Unbelievable as always..........I'm amazed you can make it through a
day. But whatever.
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Apr 2006 at 10:57, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I cannot find any such method. In any event, the best synthesizer on
my system is my soundcard, and iTunes can't capture its output, so I
can't use iTunes for this purpose.
Lets see, a quick Google search of "midi to wav" ended up with with a
ton of results.
I don't lack the software to do this on Windows -- I've already
purchased it (very cheaply), and it works quite reliably. I was just
asking what I'd have to buy it again if I were using a Mac, or if
there were free alternatives.
I, too, could Google, but I thought I'd ask a community of Mac users
before doing so, since it's a very theoretical problem.
Well, then lets call the synthesizer on my soundcard
a sample player, one that is hard-wired to the samples in that
soundcard's ROM.
It's not in the same class as a Sample player. It's like saying your
64 VW bug is a race car.
You seem to be determined to miss the point. I don't dispute that
they are technically different. But they are completely identical in
regard to the issue of offloading processing and RAM.
If the soundfont was produced from samples, it *is* the same
thing. The technical differences don't matter to me because the
issue for me is offloading the processing to a dedicated card
rather than bogging down the system's CPU and RAM with the same
processing.
But you are missing the point. A soundfont has a sample, but then
it uses that to synthesize. It's different that what GPO does.
I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S DIFFERENT.
The point is whether or not the computer's CPU and RAM are used, or
the processor and memory in an off-board device.
Did you READ the article?
What article?
A sample player does not do this.
I DON'T CARE.
Which is what a sample player does. But it is cheaper to
dedicate a separate computer to doing playback. Cause,
basically, you are trying to load as much stuff in memory
and/or access it from a disk to allow for seamless playback. I
don't see how a card is going to help with that, as it's really
a memory/cpu thing. Unless you are proposing some sort of card
that holds its own storage medium, and processor to allow you
to upload and store all the samples.
Oh, puh-leaze. For years Creative has sold $100 soundcards that
do exactly this.
Again, you have it wrong. Creative doesn't do anything like that. They
are not producing a Sample player. If you equate Soundfont=Sample
Player then, yeah, sure. But they are two separate things.
Not from the standpoint of the problem I'm discussing, which is
offloading processing/temporary storage to a dedicated device.
For me, since I work with this stuff for a living, I dedicated
a whole computer to do it. I can easily run 30+ instruments on
my Pentium 4 machine, and they sound great.
Well, I *don't* do it for a living. A $100 hardware device that
could load and play samples would be much better for my needs.
Which was my whole point all along, that I think it's a mistake
that the industry has moved away from that model.
And we come to the issue again, . . .
No, this is the only issue I've ever been talking about.
. . . since you DON'T know what you are talking about, how can you
say the things you do?
\/\/HATEVER.
The industry has moved the way it has because it simply does not make
sense to have a card that would do what you think a $100 Creative card
does. To be a SAMPLE player, you'd need a card that has it's own RAM,
storage for gigabytes of samples, and a CPU to handle it. It is just
simpler, faster, and cheaper to have a dedicated PC for that.
So you say.
The results are that computers are being tasked with too much and the
only option is to run multiple PCs. That's bloody stupid for the kind
of user that I am.
You can have the last word. I have nothing more to say to you.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
