss computers as they relate to music in this newsgroup.....I just get tired of relentless arguments based on people's die hard loyalty to a particular box. keitth hedger
peter@sugar.UUCP (09/01/87)
In article <19269@cca.CCA.COM>, m204help@cca.CCA.COM (Keith Hedger) writes: > I agree that it is fine to discuss computers as they relate to music in this > newsgroup.....I just get tired of relentless arguments based on people's > die hard loyalty to a particular box. How about flaming the people who *aren't* providing information, then... I've heard and read comments from various people about the Amiga's unfitness for "serious" music. I'd really like to know what the problem is. Midi is Midi, after all (as Leo pointed out). There seems to be some perception that something is wrong with timing on the Amiga. Could someone please tell me whether it's a fundamental problem in the timer, programs failing to follow the rules outlined in the RKM, or hot air? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- U <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :->
m204help@cca.UUCP (09/02/87)
In article <610@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <19269@cca.CCA.COM>, m204help@cca.CCA.COM (Keith Hedger) writes: > > I agree that it is fine to discuss computers as they relate to music in this > > newsgroup.....I just get tired of relentless arguments based on people's > > die hard loyalty to a particular box. > > How about flaming the people who *aren't* providing information, then... > > I've heard and read comments from various people about the Amiga's unfitness > for "serious" music. I'd really like to know what the problem is. Midi is > Midi, after all (as Leo pointed out). There seems to be some perception > that something is wrong with timing on the Amiga. Could someone please tell > me whether it's a fundamental problem in the timer, programs failing to follow > the rules outlined in the RKM, or hot air? > -- > -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter > -- U <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :-> Well yes the MIDI spec is the MIDI spec, but experience has shown us that a device can adhere to the MIDI spec and still have problems.....this has nothing to do with the Amiga though.......I find it hard to believe that there is anything about the Amiga's hardware or software design or implementation that make it a computer unfit for music 'serious' or otherwise....as a matter of fact, I think that these perceptions are fostered mostly by the bickering I was complaining about in the first place. I have heard only a couple of negative comments about the Amiga for music and they had to do with availability of software and price - NOT anything to do with the performance of the machine. I own an Atari ST and I don't feel that the ST is necessarily 'better' than the Amiga......I bought mine because of the price and I felt that the extra cost (at that time) associated with the Amiga was related to features that I would not find PARTICULARLY useful as a musician..... that's not to say that the features would IMPEDE its' usefulness as a music computer, only that I personally didn't feel that some of them were going to necessarily ENHANCE musical performance....I thought that the features had to do more with other types of processing that I personally am not involved in. Maybe someone with an Amiga can answer Peter's question more specifically, and please ------ no responses from Atari owners . And by the way......my note WAS flaming people who don't provide information. Keitth Hedger
phil@scubed.UUCP (Phil Cohen) (09/02/87)
I hate to see the misinformation regarding MIDI on the Amiga. I have used the timer device as the basis for a MIDI sequencer that I wrote for the Amiga. It works fine. In fact, it can easily keep up with the jazz style of a good friend of mine who is not only an outstanding keyboard performer but also knows his sequencers. My friend is the Vice President of Engineeering for a well known synthesizer manufacturer. After playing some FAST riffs into my Amiga sequencer and then listening to them play back, he said "Very cool". So what is all this complaining about the timer device?? -- Phil Cohen (phil@scubed.arpa, sdcsvax!phil)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (09/05/87)
In article <610@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > I've heard and read comments from various people about the Amiga's unfitness > for "serious" music. I'd really like to know what the problem is. Midi is > Midi, after all (as Leo pointed out). There seems to be some perception > that something is wrong with timing on the Amiga. Could someone please tell > me whether it's a fundamental problem in the timer, programs failing to follow > the rules outlined in the RKM, or hot air? As pointed out a couple of times, there is no fundamental reason why the Amiga is not fit for serious MIDI use. There is a minor difficulty in the system software doesn't provide a timer service with enough resolution to accuratly timestamp midi events. A number of people have written MIDI device handlers that use one of the available hardware timer to provide this service. The ST has some slight advantage, since it's MIDI port is built in and does not tie up the serial port. However as others have mentioned, it the software that's really the important thing and the MIDI user has to balance the cost, software quality/availabity and any non-MIDI applications to decide which system is best for that user. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/08/87)
In article <2306@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > In article <610@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > I've heard and read comments from various people about the Amiga's unfitness > > for "serious" music. I'd really like to know what the problem is. Midi is > As pointed out a couple of times, there is no fundamental reason why the Amiga > is not fit for serious MIDI use. If there's no MIDI software that works properly, then it doesn't matter if the machine is fundamentally capable of doing MIDI or not, now does it? After all, a Macintosh is fundamentally capable of concurrent multitasking, right? So... the question then becomes... 1) Is there a problem caused by software not timestamping events correctly? (apparently not) 2) Is there a problem caused by software not generating events correctly, presumably because it's not keeping proper time? (This seems to be the common complaint: MIDI events generated by the Amiga not being in sync with everyone else) 3) Is there no problem and most (if not all) Amiga MIDI software works correctly (barring DMCS)? (what I suspect, but do not know) Will someone from rec.music.synth who has experience with MIDI and has seriously looked at the Amiga get in on this? All the technical people on comp.sys.amiga are (quite rightly) saying there is no fundamental problem. What does the real world say? Are the harmonics right as well :->? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- 'U` <-- Public domain wolf.
czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) (09/10/87)
In article <246@scubed.UUCP> phil@scubed.UUCP (Phil Cohen) writes: >I hate to see the misinformation regarding MIDI on the Amiga. >I have used the timer device as the basis for a MIDI sequencer >that I wrote for the Amiga. It works fine. In fact, it can easily >keep up with the jazz style of a good friend of mine who is not >only an outstanding keyboard performer but also knows his sequencers. >My friend is the Vice President of Engineering for a well known >synthesizer manufacturer. > >After playing some FAST riffs into my Amiga sequencer and then listening >to them play back, he said "Very cool". > >So what is all this complaining about the timer device?? > Subjective tests are not proof. Mac MIDI programs such as Professional Performer uses a resolution of hundreds of units per quarter note. By setting the tempo to a slow 60 beats per minute, (assuming a quarter note per beat), it easily achieves a resolution greater than 3ms between events. If the Amiga, as rumored, has trouble time stamping events with no greater resolution than 20ms, than it's accuracy would be seriously impaired. Small difference in timing have a HUGE different on the feel and interpretation of recorded passages. Just because one Jazz player didn't notice anything amiss doesn't mean someone playing another style of music wouldn't be bothered. Unfortunately, the journalists who made these accusations did not fully explain the technical nature of the supposed problem. Looking at the turmoir that oversite has caused, it was very unprofessional of them to put rumors into national publications. I do not own an Amiga, and cannot confirm or deny what was printed, only that it WAS printed, and distributed over the entire United States. Michael S. Czeiszperger | Disclaimer: "Sorry, I'm all out of pith" Sound Synthesis Studios | Snail: Room 406 Baker Phone: (614) College of the Arts Computer Lab | 1971 Neil Avenue 292- The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 0895 UUCP : {decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!osupyr!czei