CPound last edited by
I was surfing the web late one night when suddenly I happened upon a page with MIDI. It was loud. It blared. My sound settings were set to very low, yet it took control and screamed out of my speakers. And you know what people think when they hear MIDI playing on your PC...it's like yelling "You have PORN!" at the top of your lungs.
Why (oh why) do people insist on using MIDI on their sites? Does everyone realize what year it is? MIDI went out of style long before Y2K!
So please...please...if any of you use MIDI...you should get rid of it. It's stupid. It makes me want to [+o(].
Plus, I'm sick of people thinking I surf porn sites.
Drak last edited by
I don't use midi on my website, but if you happen to have a Soudblaster Live or later with a good SoundFont (there are some really excellent 60mb ones out there) MIDIs will sound very very good.
Unless you don't enjoy that type of music ofcourse. [:^)]
Katja last edited by
It is? I thought midi is still a wonderful way to create music while
keeping the sound files very small. Compared to the average sound
files, midi files are mice in a herd of elephants.[;)]
Well, MIDI is kind of like a PDF file with non-embedded font
references. It may or may not sound (look) good, depending on if
you have the right (sound)fonts installed...
They sound like total crap on most machines, with the on-board (5.1 Surround, woo hoo!) sound cards...
SBPro/Live/Audigy are definately in the upper class, though, I'll
agree. I tinker with music a bit, and really like the
quality of sound / synthesizer module and having the front-panel
connections (RCA, 1/4", SPD/IF, Optical, 1394, and MIDI).
phx last edited by
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">MIDI files arent the problem. They store all the notes and controller data across multiple channels, great.</FONT>
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">MIDI rendering often sucks, but thats not why I use it for. I can export a file of some backing crap from Jammer and import it into Reason and I know that everythings intact. Then I can edit it in realtime on a virtual sampler that uses 80% CPU on a several ghz machine. Sounds nice ;)</FONT>
You bring up a point I've been thinking about lately. Soft
synths/samplers. Regardless of processor speed (unless you have
the uberbox I suppose), cpu usage severely limits the number /
complexity of what you can use, of course. If you use even
1 softsynth, you are sacrificing performance for realtime audio mixing
and processing, and will likely get "stutters".
In my opinion, they are only good for sharing projects since two people
with the same softsynth will hear the same thing, and isolates users
from having to have identical hardware.
Sure, it's nice to have better-sounding synths than your sound card can
produce natively, but if you're that into music, and not trying to
share projects, go buy some actual hardware synth modules!
phx last edited by
Hmm, I suggest you have a play with the Reason demo then A soft-synth will have many (>20) controllers, and can be all wired together. Like real hardware, but with a bit more flexibility - and a hell of a lot cheaper.
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">Nothing better than right-click - add new sub-tractor Try doing that with a real synth and a budget :D</FONT>
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">Certainly real stuff is easier to use though, if lacking in automation. Getting a midi controller box (knobs / sliders / switches) is bloody expensive, moreso than a keyboard. However then it works well wiring it up to a set of controls on your virtual synth.</FONT>
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">On my athlon 2000xp using ASIO drivers I can have quite complex projects (10 synths+) in realtime at 10ms or less latency. When things get two heavy you can lower the sample rate, and then put it back up for a final render to wav.</FONT>
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">Theres a lot of really cool digital tools you can get - and although I would prefer hardware, its pretty damn expensive. Some stuff you just cant get. I havent heard of a hardware erosion filter for example. Also you could get a copy of Reaktor (same people) and wire up the internals of your own synth / filter :D</FONT>
Agreed, some soft synths are more efficient than others. The
Roland GrooveSynth that comes with Cakewalk Kinetic is a total dog, and
is the one I'm specifically bitching about. Since Kinetic doesn't
appear to want me to route MIDI Out to anything BUT the damned
GrooveSynth, I'm stuck on this issue. (If anyone knows
differently, please school me!)
With prior cakewalk versions, I've used Retro AS-1, which I love.
Haven't tried using more than 1 or 2 instruments with it, which is why
I may not have noticed if it IS a hog or not.
I'm currently using an ancient P4 1.4 (Alienware), that is in dire need
of upgrading. Otherwise, I'd probably care a little less about
this. Also, I intend to share it with friends who have lowly
e-machines, and know that some of the stuff I end up making may not
play well or at all on their machines.
CPound last edited by
How on earth did this get to be a discussion about synths and other musical equipment?
It was supposed to deal with two main points: "Midi is bad" and "porn".
If you read the thread, you can see exactly how this happened:
midi files on web pages and how it indicates porn sites (which I
disagree with - to me it says "I'm looking at a site hosted on
GeoCities written by a 10 year old!")
midi files compared to other ways of storing/presenting music
how crappy midi sounds in general
when midi doesn't sound crappy by using soft synths (but uses lots of CPU)
I apologize that noone went in the "porn" direction you were hoping for. Better luck next time.
Hope this helps clear things up. [:D]