On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:48:11 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>I had a SB16 ISA with Creative's WaveBlaster daughter card. Ha!

I remember the Waveblaster. If I didn't have the Roland card, I think
I would have had that instead.

On Fri, 31 May 2024 15:13:34 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On 5/31/2024 1:57 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:11 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> Steven Thomsen-Jones <pika.banyan7805@eagereverest.com> looked up from
>>> reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
>>> the signs say:

>>>> *I understand the correct pluralisation of mouse for computers is
>>>> 'mouses' rather than mice, as that only applies to the animal. Not sure
>>>> anyone cares about that though :D

>>> Next up, someone will insist it's really Mousii.

>> I always call them 'mooses'. One mouse, many mooses. No, it doesnt'
>> really make much sense. But I'm odd that way. ;-)

>A moose once bit my sister.

Mynd you, m00se bites Kan be pretty nasti …

No! No, no, no! We're not doing this!

The people who made this comment have just been sacked at great
expense and at the last minute, and replaced with entirely new
commenters.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:58:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:48:11 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>
>>I had a SB16 ISA with Creative's WaveBlaster daughter card. Ha!
>
>I remember the Waveblaster. If I didn't have the Roland card, I think
>I would have had that instead.

I remember looking at the Waveblaster with some envy. Don't mistake
me, I was quite happy with my Gravis Ultrasound, but it was undeniably
falling behind the times, and compatibility issues were /always/ a
problem. While I was confident at the time that the GUS was superiour
technology -at least conceptually- it was getting harder to deny that
the Waveblaster offered better sound.

The only reason I never purchased one was that I never actually saw it
sold in stores.

But by the time I was seriously considering switching, MIDI was
already on its way out, and MIDI 'softsynth' emulation was becoming
increasingly good, with the major downside being its uselessness
outside of the Windows environment. Over the years I purchased several
MIDI emulation packages (at least one from Yamaha, and one from Roland
that I recall), and they definitely sounded a lot better than my
Gravis.

Ultimately, even the Gravis became moot when TiMIDIty (a Gravis
Ultrasound soft-synth) was developed. It's still pretty good when
paired with 200MB patch-sets (although its limited effects mean it's
definitely inferior to 'proper' soft-synths).

Of course, these days the retro community is all about re-creating the
rough, artificially sounds of FM synthesis. Who wants music that
sounds like actual instruments when you can have something that
recreates the beeps and boops of yesteryear? ;-)

On 6/1/2024 1:23 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 31/05/2024 19:29, Xocyll wrote:
>> JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
>> spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>> On 29/05/2024 08:52, Xocyll wrote:
>>>> Never heard it called a mat before, always a mouse pad here in Canada.
>>>
>>> I did check and it seems to be another British vs American English.
>>
>> Canada usually follows British rules though.
>>
>
> Don't know Canadian English so not sure but I've always presumed that in
> terms of grammar and spelling it's more akin to British English but for
> actual terms used I also assumed (not sure why) it would have more in
> common with what's used in the US.
>
Re: "why". Possibly because the US is the 800 pound gorilla sitting
right next to Canada? ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/1/2024 1:34 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 01/06/2024 07:09, Xocyll wrote:
>>> So I'm sticking with "sounds like the French".  🙂
>
>> But the Latin-is-God types generally are English speakers who don't even
>> know Latin, (generally they know only the one language unless you count
>> programming languages,) they just want to sound learned and pretentious.
>
> I've spoken to a few of them. I don't care what the Latin origins are, I
> care what common usage is currently!

Well, there you go, being realistic and practical! How do you expect to
get anywhere in life with that kind of an attitude?

:P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:58:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:

> >On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:48:11 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
> >
> >>I had a SB16 ISA with Creative's WaveBlaster daughter card. Ha!
> >
> >I remember the Waveblaster. If I didn't have the Roland card, I think
> >I would have had that instead.

> I remember looking at the Waveblaster with some envy. Don't mistake
> me, I was quite happy with my Gravis Ultrasound, but it was undeniably
> falling behind the times, and compatibility issues were /always/ a
> problem. While I was confident at the time that the GUS was superiour
> technology -at least conceptually- it was getting harder to deny that
> the Waveblaster offered better sound.

Really? I thought GUS had better audio than SB and its WB. I remember
playing classic DOOM 1 with a college guy's GUS. OMG esp. MIDI in E1M8
boss level. :O

> The only reason I never purchased one was that I never actually saw it
> sold in stores.

> But by the time I was seriously considering switching, MIDI was
> already on its way out, and MIDI 'softsynth' emulation was becoming
> increasingly good, with the major downside being its uselessness
> outside of the Windows environment. Over the years I purchased several
> MIDI emulation packages (at least one from Yamaha, and one from Roland
> that I recall), and they definitely sounded a lot better than my
> Gravis.

> Ultimately, even the Gravis became moot when TiMIDIty (a Gravis
> Ultrasound soft-synth) was developed. It's still pretty good when
> paired with 200MB patch-sets (although its limited effects mean it's
> definitely inferior to 'proper' soft-synths).

> Of course, these days the retro community is all about re-creating the
> rough, artificially sounds of FM synthesis. Who wants music that
> sounds like actual instruments when you can have something that
> recreates the beeps and boops of yesteryear? ;-)

Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)
--
"Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." --Galatians 6:2. Slammy Monday?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:48:11 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

> >I had a SB16 ISA with Creative's WaveBlaster daughter card. Ha!

> I remember the Waveblaster. If I didn't have the Roland card, I think
> I would have had that instead.

My detailed http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html says "...
Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 (MultiCD; also got a separate Creative
Wave Blaster II/2 to add on for it later on [unknown date] to improve
MIDI music]..." So, I had its second model.
--
"Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." --Galatians 6:2. Slammy Monday?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 06:53:32 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:58:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:48:11 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I had a SB16 ISA with Creative's WaveBlaster daughter card. Ha!
>> >
>> >I remember the Waveblaster. If I didn't have the Roland card, I think
>> >I would have had that instead.
>
>> I remember looking at the Waveblaster with some envy. Don't mistake
>> me, I was quite happy with my Gravis Ultrasound, but it was undeniably
>> falling behind the times, and compatibility issues were /always/ a
>> problem. While I was confident at the time that the GUS was superiour
>> technology -at least conceptually- it was getting harder to deny that
>> the Waveblaster offered better sound.
>
>Really? I thought GUS had better audio than SB and its WB. I remember
>playing classic DOOM 1 with a college guy's GUS. OMG esp. MIDI in E1M8
>boss level. :O
>
>
>> The only reason I never purchased one was that I never actually saw it
>> sold in stores.
>
>> But by the time I was seriously considering switching, MIDI was
>> already on its way out, and MIDI 'softsynth' emulation was becoming
>> increasingly good, with the major downside being its uselessness
>> outside of the Windows environment.

I *think* you might be discussing some very specific gaming context
around MIDI here?

MIDI is still very much alive and well, almost to the point where it
is a fundamental component of modern music production that involves
any level of electronic instruments at all. These days, even more
advanced pedals like delays and reverbs are equipped with MIDI ports
so they can sync to clock.

Softsynths (in the music world more commonly called VSTs these days
due to the Steinberg format) are ubiquitous now (to the point that a
lot of successful artists use them exclusively, as they are typically
easier to work with from a workflow perspective than hardware synths),
but there is nothing about them that's exclusive to MIDI. If a
musician is playing a synth into the DAW, much of the time they are
recording MIDI data... MIDI is just the data and timing of notes
played, parameters tweaked, etc and is independent of the sound source
that uses that data to play.

>>Over the years I purchased several
>> MIDI emulation packages (at least one from Yamaha, and one from Roland
>> that I recall), and they definitely sounded a lot better than my
>> Gravis.

>> Ultimately, even the Gravis became moot when TiMIDIty (a Gravis
>> Ultrasound soft-synth) was developed. It's still pretty good when
>> paired with 200MB patch-sets (although its limited effects mean it's
>> definitely inferior to 'proper' soft-synths).
>
>> Of course, these days the retro community is all about re-creating the
>> rough, artificially sounds of FM synthesis. Who wants music that
>> sounds like actual instruments when you can have something that
>> recreates the beeps and boops of yesteryear? ;-)

FM synthesis, in itself really isn't about beeps and boops, it just
sounded that way in some video game implementations. The Yamaha DX7
was originally popular among musicians because it could do sounds like
electric piano, and other bright sounds that sat well in a mix. Better
yet, being digital it stayed in tune when on stage -- the analog
synths that came before it were prone to drifting out of tune when the
temperature fluctuated, so calibrating them to sound good in various
stage environments was a challenge.

The reason FM synths are still popular is because of that
bright/punchy sound that's all over records from the 80's.. They are
good at certain categories of sounds that were difficult to achieve
any other way.

FM synthesis in general is kind of a bitch to program... the DX7 was
notoriously horrble about this. Korg has an interesting FM synth
called the Opsix, which uses a combination of knobs and colors to make
it somewhat easier to understand the carrier/modulation relationship
between the operators. The Opsix does all of the same algorithms
(which are basically operator routing combinations) that the DX7 did,
yet I still think it sounds nothing like it.

The best software-based clone of the DX7 I have found is OPS7 by
Plogue. The developer is really talented, and figured out that the
unique sound of the DX7 was not just in the synth engine but also in
the DAC, so he emulated that as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDlqXe0M2as&ab_channel=PlogueArtetTechnologie%2CInc.

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 06:53:32 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:58:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:

>
>Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
>That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)

On occassion, yes. I /love/ Michael "Keyboard Wizard" Walthius'
creations. There are some really good Sierra Online video-game
soundtracks too (the latter sound better on the Roland, of course).

I more often listen to tracker music (MOD, S3M, etc) these days,
although even there I tend to cheat (the ones I like the most got
transcribed to MP3 and tossed in the mix with all my other music). But
I still make semi-frequent visits to the MOD archive to discover new
stuff. Then I just fire up ModPlug, drag a bunch of files over to it,
and bippity-bop my way through whatever daily task I have to finish
;-)

Keyboard Wizard
https://www.audiosparx.com/keyboardwizard

Sierra Online MIDI soundtracks
https://www.midimusicadventures.com/queststudios/midi-soundtracks/complete-soundtracks/

MOD Archive
https://modarchive.org/

MODPlug Player
https://www.modplug.com/

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 06:53:32 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:58:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:48:11 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I had a SB16 ISA with Creative's WaveBlaster daughter card. Ha!
>> >
>> >I remember the Waveblaster. If I didn't have the Roland card, I think
>> >I would have had that instead.
>
>> I remember looking at the Waveblaster with some envy. Don't mistake
>> me, I was quite happy with my Gravis Ultrasound, but it was undeniably
>> falling behind the times, and compatibility issues were /always/ a
>> problem. While I was confident at the time that the GUS was superiour
>> technology -at least conceptually- it was getting harder to deny that
>> the Waveblaster offered better sound.
>
>Really? I thought GUS had better audio than SB and its WB. I remember
>playing classic DOOM 1 with a college guy's GUS. OMG esp. MIDI in E1M8
>boss level. :O

It depends.

For games designed specifically with the GUS in mind, the MIDI could
be excellent, especially if they made custom patches for the thing
(some of the default patches the GUS shipped with... are not so good).

But the WaveBlaster - and its sequels - had several advantages. One
being that they were, overall, cleaner sound. The GUS had some messy,
noisy output; it picked up signal from the rest of the computer's
electronics pretty easily. Of course, how could the output was on the
Wave Table depended a lot on the board you plugged it into but...
well, look, I loved my GUS but it was pretty bad when it came to
noise.

The Wave Blaster also, if I recall, had an advantage in its RAM. I
think. My memory of the Wave Blaster architecture is sort of hazy and
based on what I read about it in magazines thirty years ago. The
original Wave Blaster might have just used a ROM set; I think later
revisions used onboard RAM. But the stock 256KB on the GUS could
easily be exceeded and

The long-and-short was that -while custom patchsets designed for GUS
might have the advantage- if playing anything else -whether some
random MIDI file downloaded off some FTP site or a game using generic
GeneralMIDI format- the Wave Blaster had the edge.

At least, that's the way it seemed to me. Again, I've never actually
OWNED one of the devices. But I recall listening to downloaded WAV
files playing captured MIDI playback and the Wave Blaster always
seemed to have the edge.

But that's also part of the problem: what sounds great to one person
can sound terrible to others. I've heard many people seriously claim
that they consider the OPL3 Soundblaster Doom soundtrack to be the
superior and definitive version over the Gravis. Others say that title
belongs to the SoundCanvas and say the overdriven guitar on the GUS is
weak. Myself, the GUS version will always remain the best rendition
(and I can't be the only one, since most Doom ports use GUS Emulation
as the default MIDI playback ;-). So I guess it's all in the ear of
the... erm... belistener?

Nonetheless, I'd have happily nabbed a WaveBlaster had I ever come
across one. I doubt it would have actually REPLACED my beloved Gravis
-if only because, in an era of 386 and 486 CPUs, every cycle offloaded
to the Gravis to process audio meant smoother gameplay- but I'd have
been quite happy with it. Especially the later revision of the Wave
Blaster.

TL;DR: anybody wanna donate a Wave Blaster to my collection? ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 20:57 this Friday (GMT):
> On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:11 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Steven Thomsen-Jones <pika.banyan7805@eagereverest.com> looked up from
>>reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
>>the signs say:
>>
>><snip>
>>>*I understand the correct pluralisation of mouse for computers is
>>>'mouses' rather than mice, as that only applies to the animal. Not sure
>>>anyone cares about that though :D
>>
>>Next up, someone will insist it's really Mousii.
>
> I always call them 'mooses'. One mouse, many mooses. No, it doesnt'
> really make much sense. But I'm odd that way. ;-)

Neat. I don't think I've ever seen a moose before.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 00:55 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 5/31/2024 1:57 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:11 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Thomsen-Jones <pika.banyan7805@eagereverest.com> looked up from
>>> reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
>>> the signs say:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> *I understand the correct pluralisation of mouse for computers is
>>>> 'mouses' rather than mice, as that only applies to the animal. Not sure
>>>> anyone cares about that though :D
>>>
>>> Next up, someone will insist it's really Mousii.
>>
>> I always call them 'mooses'. One mouse, many mooses. No, it doesnt'
>> really make much sense. But I'm odd that way. ;-)
>
> But not the only way.

What?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
....
> >Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
> >That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)

> On occassion, yes. I /love/ Michael "Keyboard Wizard" Walthius'
> creations. There are some really good Sierra Online video-game
> soundtracks too (the latter sound better on the Roland, of course).

> I more often listen to tracker music (MOD, S3M, etc) these days,
> although even there I tend to cheat (the ones I like the most got
> transcribed to MP3 and tossed in the mix with all my other music). But
> I still make semi-frequent visits to the MOD archive to discover new
> stuff. Then I just fire up ModPlug, drag a bunch of files over to it,
> and bippity-bop my way through whatever daily task I have to finish
> ;-)

ModPlug Player is awesome.

> Keyboard Wizard
> https://www.audiosparx.com/keyboardwizard

> Sierra Online MIDI soundtracks
> https://www.midimusicadventures.com/queststudios/midi-soundtracks/complete-soundtracks/

> MOD Archive
> https://modarchive.org/

> MODPlug Player
> https://www.modplug.com/

Question: What's the best MIDI SoftSynth to use?
--
"Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." --Galatians 6:2. Slammy Monday?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
....
> Nonetheless, I'd have happily nabbed a WaveBlaster had I ever come
> across one. I doubt it would have actually REPLACED my beloved Gravis
> -if only because, in an era of 386 and 486 CPUs, every cycle offloaded
> to the Gravis to process audio meant smoother gameplay- but I'd have
> been quite happy with it. Especially the later revision of the Wave
> Blaster.

> TL;DR: anybody wanna donate a Wave Blaster to my collection? ;-)

Darn. I would have given you mine but I got rid of that uhhhhhhhhhh
whenever I got rid of my SB16 ISA! :P Does anyone have a working time
machine? ;)

--
"Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." --Galatians 6:2. Slammy Monday?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 20:57 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:11 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Steven Thomsen-Jones <pika.banyan7805@eagereverest.com> looked up from
>>>reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
>>>the signs say:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>*I understand the correct pluralisation of mouse for computers is
>>>>'mouses' rather than mice, as that only applies to the animal. Not sure
>>>>anyone cares about that though :D
>>>
>>>Next up, someone will insist it's really Mousii.
>>
>> I always call them 'mooses'. One mouse, many mooses. No, it doesnt'
>> really make much sense. But I'm odd that way. ;-)
>
>
>Neat. I don't think I've ever seen a moose before.

We're getting a bit far afield from the topic (but what the hell, how
much can you actually talk about computing pointing devices anyway?
;-) but moose are really a sight to see. Typically the word 'majestic'
is used in regard to elk, but I don't think it really applies. They
gawky, ungainly, and sort of silly looking animals. But damn, if they
aren't BIG! Not so much in terms of mass but, rather, it's surprising
how tall they are. They aren't, actually, much taller than people but
they have such long, skinny legs that a lot of their body is held up
much higher above the ground than other, similar ungulants like deer
or horses. It makes them FEEL much larger and taller than they really
are.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, they're also incredibly shy
creatures which, given their size, feels weird and uncharacteristic.
You'd think a creature that big would be more aggressive and less
self-effacing! That behavior, combined with their long faces and
almost rabbit-like ears, is why they seem so amusing in nature. Still,
I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of one of those critters.

But beyond that first impression, moose aren't really that
interesting. They're essentially deer, except without the fun flighty
nature. They move ponderously (although they can get up to a
not-insignicant speed eventually, and all that mass moving at thirty
kmh isn't anything to laugh at. They'll wreck your car if you hit
one... or they hit you!).

But seeing one come out of the woods on a foggy morn... that stays
with you. It's sort of like seeing Bigfoot; a preposperous shape that
you aren't sure is real, that disappears in an instant if you try to
get near it.

Very weird animals all around, and quite memorable.

We now return you to the scheduled discussion about computer mice. I
think they're going on about colors of the LED and how it DPI now.

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:32:22 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> >Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
>> >That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)
>
>> On occassion, yes. I /love/ Michael "Keyboard Wizard" Walthius'
>> creations. There are some really good Sierra Online video-game
>> soundtracks too (the latter sound better on the Roland, of course).
>
>> I more often listen to tracker music (MOD, S3M, etc) these days,
>> although even there I tend to cheat (the ones I like the most got
>> transcribed to MP3 and tossed in the mix with all my other music). But
>> I still make semi-frequent visits to the MOD archive to discover new
>> stuff. Then I just fire up ModPlug, drag a bunch of files over to it,
>> and bippity-bop my way through whatever daily task I have to finish
>> ;-)
>
>ModPlug Player is awesome.
>
>
>> Keyboard Wizard
>> https://www.audiosparx.com/keyboardwizard
>
>> Sierra Online MIDI soundtracks
>> https://www.midimusicadventures.com/queststudios/midi-soundtracks/complete-soundtracks/
>
>> MOD Archive
>> https://modarchive.org/
>
>> MODPlug Player
>> https://www.modplug.com/
>
>Question: What's the best MIDI SoftSynth to use?

I couldn't answer that any more. Back-in-the-day (as in, back when
Windows 95 and 98 were the new hotness), I played around with a bunch
of them but I haven't kept up. If I were to dig around, I probably
could find the discs for whatever I used (I think one was a Roland
SoftSynth, and another was a Yamaha XG-something) but which ones
specifically - and how they compared to others - I couldn't say. I
doubt they'd even run on modern hardware (although maybe I should give
it a try). Anyway, I'm sure there's a lot better available than any of
the ancient stuff I used to be familiar with.

Mostly, if I want to play MIDI I just rely on TiMIDIty
(https://timidity.sourceforge.net/) and whatever hundred-megabyte
patchset I downloaded years ago. It works well enough for most stuff
(although some XG/GM/Roland-specific stuff sounds a bit off). There's
also a Roland MT-32 emulator (although you'd need the ROMs for those)
if you want to play old-school Roland stuff. It isn't very good -being
forty-year tech- but if you want to experience what games sounded like
in the 80s and 90s, it's a cool tool.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:48 this Monday (GMT):
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 20:57 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:11 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steven Thomsen-Jones <pika.banyan7805@eagereverest.com> looked up from
>>>>reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
>>>>the signs say:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>*I understand the correct pluralisation of mouse for computers is
>>>>>'mouses' rather than mice, as that only applies to the animal. Not sure
>>>>>anyone cares about that though :D
>>>>
>>>>Next up, someone will insist it's really Mousii.
>>>
>>> I always call them 'mooses'. One mouse, many mooses. No, it doesnt'
>>> really make much sense. But I'm odd that way. ;-)
>>
>>
>>Neat. I don't think I've ever seen a moose before.
>
> We're getting a bit far afield from the topic (but what the hell, how
> much can you actually talk about computing pointing devices anyway?
> ;-) but moose are really a sight to see. Typically the word 'majestic'
> is used in regard to elk, but I don't think it really applies. They
> gawky, ungainly, and sort of silly looking animals. But damn, if they
> aren't BIG! Not so much in terms of mass but, rather, it's surprising
> how tall they are. They aren't, actually, much taller than people but
> they have such long, skinny legs that a lot of their body is held up
> much higher above the ground than other, similar ungulants like deer
> or horses. It makes them FEEL much larger and taller than they really
> are.
>
> In my (admittedly limited) experience, they're also incredibly shy
> creatures which, given their size, feels weird and uncharacteristic.
> You'd think a creature that big would be more aggressive and less
> self-effacing! That behavior, combined with their long faces and
> almost rabbit-like ears, is why they seem so amusing in nature. Still,
> I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of one of those critters.
>
> But beyond that first impression, moose aren't really that
> interesting. They're essentially deer, except without the fun flighty
> nature. They move ponderously (although they can get up to a
> not-insignicant speed eventually, and all that mass moving at thirty
> kmh isn't anything to laugh at. They'll wreck your car if you hit
> one... or they hit you!).
>
> But seeing one come out of the woods on a foggy morn... that stays
> with you. It's sort of like seeing Bigfoot; a preposperous shape that
> you aren't sure is real, that disappears in an instant if you try to
> get near it.
>
> Very weird animals all around, and quite memorable.

Wow, I hope I can see one someday!

> We now return you to the scheduled discussion about computer mice. I
> think they're going on about colors of the LED and how it DPI now.

oh
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 6/1/2024 11:53 PM, Ant wrote:

> Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
> That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)

Not often any more. I've got a pretty big MOD collection. I may have
played some a couple times over the entire last year.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:58:20 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mostly, if I want to play MIDI I just rely on TiMIDIty
>(https://timidity.sourceforge.net/) and whatever hundred-megabyte
>patchset I downloaded years ago. It works well enough for most stuff
>(although some XG/GM/Roland-specific stuff sounds a bit off). There's
>also a Roland MT-32 emulator (although you'd need the ROMs for those)
>if you want to play old-school Roland stuff. It isn't very good -being
>forty-year tech- but if you want to experience what games sounded like
>in the 80s and 90s, it's a cool tool.

The MT-32 was aimed at the "I might be an enthusiast one day" market
rather than being any sort of representation of sonic capabilities of
that era.

Actually a lot of Roland's studio grade stuff from the 80s and 90s is
still highly sought after (if you want an example of this, go to
Reverb.com and search for Jupiter 8... Got $25,000 to burn? You
could be the proud owner of one :)

That's actually an extreme example, but Rolands newer gear is mostly
not as well regarded as their older stuff. Not because of quality or
that it necessarily sounds bad, it's just that they're almost entirely
committed to "virtual analog", so much of their newer hardware is
basically software in a box rather than discrete analog components.
Roland gets quite a bit of hate from the synth community for not
following along the lines of companies like Sequential or Oberheim in
joining the resurgence of analog popularity, releasing reissues of
older instruments, etc.

But hey, analog isn't everything. Remember the Roland D-50? Purely
digital (and available on the used market at reasonable prices), yet
still considered an iconic instrument. And then there is Roland Cloud
which has software emulations of many of their older instruments (many
of which are surprisingly good).

The main point I wanted to make though is that in many cases the older
stuff just sounds better than most of the newer stuff. Good and bad
gear existed back in the day, and good and bad gear is still regularly
released.

Back to the MT-32. I can understand the excitement factor around it
back then, and at the price point it was a way for non-musicians to
dip their toe into MIDI and music technology. But it never sounded
great. And while I haven't hear the emulation you spoke of, I am
guessing it sounds even less exciting than the original hardware did,
because it is rare that software fully emulates the entire signal path
of original hardware.

Yes, it can give you that "90% accurate" return to nostalgia as you
hear / remember sounds that are familiar and relatable... and that can
be quite cool. But I would liken it to the difference of playing MAME
ROMS on a PC emulator versus the full experience of same game on a
brand new original cabinet sitting in a 1980's arcade running on the
very specific combination of control / display / audio hardware it was
designed for. The emulation is experience is better than nothing most
of the time, but not quite as good.

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 11:53 PM, Ant wrote:

> > Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
> > That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)

> Not often any more. I've got a pretty big MOD collection. I may have
> played some a couple times over the entire last year.

Ha, what are your favorites? Mine is the above link. ;)
--
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" --Romans 6:3
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

"rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> writes:

>> 2) ... A high-end gaming mouse;
>
> CoolerMaster MM520, with a MM720 waiting. These are successors to,
> with better sensors but inferior ergonomics, to the classic
> fingertip mouse Spawn
> https://www.coolermaster.com/catalog/legacy-products/peripheral/spawn/#!

Looks a lot like my Roccat mouse, although for sure shorter and
wider. But the wheel, buttons, DPI buttons on top, all look very
similar. I guess form follows function pretty closely.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 20:57 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:11 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steven Thomsen-Jones <pika.banyan7805@eagereverest.com> looked up from
>>>>reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
>>>>the signs say:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>*I understand the correct pluralisation of mouse for computers is
>>>>>'mouses' rather than mice, as that only applies to the animal. Not sure
>>>>>anyone cares about that though :D
>>>>
>>>>Next up, someone will insist it's really Mousii.
>>>
>>> I always call them 'mooses'. One mouse, many mooses. No, it doesnt'
>>> really make much sense. But I'm odd that way. ;-)
>>
>>
>>Neat. I don't think I've ever seen a moose before.
>
>We're getting a bit far afield from the topic (but what the hell, how
>much can you actually talk about computing pointing devices anyway?
>;-) but moose are really a sight to see. Typically the word 'majestic'
>is used in regard to elk, but I don't think it really applies. They
>gawky, ungainly, and sort of silly looking animals.

Elk are just funny looking Deer. The Moose on the other hand is the
Clint Eastwood of animals, you know just by looking, "do not mess with".

I still remember a canoe/camping trip where we had to idle offshore for
about an hour cause there was a moose, right at the entry to the portage

>But damn, if they
>aren't BIG! Not so much in terms of mass but, rather, it's surprising
>how tall they are. They aren't, actually, much taller than people but
>they have such long, skinny legs that a lot of their body is held up
>much higher above the ground than other, similar ungulants like deer
>or horses. It makes them FEEL much larger and taller than they really
>are.

And it also means if you hit one with a car, you DIE, period, since
those skinny legs snap easily and that massive body comes in your
windshield.

>In my (admittedly limited) experience, they're also incredibly shy
>creatures which, given their size, feels weird and uncharacteristic.
>You'd think a creature that big would be more aggressive and less
>self-effacing! That behavior, combined with their long faces and
>almost rabbit-like ears, is why they seem so amusing in nature. Still,
>I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of one of those critters.
>
>But beyond that first impression, moose aren't really that
>interesting. They're essentially deer, except without the fun flighty
>nature. They move ponderously (although they can get up to a
>not-insignicant speed eventually, and all that mass moving at thirty
>kmh isn't anything to laugh at. They'll wreck your car if you hit
>one... or they hit you!).

A funny store I collected from another newsgroup many years back, mostly
about a wolverine, but there was a moose too:

"A friend was deployed to the Philippines some years ago, was somewhat
concerned about jungles full of poisonous snakes, and happened to
mention this concern in the hearing of a local, who was shocked that my
friend wasn't *happy* to be out of those dangerous Canadian woods and
into some nice safe jungles.

This fellow had apparently been present some time earlier when three
donated animals had been taken by ferry to a zoo on another island
there;
a moose and a wolverine were arriving from Canada, and a Bengal tiger
was arriving from wherever they come from. The locals knew about
building bamboo shipping cages that'd safely hold a tiger, and had built
two more, one extra large, for the others.

Apparently the wolverine got seasick, decided it wanted out, ripped away
one of the bamboo bars with its teeth, got out, fell overboard, was
fished out and recaged, then the tiger made the error of growling at the
wolverine, at which point it ripped through both cages and partway into
the tiger. At this point they got out the trank gun and stopped the
wolverine. Meanwhile, the moose got caught up in all this excitement
and burst out of its cage, attacking some of the cars on the ferry.

With a fair bit of veterinary care, they were able to save the tiger.
These people now *fear* Canadian wildlife."

Xocyll

On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:48:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>But beyond that first impression, møøse aren't really that
>interesting.

A møøse once bit...

(ah, nevermind)

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 6/3/2024 6:46 PM, Ant wrote:
> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2024 11:53 PM, Ant wrote:
>
>>> Do any of you still listen to MIDIs? I do once in a while: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/music/music.html
>>> That includes MOD, S3M, XM, IT, 669, FAR, etc. ;)
>
>> Not often any more. I've got a pretty big MOD collection. I may have
>> played some a couple times over the entire last year.
>
> Ha, what are your favorites? Mine is the above link. ;)

Damn... trying to open the playlists it's not even working for me
anymore. I do have a small folder with broken links to my favorites named:

ALTAIR.MOD
baz_ii.s3m (Slam by Bazzar)
CASTLE.MOD
ENERGIA.S3M (Energia by Necros/FM)
EVOCATIO.MOD
GSLINGER.MOD (Guitar Slinger)
isotoxin.s3m (Isotoxin by Necros/FM)
JungleJuice.xm
JUPITER.S3M
K_WAGON.MTM (Wagon Station)
KNGDMSKY.XM (95946)
m5v-mars.it (Martian Lovesong)
MECH8.S3M (Mechanism 8)
OH_YEAH.MOD (Oh Yeah by Yello)
ORION.MOD
PARANOID.IT (Paranoid Android by Raidohead)
PLANETGR.MOD (Planet Groove)
POINT.S3M (Point of Departure)
POWERMONG.MOD (Powermonger game theme)
t2.xm (Terminator 2 movie theme)
WHENRISE.XM (When we Rise 3:00)

I found the files and put them in a new playlist in XMPlayer, I am
listening to them now.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 19:24:49 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

>Yes, it can give you that "90% accurate" return to nostalgia as you
>hear / remember sounds that are familiar and relatable... and that can
>be quite cool.

I'd say that Roland MT-32 Munt emulation is at about 90% accurate at
this point. I may switch to emulation if my real MT-32 ever fails
which it likely will considering its age.

I know Munt isn't 100% accurate as I can hear (don't hear?) dropped
notes and wrong sounding instruments occasionally when Munt is used.