MID vs MOD - WAS : Re: [linux-audio-dev] ".mid" files playing in Linux games

[Dominic Genest]

> > It's a bit
> >like the difference between LaTeX and Word. Midi files describe the
> > intention of the composer, not the extension. The one who listens to the
> > music will choose to pay or not for a quality playback. And he might even
> > be able to make it sound better than the composer has ever heard it.
>
> I'm not sure MIDI or MOD makes any difference to the composer's
> intention, [...]

I'm not sure we're using the same the meaning of the word "intention".
Extension :  The state of a work that is more directly interpretable by human 
senses.
Intension : A state in which the word is rather closer to the idea behind, and 
which still needs to be processed before one can have the sensible 
experience.

Example #1 :
"The musical scores of J.S. Bach's well tempered clavier" are more 
INTENTION-oriented. One of many possible extensions of this could be "Glen 
Gould's CD record of J.S Bach's well tempered clavier".

Example #2 :
Intention : The text : "An apple" (.TXT file) .
Extension : The drawing of an apple in GIF format.

I just wanted to point out that one important difference between MIDI and 
other sound formats brings out debates that are very similar to LaTeX vs DOC, 
or many other file formats paradigms.

Thus, I would not say that MOD is the right choice if you need to have quality 
playback. I would rather say that MOD is the right choice if you need to be 
in total control of how it will sound everywhere.

Besides, purists will argue that the "cheap sound card output" could be a test 
to determine whether music is art or just candy. Remember some video games 
music on old consoles. There were many songs that were played on very cheap 
triangular waves or stuff like that, and they were so good that now (mostly 
japanese) people do orchestrations of those old video games songs. Not 
surprising they were often inspired from great classical composers (Dragon 
Warrior 1 theme is probably inspired from Debussy's "Passepied" !).

Dom

> [...] but the issue of playback quality is crucial here. The MOD
> file includes its sound sources, so it will sound the same every time.
> If the sound quality is critical to an app I'd go with the MOD file. If
> the sound is utterly incidental and can be rendered as well  by an OPL3
> as by TiMidity (and I don't mean "sounds as good as", I'm merely
> referencing implementation), then MIDI is the way to go. However, it's
> also worth noting that in either instance an embedded player is
> required, which in Linux is typically playmidi or TiMidity for MIDI,
> MikMod for MOD files (though there are alternative MOD player libs now).
>
> >I also think MOD files would be better if they were MIDI standards plus
> >patches or something, but I think that MIDI is too much associated, in the
> >minds of people, to cheap FM chips like Yamaha OPL3.
>
> I suppose this is true for late-comers to electroacoustic music. Those
> of us "persons of a certain age group" who own a considerable amount of
> external MIDI gear would heartily disagree with your assessment. ;)
>  Btw, you can certainly use a GM patch set as sound sources for MOD, but
> again, the quality of your patch set will be a permanent aspect of the
> audio output.
>
> Another consideration: If the designer wants to use MIDI he must probe
> for either an existing patch set or a hardware MIDI synthesizer, then
> configure itself accordingly (or be configured by a dialog when setting
> up the app).
>
> Someone else wrote:
> >>> .mod seems a bit limiting to me... If your samples are too large they
> >>>drag a bit, files get huge, etc. I don't think I've actually played one
> >>>since about 1994 or so though and that was on my 486/25. :} I could very
> >>>well be mistaken.
>
> Umm, yes, considerable innovation throughout the computer industry has
> occurred since then... ;-)
>
> But that message does raise the point: higher quality samples almost
> inevitably require more storage space, so again the question of weight
> is raised. In the end, the real issue is the relative importance of the
> music in the app. If it's incidental tunes or riffs, then it's no big
> deal. Anything more important may in fact run the risk of
> misrepresentation via someone's sub-par MIDI system.
>
> Btw, I find it interesting that so many users identify MIDI with a
> soundcard capability. Of course the spec was designed originally for
> external gear, and that's still my first association. Don't get me
> wrong, I *like* having a MIDI-aware synth on-board my soundcard, but
> I've yet to hear one that can compete with the gear in my rack.
> Processing helps a lot, but it's still tough for a single chip to beat
> what amounts to an entire machine dedicated to digital sound synthesis.
>
> Best,
>
> dp

-- 
Dominic Genest
Étudiant 3e cycle
Département d'Informatique et de Génie Logiciel
Université Laval
97010111