RealFun

Pagina 5/12
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Van sjoerd

Hero (602)

afbeelding van sjoerd

06-08-2004, 15:06

Well, Arjan made a highly optimized moonblaster replayer, and IC is working on optimizing it too, coz it's too slow!!Still, I prefer my own replayer. Also because all the music is written with Realfun, ofcourse. Smile

These are confusing statements (what else is new)....Sorry about the confusion. Smile
I meant: The Realfun replayer will be fast enough for tic-tac-toe, and the Moonblaster replayer is obviously fast enough for the games it was used in.
Big smile
The Realfun replayer (the one called SIRR Smile ) will be faster than the highly optimized moonblaster replayer Arjan made. (Uhm, as long as you mean the one that's downloadable from the bomba-site or so Smile )
EDIT
Uhm, I think. The replayer I use for Hamaraja may be somewhat slower, but the data is crunched much better. The new Realfun replayer won't use a postion table per channel, so it will be faster.
/EDIT

I guess we'll just have to wait for what you come up with, and see if
that'll be sufficient. :\
It will be great. Raise the expectations! No, really. It will be fast enough. Smile

Van sjoerd

Hero (602)

afbeelding van sjoerd

06-08-2004, 15:48

Anyway. Is there anybody who thinks a limit of 32 voices or instruments is a problem? This is the total number of voices that can be used in a song. (In the trail version of Realfun you could use 32 4op, 32 2op and 32 wave voices.) How many voices do you use in mbwave?

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9972)

afbeelding van wolf_

06-08-2004, 16:39

Hmm .. depends on many things ..

Is it a problem to raise this number to 64 or 128 ? Smile

Van sjoerd

Hero (602)

afbeelding van sjoerd

06-08-2004, 17:08

Yes Smile

Realfun uses two bytes per step, one byte for the note, and one for the command. All command should fit in the command byte, so taking 128 values for the voice change command leaves just 128 values for the other commands, like pitch bend and panning.
I think there's room for 64 voices, though. (90 in fact). But still, is it neccessary? And of course, the voicedata will take a lot of space. And it takes space for other commands...
On what does it depend? I don't think I have ever used more than 16 voices in a song.

Van Arjan

Paladin (770)

afbeelding van Arjan

06-08-2004, 17:42

I've seen enough songs with more than 16 voices. Besides, if you have 18FM + 24PCM channels you only need more voices! So I'd really go for 64 voices (or maybe 48).

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9972)

afbeelding van wolf_

06-08-2004, 19:07

As a coder you should never design a tracker purely based on your own experiences!

That's what happened to so many trackers.. including MB ..! It depends on the level of complexity of the actual composer.. and many ppl who coded trackers in the 90's were surrounded by less-complex composers. Not that I mind less-complex composers, but at least they shouldn't be the testers/designers/initiators for a tracker, because for sure the tracker will be limited only to their needs then Smile
A typical example of 90's MSX music was: FM-pac: 1 channel for the bass, 3 for violins (or whatever creates a chord) 1 channel for a lead, and 1 channel for a counter-melody. This perfectly fits into Pro-Tracker for example, and if you listen to the titlescreen-music of Pro-Tracker then you'll notice the things I described above Wink
And MB also has a typical 'based-on-a-moonsoft-composer'-limit, as I've been told by RS himself .. that is .. we shouldn't call it a 'limit' .. but "why would anyone want to use more than 12 voices for a song.. guess 16 is enough then?" Smile

In the PC-scene there's something comparible.. many trackers that showed-up since the classic trackers (ft2,st3,it2) were based on trance/dance music and thus are absolutely limited in their featureset. Less-complex composers have their BS arguements: "hey as long as it has a heavy distortion filter I'm happy", or "whoaa.. a 303-filter", or worse: "don't mind the features, but oooh look at that cool skin..!" .. *f$ck it* .. those ppl shouldn't ever design anything meant for a generic public Smile
Now, this PC-stuff is *while being the truth* not exactly relevant for the Moonsound development.. I'm just pointing out that only your 'own' experience shouldn't be the key to the design of a tracker.

So, to lighten up a bit .. ( Smile ) .. for *very* advanced tunes, mixing up wave and FM.. the 32 number could be a bit too small.. Think of this: many variations of the same instruments (each a bit different) add a *lot* to the livelyness of the sound. FM and Wave ... so if I'd be able to select a lot of instruments for just 1 part, then I'd get a lot more quality in return. Try to listen to saxophone music for example. No single note is the same, in terms of sound-color, but esp. in terms of articulation. You can do this articulation using several instruments each with a different envelope/LFO. And that's just an example!

The main feature that should complement all this is a global channel-volume, or otherwise an instrument-change command that doesn't initialise the default volume of that instrument.. but I prefer the channel-volume. For the simple reason that in MB/MBwave/MBFM you can't really do all this livelyness-instrument-changes on echo-channels as each instrument-change causes those instruments to be as loud as the lead/direct channel.

$0.02 Smile

Van anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

afbeelding van anonymous

07-08-2004, 01:46

For once, I agree with wolf Smile

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (9972)

afbeelding van wolf_

07-08-2004, 10:56

how a memorable day Wink

Van sjoerd

Hero (602)

afbeelding van sjoerd

07-08-2004, 13:39

why would anyone want to use more than 50 voices for a song.. guess 64 is enough then? Wink

Van Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

afbeelding van Sonic_aka_T

07-08-2004, 13:55

Wolf, you do realize ofcourse that now you're going to have to make a song on RealFun with 64 voices Wink Tongue

Pagina 5/12
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10