Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 02:22 EET From: "Paul Kalupnieks" Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:941] Re: Gravis Card[s] > > Second reality "SUCK"s on a SB because Future Crew only put SBPro support > > in the demo. There is NO SB-16 support. So even though I may have a > > SB-16, I still have to put up with 22kHz sampling. 256x oversampling > > would have to be incorporated in the demo. It is not. Future Crew > > obviously did not put good SB support into 2nd Reality because they are > > GUS users and threw in the SB stuff so that a wider audience could at > > least have music of some kind. > Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, > with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS > happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. The only reason Future Crew was producing SB only stuff was because there wasn't a GUS card when they started. I think that they've lost the SB quality they used to have, and pushed more for the GUS. I don't see why, there are many more SBs, SBpros, and SB- 16's out there than any Gravis sound card. Wyszkowski's Second Law: Anything can be made to work if you fiddle with it long enough. -- -- Paul Kalupnieks -- <| kalupnie@fs2.ucc.on.ca |> ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 02:51 EET From: Hussam Eassa Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:942] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Cuthalion / Sliced Bread wrote: > > Second reality "SUCK"s on a SB because Future Crew only put SBPro support > > in the demo. There is NO SB-16 support. So even though I may have a > > SB-16, I still have to put up with 22kHz sampling. 256x oversampling > > would have to be incorporated in the demo. It is not. Future Crew > > obviously did not put good SB support into 2nd Reality because they are > > GUS users and threw in the SB stuff so that a wider audience could at > > least have music of some kind. > Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, > with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS > happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. > Thanks for the info. A lot of people were telling me that the demo guys were GUS diehards, so I assumed that Future Crew was the same. BTW, can somene give us the lowdown on what is the "standard" board that the demo guys prefer? -- ======================== Sam eassa@earth.execpc.com ======================== ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 03:30 EET From: Shawn Poulson Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:943] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Paul Kalupnieks wrote: > > Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, > > with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS > > happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. > > The only reason Future Crew was producing SB only stuff was > because there wasn't a GUS card when they started. I think that > they've lost the SB quality they used to have, and pushed more for > the GUS. I don't see why, there are many more SBs, SBpros, and SB- > 16's out there than any Gravis sound card. I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old technology (and it is). -Mr. Data / Continuum ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 00:59 EET From: Cuthalion / Sliced Bread Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:940] Re: Gravis Card[s] > Second reality "SUCK"s on a SB because Future Crew only put SBPro support > in the demo. There is NO SB-16 support. So even though I may have a > SB-16, I still have to put up with 22kHz sampling. 256x oversampling > would have to be incorporated in the demo. It is not. Future Crew > obviously did not put good SB support into 2nd Reality because they are > GUS users and threw in the SB stuff so that a wider audience could at > least have music of some kind. Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 00:53 EET From: andrewm@io.org (Andrew McCallum) Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:939] Re: Argh. New motherboard, new problems >Hi ! > >I had the same problem. Once upon a time my GUS burned up, since this time >I'm having no problems :-( Burned? Like, fire? :) >> :)). All (or most) of my other porgrams seem to work okay, but when I go to >> a graphical screen in iPLAY, it crashes but the music keeps playing. Anyone > >only sample view (F4) worked fine Yeah, same here. >> have any suggestions? It seems to be only with iPLAY. > >Any change in Advanced BIOS SETUP ? New mainboard ? GUSMAX ? SB ;-) ? Yeah, I'm changing the BIOS setup all the time to get my netcards to work, but it's AMI bios like my old motherboard. --- .oOo............. Andrew McCallum = Mental Floss [KFMF] ...........oOo. .oO andrewm@io.org Music: ftp:freedom.wit.com/klf/songs/artists/andrewm Oo. oO http://www.io.org/~andrewm/me.html Fon: 905.884.3739 Fax: 905.508.1527 Oo. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 04:53 EET From: Cuthalion / Sliced Bread Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:945] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Hussam Eassa wrote: > Thanks for the info. A lot of people were telling me that the demo guys > were GUS diehards, so I assumed that Future Crew was the same. BTW, can > somene give us the lowdown on what is the "standard" board that the demo > guys prefer? Actually, most of us democoders (Just getting playback routines working now.. :-/ ) perfer the GUS. For .modfile playback, which virtually all demos do, the GUS is the only card that makes sense. Just because the Future Crew started before the GUS existed does not mean that they aren't huge fans of it. They released an update of Unreal, just to get GUS support in. (It's the only update I've ever seen for a demo that was not just a bugfix.) You will find that FastTracker 2 is designed around a GUS, with bugs in the SB code because none of the members of Triton even have a soundblaster any more. :) But, for modfile playback, and thus, demos, the GUS is definately the card of choice. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 04:59 EET From: Cuthalion / Sliced Bread Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:946] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Shawn Poulson wrote: > > The only reason Future Crew was producing SB only stuff was > > because there wasn't a GUS card when they started. I think that > > they've lost the SB quality they used to have, and pushed more for > > the GUS. I don't see why, there are many more SBs, SBpros, and SB- > > 16's out there than any Gravis sound card. > > I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other > demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old > technology (and it is). No, I think you're wrong. Being a coder, I can tell you, the reason that one would support the GUS only is not to make a point, but because it's a hell of a lot easier and better. Do you see any demos supporting EGA these days? It's not because the demogroups are trying to state that it's out of date! Writing playback routines for the GUS takes virtually no real-time coding skill; you're always going to have enough processing time to keep up. With SB/SBPro/SB16/PAS/Etc, the efficiency of the routines has a MUCH greater impact on their quality and performance. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 04:52 EET From: Cuthalion / Sliced Bread Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:944] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Paul Kalupnieks wrote: > > Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, > > with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS > > happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. > The only reason Future Crew was producing SB only stuff was > because there wasn't a GUS card when they started. I think that > they've lost the SB quality they used to have, and pushed more for > the GUS. I don't see why, there are many more SBs, SBpros, and SB- > 16's out there than any Gravis sound card. Well, that's the correct reason. I strongly doubt that they have any worse SB routines than they ever did, the problems are: 1) Since they support GUS's, they can use more channels, which slows down SB routines. 2) They're probably using the same multi-channel playback routines that they wrote into ST 3.0 (You know, way back when they still had SB's, and didn't release ST. Around the time of Fishtro, I think). Back then, their routines were state-of-the-art. Since then, other people have done better, more thorough optimizations on their sound code, making FC's look shabby by comparason. 3) They ARE still supporting the SB. Most demogroups theesadays are writing GUS-only demos. If the graphics routines are pushing the CPU to the limit (as they often are in Demos), any performance degredation (such as by music) is noticable. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 05:29 EET From: "Paul Kalupnieks" Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:947] Re: Gravis Card[s] > > > Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, > > > with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS > > > happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. > > > > The only reason Future Crew was producing SB only stuff was > > because there wasn't a GUS card when they started. I think that > > they've lost the SB quality they used to have, and pushed more for > > the GUS. I don't see why, there are many more SBs, SBpros, and SB- > > 16's out there than any Gravis sound card. > > I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other > demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old > technology (and it is). > I'd have to agree, even though I own a SB-16... My friend has a GUS, and I think it's amazing. The only thing that drew me to the SB-16 was the industry compatability. Now, I'm into the demo scene, but not enough to make me get a GUS. As long as SB-compats dominate the major market, i'll stick with it. If the GUS goes market standard, then I'll follow it. I think it should, but Creative has a huge head start on who has what. LAWS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING: VIII. Any non-trivial program contains at least one bug. -- -- Paul Kalupnieks -- <| kalupnie@fs2.ucc.on.ca |> ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 06:17 EET From: Juwan Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:948] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Hussam Eassa wrote: > SB-16 is *not* noisy. The SB and SBP have the noise you are talking about. Finally, someone gives a little credit to the SB16. _ ___ _________ | | \ / | _ _ | __| | | | | | | | | | |____| /_\ |_| |_| |_| ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 06:18 EET From: Juwan Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:949] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Cuthalion / Sliced Bread wrote: > > Second reality "SUCK"s on a SB because Future Crew only put SBPro support > > in the demo. There is NO SB-16 support. So even though I may have a > > SB-16, I still have to put up with 22kHz sampling. 256x oversampling > > would have to be incorporated in the demo. It is not. Future Crew > > obviously did not put good SB support into 2nd Reality because they are > > GUS users and threw in the SB stuff so that a wider audience could at > > least have music of some kind. > Hardly. Originally, FC only supported SB. They expanded to GUS, > with Second Reality, and later released a patch to Unreal to make it GUS > happy. But their S3M playback code was originally SB only. He's right on this one. Problem is, it was for the SBPro and the SB, not the SB16. _ ___ _________ | | \ / | _ _ | __| | | | | | | | | | |____| /_\ |_| |_| |_| ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 06:24 EET From: Juwan Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:950] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Hussam Eassa wrote: > Thanks for the info. A lot of people were telling me that the demo guys > were GUS diehards, so I assumed that Future Crew was the same. BTW, can > somene give us the lowdown on what is the "standard" board that the demo Umm, GUS. Most demos are now GUS only, which really really pisses me off. I've already got 2 soundcards, and I'm going to end up having to get three. _ ___ _________ | | \ / | _ _ | __| | | | | | | | | | |____| /_\ |_| |_| |_| ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 07:09 EET From: Juwan Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:951] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Shawn Poulson wrote: > I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other > demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old > technology (and it is). > > -Mr. Data / Continuum I don't think so. Future Crew has continued its support for SB and SBPro even after the GUS for a reason. They know that it was the old standard and they don't want to leave everyone out in the cold. They should be commended. Although making the extra effort to produce SB16 stuff directly would be nice, at least they throw their old SB code in, unlike many other groups. The best ones always do. Trton, Cascada, Iguana, FC, etc... _ ___ _________ | | \ / | _ _ | __| | | | | | | | | | |____| /_\ |_| |_| |_| ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 07:26 EET From: "Jens Puchert" Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:952] Re: Gravis Card[s] In message you write: >On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Hussam Eassa wrote: > >> Thanks for the info. A lot of people were telling me that the demo guys >> were GUS diehards, so I assumed that Future Crew was the same. BTW, can >> somene give us the lowdown on what is the "standard" board that the demo > >Umm, GUS. Most demos are now GUS only, which really really pisses me >off. I've already got 2 soundcards, and I'm going to end up having to >get three. > > _ ___ _________ > | | \ / | _ _ | > __| | | | | | | | | | > |____| /_\ |_| |_| |_| Hehe, I know what it feels like ;-) Jensi ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 10:08 EET From: Paw Peter Larsen Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:953] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Hussam Eassa wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Jan 1995, F. Viktor wrote: > > > > > >+ Will I really notice any difference in the QUALITY of the sound (I realize > > > > > GUS is super-processor-light) when I have a crappy stereo system as is? > > > > > (My SB16 currently plays through the AUX channel on my YORX boombox ..) > > > > > > > > Depends. There's definitely a huge difference in MIDI quality. For wave > > > > playback, your SB16 might actually be better suited than a regular GUS > > > > (not a Max), for modules, you can get about the same quality, but with > > > > much less CPU utilization through the GUS. > > > > > > Really? From what I heard GUS sound for modules destroys SB16 sound for > > > modules when you get modules with over 8 channels. > > > > For wave playback they are the same, the different is in multi channel > > FM playing, like .MOD-s or .S3M-s. ALL of the SB-s (even AWE32) have > ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ > > MODs and S3Ms are digital audio (very similar to .WAV) not FM. FM stuff > is for synthesised instruments (like MIDI) > > > only 2 FM channels which means you have to mix all the channels into 2. > > Inertia Player provides 256xOversampling this provides a bit better > > sound quality on SB cards, but if you want to look at a demo like > > 2nd Reality you can't do Oversampling and since it uses 8 channels > > it will SUCK on an SB. I had an AWE32 to test in Pixel's Studio > > Second reality "SUCK"s on a SB because Future Crew only put SBPro support > in the demo. There is NO SB-16 support. So even though I may have a > SB-16, I still have to put up with 22kHz sampling. 256x oversampling > would have to be incorporated in the demo. It is not. Future Crew > obviously did not put good SB support into 2nd Reality because they are > GUS users and threw in the SB stuff so that a wider audience could at > least have music of some kind. > > > here (vs. GUS/GUSmax) and the only big difference was in .MOD, > > S3M playing. If you have a Pentium or something like this, > > you can use 256xOversampling, but it costs you a lot CPU time. > > See what you will have: > > SB: nearly 50% of CPU (with 256xOvers.) > > about (!) same quality as GUS > > Which SB? the SB and SBPro are 8 bits and chew up more CPU overhead than > the SB or SBP. You don't need a Pentium to use Iplay and 256x even with > 16 Channel S3Ms. I use it all the time on a 486SX/33 and a SB16. I can > even shell out to DOS and do other things while it is playing. > > > GUS: about 0.5% CPU > > good quality (no background noise like HD controllers) > > > > SB-16 is *not* noisy. The SB and SBP have the noise you are talking about. > > ======================== > Sam > eassa@earth.execpc.com > ======================== > > That's funny 'cause my sb16 asp has the noise from my controller l8r pawer stzha094@hp4.cbs.dk ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 10:55 EET From: "Dingo Ruzicka" Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:954] Re: Re[2]: Argh. New motherboard, ASUS AHOY ! > This is not Iplay neither ASUS error! > This is an error from Intel (again)!!!!!!!! everytime shit > Check out the motherboard, if you have an Intel Aries chipset > like in ASUS PVI, it's wrong. > The other Intel chipsets like SaturnII in ASUS SP3G don't have this > error. > There is no error with your GUS or GUSMAX !!! thnx, is it there any possibility to make IPLAY going on our mainboards ? Bye! Dingo. internet: xruzj05@vse.cz fidonet : 2:420/100.226 ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 11:03 EET From: beagle@rupikonna.spt.fi (Mika Peltomaa) Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:955] Re: IPlay > Have you ever tried gmod? it is a 'native' gus mod player that supports > all the formats I can think of. should find it on sunsite. I have gmod, but it plays some modules wrong... ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 12:59 EET From: Cuthalion / Sliced Bread Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:956] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Juwan wrote: > > I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other > > demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old > > technology (and it is). > I don't think so. Future Crew has continued its support for SB and SBPro > even after the GUS for a reason. They know that it was the old standard > and they don't want to leave everyone out in the cold. They should be > commended. Although making the extra effort to produce SB16 stuff > directly would be nice, at least they throw their old SB code in, unlike > many other groups. The best ones always do. Trton, Cascada, Iguana, FC, > etc... It is now debatable whether these groups remain the best. (FC's last release was Second Reality. I've seen several demos that are notably better than it. (Verses comes to mind)) How these older groups (Admittedly, EMF is old too) have been around before GUS's were, and have needed to have good SB code. Most of them haven't thrown out their old code with the advent of the GUS. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 14:50 EET From: darryl.teichroeb@t8000.cuc.ab.ca Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:957] [INERTIA- > > exactly the same principle as the AWE but it don't have such good > > compatability so there HAS to be native mode players.... > > > > Well, the GUS has been around a lot longer than the AWE-32 and it > has a strong following in the demo scene. That's why you see a lot of > programs that support it. The AWE-32 is new and Creative's attitudes > sometimes drive the demo people away. >From what I've heard about the AWE card is to use it's wavetable systhesis with games via general midi you have to use a driver. This is totally absurd since a SB-16 _with_ a wavetable daughtercard is cheaper and does'nt require drivers to work in DOS. It's like Un-Creative Labs took a step backwards with the AWE-32.. IMHO, the GUS is the logical upgrade for a SB(Pro) owner these days. Darryl T. darryl.teichroeb@t8000.cuc.ab.ca ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 15:54 EET From: Schitzo Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:958] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Cuthalion / Sliced Bread wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Juwan wrote: > > > > I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other > > > demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old > > > technology (and it is). > > I don't think so. Future Crew has continued its support for SB and SBPro > > even after the GUS for a reason. They know that it was the old standard > > and they don't want to leave everyone out in the cold. They should be > > commended. Although making the extra effort to produce SB16 stuff > > directly would be nice, at least they throw their old SB code in, unlike > > many other groups. The best ones always do. Trton, Cascada, Iguana, FC, > > etc... > > It is now debatable whether these groups remain the best. (FC's > last release was Second Reality. I've seen several demos that are > notably better than it. (Verses comes to mind)) How these older groups > (Admittedly, EMF is old too) have been around before GUS's were, and have > needed to have good SB code. Most of them haven't thrown out their old > code with the advent of the GUS. Just to let you know ... EMF's "verses" is a GUS only demo. Also, eventhough there is SB/pro support, the holistic demo from cascada, they recommend the GUS for best results. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 17:01 EET From: Andy Steere Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:960] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Paw Peter Larsen wrote: > > SB-16 is *not* noisy. The SB and SBP have the noise you are talking about. > > > That's funny 'cause my sb16 asp has the noise from my controller My experience has been that the SB's (all of them) are not as well shielded from outside RF as they could be. My SB16 doesn't have any noise... because there are no cards in the slots right next to it. Try putting it on one end and leave a blank slot next to it. Video boards seem the worse culprits, and mine is on the opposite end of the card cage. BTW, has anyone here tried a player called "Cubic"? It was released for The Party '94 (beta version) and looks close to a Iplay clone. Only works on SB's (GUS promised), doesn't sound as good (no 256x), but expands on most of the features of Iplay. I'd like to see some of it's features incorporated into Iplay. It's on ftp.cdrom.com in the demos/music/players directory and the file name is CP09.ZIP. It also works in _OS/2_!!! Andy Steere (happy SB16-asp owner) dmislas@clark.umsystem.edu ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 17:16 EET From: "Paul Kalupnieks" Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:961] Re: Gravis Card[s] > > I think they're trying to make a statement like a lot of other > > demo group productions. That the GUS is the way to go and SB is old > > technology (and it is). > > > > -Mr. Data / Continuum > > I don't think so. Future Crew has continued its support for SB and SBPro > even after the GUS for a reason. They know that it was the old standard > and they don't want to leave everyone out in the cold. They should be > commended. Although making the extra effort to produce SB16 stuff > directly would be nice, at least they throw their old SB code in, unlike > many other groups. The best ones always do. Trton, Cascada, Iguana, FC, > etc... Regardless, even if you have a SB, you can get a GUS emulator. It's supposed to be alot like the SB emulator for the Gravis card. I think its called GUSBOS. So even if the demo you wanna watch doesn't directly support SB, you can turn on GUS emulation, and get at least some sound. If some ones tried this, I'd like to know how the sound quality is. Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sure sign he expects to be paid for it. H. L. Menchen -- -- Paul Kalupnieks -- <| kalupnie@fs2.ucc.on.ca |> ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 18:54 EET From: Juwan Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:964] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Schitzo wrote: > > It is now debatable whether these groups remain the best. (FC's > > last release was Second Reality. I've seen several demos that are > > notably better than it. (Verses comes to mind)) How these older groups > > (Admittedly, EMF is old too) have been around before GUS's were, and have > > needed to have good SB code. Most of them haven't thrown out their old > > code with the advent of the GUS. > > Just to let you know ... EMF's "verses" is a GUS only demo. Also, > eventhough there is SB/pro support, the holistic demo from cascada, they > recommend the GUS for best results. I don't know about anyone else, but I thought EMF was a relatively new group. In any case, I don't have the slightest idea, what verses sounds like. What I do know, is that Holistic and Heartquake, IMHO, are better. Maybe it's because I can ehar sound, I dunno. What I do know is that Holistic sounds pretty damn good with an SB16. _ ___ _________ | | \ / | _ _ | __| | | | | | | | | | |____| /_\ |_| |_| |_| ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 20:01 EET From: Andy Steere Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:967] Re: Cubic Player On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Hussam Eassa wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Andy Steere wrote: > > BTW, has anyone here tried a player called "Cubic"? > > I used it a little. It has several problems. [snip] I'm not saying people should switch to Cubic (though in OS/2, Iplay isn't an option). I too am spoiled by IPLAY and Mod4Win and agree with all your points about it, except for number of control keys. Once you learn them, they are no big deal. The extra keys control options that Iplay doesn't have (but should, IMO). It's very obvious the author has used Iplay and tried to expand upon it. I don't have Cubic on my machine here at work... but I'll write up tonight something on what features it has that I would like to see added to Iplay (the reason for the note). Give it another look with that in mind. Andy Steere dmislas@clark.umsystem.edu ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 19:55 EET From: Bryce Penberthy Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:966] Re: Gravis Card[s] > > I don't know about anyone else, but I thought EMF was a relatively new > group. In any case, I don't have the slightest idea, what verses sounds > like. What I do know, is that Holistic and Heartquake, IMHO, are > better. Maybe it's because I can ehar sound, I dunno. What I do know is > that Holistic sounds pretty damn good with an SB16. > Actually EMF is a fairly old group that started in 1991 (I think). A little trivia here: Any demo-musician knows of Purple Motion, but did anyone know that he really started with EMF? ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 19:35 EET From: Ashraf Farrag Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:965] Iplay 1.2 and 256x oversampling Hmm....I only thought that dedicated hardware with lots of processing time and plenty of DACs could do stuff like that....when I turn it on while playing a *.mod or *.s3m...it cuts out the higher range of sound and seems to lessen the sound quality. Go figure. In fact....it does not seem to eat up any extra processing time while shelled to DOS.... Maybe everyone just needs to listen a bit closer with it on.... Ashraf Farrag afarrag@isnet.is.wfu.edu ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 16:00 EET From: Schitzo Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:959] Re: [INERTIA- On Wed, 18 Jan 1995 darryl.teichroeb@t8000.cuc.ab.ca wrote: > > > > exactly the same principle as the AWE but it don't have such good > > > compatability so there HAS to be native mode players.... > > > > > > > Well, the GUS has been around a lot longer than the AWE-32 and it > > has a strong following in the demo scene. That's why you see a lot of > > programs that support it. The AWE-32 is new and Creative's attitudes > > sometimes drive the demo people away. > > >From what I've heard about the AWE card is to use it's wavetable systhesis with > games via general midi you have to use a driver. This is totally absurd since a > SB-16 _with_ a wavetable daughtercard is cheaper and does'nt require drivers to > work in DOS. It's like Un-Creative Labs took a step backwards with the AWE-32.. > IMHO, the GUS is the logical upgrade for a SB(Pro) owner these days. my friend bought a SB-16 and then bought the waveblaster. we compared it to the GUS and it paled by comparision (mostly because the sb/wave didn't have chorused instruments). he disliked the waveblaster so much that he went and bought the roland daughtercard to replace the waveblaster. so now he has spent comparably as much money as if he bought an AWE-32. mind you, i don't know if he's satisfied with the new setup (but i believe he is, i hope) ... and we haven't as of yet compared it to the GUS or an AWE32. ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 18:15 EET From: Hussam Eassa Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:962] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Andy Steere wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Paw Peter Larsen wrote: > > BTW, has anyone here tried a player called "Cubic"? It was released for > The Party '94 (beta version) and looks close to a Iplay clone. Only works > on SB's (GUS promised), doesn't sound as good (no 256x), but expands on > most of the features of Iplay. I'd like to see some of it's features > incorporated into Iplay. It's on ftp.cdrom.com in the demos/music/players > directory and the file name is CP09.ZIP. It also works in _OS/2_!!! > I used it a little. It has several problems. The graphical mode seems tailored to the Tsing video chip. My Cirrus powered Speedstar does not support the 640 x 400 mode that Cubic uses. So I get a shrunken graphical screen and text. The other complaint about it is that it has so many control keys that I find myself calling up the help screen too often. Also having used 256x oversampling in Iplay and IDO in MOD4WIN, I'm kinda spoiled. In my book, unless you are running a GUS or an AWE-32 in their native modes, oversampling is a must. -- ======================== Sam eassa@earth.execpc.com ======================== ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 20:07 EET From: Schitzo Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:968] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Juwan wrote: > I don't know about anyone else, but I thought EMF was a relatively new > group. In any case, I don't have the slightest idea, what verses sounds > like. What I do know, is that Holistic and Heartquake, IMHO, are > better. Maybe it's because I can ehar sound, I dunno. What I do know is > that Holistic sounds pretty damn good with an SB16. well ... overall EMF was a better demo then Holistic, haven't check out Heartquake yet, just got it today. but here are the results of asm'94: PC Demo Competition 901 points, Verses by Electromotive Force 726 points, Holistic by Cascada VR-section 413 points, Heartquake by Iguana 363 points, Warp by Legend Design 233 points, Images by Epical 230 points, The Real Thing by Capacala 154 points, Catch Up by Grif 149 points, Silence by Hysteria 144 points, Cosmic Brothers by Complex 135 points, 2 cents by Mental Design 128 points, The Final Option by Phantom Design 117 points, Tempesta by Soft One Productions 115 points, Trekmo by Patrick Aalto 96 points, Uneatable by TC 91 points, Visions of Light by Valhalla 74 points, Fly by Anjovis 61 points, Meltdown by SPA 50 points, Fairy Tale by Styx 49 points, Accident by Axidental 24 points, Dawn by Tai 11 points, The Mo by Demons ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 21:19 EET From: rkornilo@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff) Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:972] Re: Gravis Card[s] > Which SB? the SB and SBPro are 8 bits and chew up more CPU overhead than > the SB or SBP. You don't need a Pentium to use Iplay and 256x even with > 16 Channel S3Ms. I use it all the time on a 486SX/33 and a SB16. I can > even shell out to DOS and do other things while it is playing. > > > GUS: about 0.5% CPU > > good quality (no background noise like HD controllers) > > > > SB-16 is *not* noisy. The SB and SBP have the noise you are talking about. > I'd REALLY like to know your settings.. I took the SB16 ASP back a year and a half ago when it first came oout because the 8bit sound was so noisy and scratchy. They gave me a "fix" that I soon realized turned the trble all th eway down. The problem has not been fixed either, because a friend of mine just got an SB16 multi-CD so he could use his Sound Canvas DB -- the noise it SILL there and HE's thinking abo taking it back too.. -- Ryan Korniloff -- rkornilo@nyx10.cs.du.edu ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 23:25 EET From: Shawn Poulson Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:979] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Ryan Korniloff wrote: > I'd REALLY like to know your settings.. I took the SB16 ASP back a year > and a half ago when it first came oout because the 8bit sound was so > noisy and scratchy. They gave me a "fix" that I soon realized turned the > trble all th eway down. I heard about that, a bug in the SB16 hardware... treble is a MUST for me. -Mr. Data / Continuum ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 23:18 EET From: Shawn Poulson Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:977] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Juwan wrote: > I don't think so. Future Crew has continued its support for SB and SBPro > even after the GUS for a reason. They know that it was the old standard > and they don't want to leave everyone out in the cold. They should be > commended. Although making the extra effort to produce SB16 stuff > directly would be nice, at least they throw their old SB code in, unlike > many other groups. The best ones always do. Trton, Cascada, Iguana, FC, > etc... Well obviously if you have already made a SB player, there's no reason to NOT put it in. -Mr. Data / Continuum ----------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 22:04 EET From: Andy Steere Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:974] Re: Iplay 1.2 and 256x oversampling > Maybe everyone just needs to listen a bit closer with it on.... I have spent many many hours listening and comparing both on and off. Like most noise reduction processes, there is a small hit to the treble. A simple increase of the SB16's treble setting brought it back, minus the buzz and other noises the oversampling took out. My 486/66 doesn't really notice any performance hit from it either. Andy Steere dmislas@clark.umsystem.edu ----------------- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 00:30 EET From: Hussam Eassa Subject: [INERTIA-TALK:981] Re: Gravis Card[s] On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Ryan Korniloff wrote: > > SB-16 is *not* noisy. The SB and SBP have the noise you are talking about. > > > > I'd REALLY like to know your settings.. I took the SB16 ASP back a year > and a half ago when it first came oout because the 8bit sound was so > noisy and scratchy. They gave me a "fix" that I soon realized turned the > trble all th eway down. > > The problem has not been fixed either, because a friend of mine just got > an SB16 multi-CD so he could use his Sound Canvas DB -- the noise it SILL > there and HE's thinking abo taking it back too.. > > See my earlier message. Make sure that you have one the newer SB-16 family of boards and the newest drivers and utils. Here are my settings: SB16 Mixer 2.00 Voice - 90% MIDI - 90% CD - 75% Line - 0% Mike - 0% PC Spkr - 0% Master - 90 % In the output box, only the CD boxes are checked. The Mic and the Line are unchecked. The output gain is at x4 for left & right channels. -- ======================== Sam eassa@earth.execpc.com ======================== -----------------