2 Feb
2004
2 Feb
'04
11:59 a.m.
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, [...] [...] 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).
--
Dominic Genest
Étudiant 3e cycle
Département d'Informatique et de Génie Logiciel
Université Laval
97010111
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