MiggyMog wrote:The ST player is looking interesting. I will need to have play with the tracker again soon!
!cube wrote:Just out of curiosity, have you tested the replayer on a REAL Atari ST? How much CPU time does a 6x replay rate tune take with all the bells and whistles on, like 16 step synth sounds on each channel?
The format has some nice features like the controllable PW which is absent from all the other trackers that are out there. I'm just curious whether one can even replay the tunes with a real Atari.
!cube wrote:IMHO currently your format has only one advantage over Maxymizer, that is the controllable pulse width. For me, your format doesn't quite cut it, as it's missing a few features that I use frequently.
First and the most important feature that it's missing is a waveform table. This is the corner stone of pretty much every decent editor that is out there. In your format, you only address the fact that one might want to have noise at the start of the sound. As an example, for proper snare sounds, this just won't do as you need to be able to play noise in different frames of the sound, not just in the beginning.
The second most important feature you already have, the arpeggio table, but it's limited. In your format, it's only 16 steps long. If one would like to use higher replay rates for more interesting sounds, like a snare sound which sounds almost like a sample, 16 steps is just too few.
Thirdly, it doesn't have sync buzzers. These are kind of de facto in today's YM music.
There are a couple of other things missing that should definitely be there like the ability to control the volume of synth modulator, it's pitch with a command in the score, and whether vibrato affects it or just the tone. Also the ability to disable selected timers and have sync point commands is useful if one is trying to use the format in a demo.
I don't mean to be overly critical so I have to say that you've done a great job at providing another editor to scene, that I'm sure some people will use. To someone like me, who is used to doing things the hard way, writing sounds as hex numbers, it's just too limited.
i could had use some more constructive criticism over the time.
that i properly one of the reason that the windows version is on halt.
MiggyMog wrote:Maybe people were trying not to put you off making the windows tracker
!cube wrote:I totally understand why you'd make the editor in Windows instead of for the Atari, on Windows you don't need to have super fast routines for everything. I'd actually prefer a Windows editor instead working on the ST, but one would need to have better emulation of the soundchip so it REALLY replays the same as the hardware. Current emulation in STeem isn't up to par either but I still do most of my composing with it. I just do the final mixing on a real ST.
I also completely understand why you'd want to make the editor simple to use. Typing in sounds with hexcodes is a bit of a pain but that's what most soundchip composers on the ST, and on other platforms as well, are used to.
A waveform table is like an arpeggio table but instead of changing the note of the sound, it changes the waveform. For example, a note table like this in MyM:
would play noise+tone on first frame, plain tone on second frame, and tone+sid on third. The first column represents noise, second is tone, third is buzzer, and the fourth is, what you would call, synth.
A 1 in one of the first three columns sets noise, tone or buzzer on respectively, 0 sets them off. The fourth column can be either 0=off, 5=sid/pwm, B=sync buzzer, or D=digi. On C64, a waveform table might look like this:
Where the first frame will play noise, second will play pulse with a transpose of $C (12 in decimal), third will play pulse with no transpose, fourth will play triangle wave. On C64, waveform tables usually include the arpeggio in them as well. That wavetable is how, with only a few exception, all C64 editors work. One can create much more rich snare sounds with this mechanism, as well as more creative sounds when using higher replay rates than 50Hz.
A sync buzzer is done like a PWM effect, one resets the buzz wave using a timer. Changing the frequency of the timer, one gets a sync modulation effect.
Using score FX arpeggio isn't as versatile as an arpeggio table as you only change the arpeggio on each note, instead of changing it on each tick (or frame, which ever word you prefer).
!cube wrote:In my opinion, this doesn't require a doctor's degree. If you're used to trackers in general, you're used to using hexadecimal tables, as the command byte for each note is one as well. I find new trackers for Windows, like Renoise, far more complicated to use than any C64 or Atari ST editor. And it doesn't take ages to make sounds once you've familiarized yourself with the mechanics for a few times.
As an example, it took me longer to understand how the sound generation is done in your editor than it would've taken me to create a snare sound with a wave table. It's all about what you're used to, if you're used to using sliders and stuff to create sounds, you're more at home with an editor that uses that approach.
Composing and sound design are different things of course. But for more experienced people, they go hand in hand and any restrictions on either of them makes a tool unsatisfying.
However, you've done a great job at providing a tool that is quite easy to jump into and I'm sure some beginning soundchip composers can get used to it quickly. For a more seasoned soundchip artist, it's not as appealing as some other editors.
Kreese wrote:I've got problems, that the sound is sounding like there is a speedproblem. When exporting the song I play to WAV it sounds great! Hmmm...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests