I know how trackers work. The reason I haven't used them much is that there are probably better ways of sequencing. My argument ( and one often cited ) is that it is too much like programming a video than making music.

quote: but you get a better result.

Do you? Surely the result is gonna be similar whether you are using a MOD or sequencing MIDI to an external synth. In this case, ease of use is paramount, and in this respect MODs fall down.

quote: Impulse Tracker is a DOS program

I'm still not seeing any reason to recommend IT above ModPlug. DOS programs are notoriously picky about hardware, and I'm guessing ( although I could be wrong ) that exotic soundcards ( ie, the type used by pro musicians ) won't be supported. Also, DOS means no possible integration with VST, DirectShow plugins, ASIO, Windows MIDI etc.

Edited by - Colin Barry on October 16, 2001 4:23:32 AM

Really must download the newest version of ModPlug and give it another go...

Out of interest, does ModPlug ( or any tracker ) feature decent MIDI functionality. Could I, for example, input patterns using an external MIDI keyboard in real-time? Could I articulate filter sweeps with a MIDI controller, and have them converted to explicit values? How exactly does the translation between MOD and MIDI work? MOD''s contain a lot of features that would be difficult to implement in a MIDI sequence, such as retrigger and glissando.

I''d like to a tracker-style program with a decent sequencer ( piano roll type, no ''columns'' or ''ticks'' ) but contains all source samples internally, a la MOD.

Impulse TRacker has MIDI in/out capabilities, and is FAR better to use than ModPlug, which has a disgusting interface IMO.

And the result of a MOD is much better than MIDI if you use high quality samples; MIDI is so limited, and generally don''t include all the little nuances and frills that you can achieve in a tracker - e.g. I have yet to hear a REALISTIC sounding MIDI electric guitar, where in a Tracker, you can sample your own guitar and use that in a any way you want.

True, this can be accomplished in progs like Cubase and others, but that means that your file is no longer MIDI - you have to write to a WAV or MP3

Almost all tracked work thaht I have heard has outgunned MIDI work that I have heard. trackers also are more of a production tool as well - MIDI is quite limited as to the options that you can have, where with a tracker you can do anything you want to the sample in a wave editor first.

And IT has quite a lot of good support for soundcards, and as such, all you need is an SB-16 compatible thing, and you''re away. I still run my AWE32s and 64s in SB16 mode when running IT.

You''re confusing MIDI ( generic protocol for communication between two devices ) with the plinky FM sounds that soundcards use for MIDI playback. They are two different things. Admittedly, some soundcard MIDI samples are dire, but this is the fault of the soundcard and is in no way indicative of the restrictions of MIDI. MOD vs MIDI is essentially a pointless argument; different formats for different uses. But only one of them will integrate into a modern studio Don''t get me wrong - I am fully aware of the limitations of MIDI, and am certainly not anti-MOD, but, for the way I work MIDI serves my purpose a lot better. A better argument would be MOD vs Microsofts DLS ...

quote: MIDI is so limited, and generally don''t include all the little nuances and frills that you can achieve in a tracker

Trust me, you get a hell of a lot of control under MIDI, much more than any MOD format. With MODs you are ( as far as I understand it ) limited to either a single or at most two ''control parameter'' per channel. Want to have a volume and filter envelope on a channel? Tough - doesn''t support it. MIDI gives you 128 control parameters which can be routed to anything. Want to automate the pulsewidth of an oscillator whilst controlling the modulator amplitude in an FM instrument? Easy under MIDI. And don''t forget MIDIs very high resolution timing.

quote: I have yet to hear a REALISTIC sounding MIDI electric guitar, where in a Tracker, you can sample your own guitar and use that in a any way you want.

True, this can be accomplished in progs like Cubase and others, but that means that your file is no longer MIDI - you have to write to a WAV or MP3

But this is how professionals use MIDIs. Whereas with a MOD format you get it all in one, MIDI sequencers serve only as a sequencer - all sources are generated externally. With a sampler ( and free software ones are available ) you can sample your own guitar and use it. You could also route controls into it to add real-time vibrato and time-varying envelope functions, or any other function you like.

quote: Almost all tracked work thaht I have heard has outgunned MIDI work that I have heard.

Depends what you class as MIDI. If you mean .mid files played over a soundblaster 16 with onboard FM, sure - MOD will sound better. But if you mean which works that have used MIDI - which probably covers 95% of all songs recorded nowadays, from Aphex Twin to Brittney Spears - then you are wrong.

Just downloaded both IT and ModPlug. The latest version of ModPlug seems to support both VST plugins and ASIO drivers - reason enough to recommend it. However, it seems that in ''the community'' IT is always the recommended tracker. AxeSlash, any idea why this is the case? I just can''t see any benefit in using a four year old DOS program over a nice compatible tightly integrated Win32 solution.

The biggest benefit of MOD over MIDI is the price. For nothing, you can get a fully-featured music production application. This is ideal for beginners to get started, but in the long run you WILL hit the limitations of it and turn to MIDI. Sure, there are a few professionals still using MOD''s, but they are in the minority.

I''ve been playing around with ogg, and the sound quality for low bitrate files (64k, 80k) is much better than MP3 files. It seems to take much longer to encode them, however. It''s hard to tell, but I think that files at 128kb sound slightly better under ogg, but at 160kb I can''t really hear a difference on my cheesey PC speakers.


http://www.vorbis.com

quote: ITs are capable of 64 channels, which MIDI if I recall can only do if you have 4 notes on each of it's 16 channels

Not true. There are no such limitations of the MIDI protocol. Polyphony varies between synth, although 64 seems to be about the average. The limitations I spoke off were to do with the amount of control parameters per channel. I could be wrong, but would it be possible to, for example, set panning, retrigger and volume all on the same channel?

quote: it seems for me that 20 is about the ideal amount of channels to use.

Agreed, just because you have x amount of polyphony, doesn't mean you need to use it. The polyphony therefore is no real limitation. Besides, you can chain a number of MIDI devices and stack up the polyphony if so required. When you do pitch bends with midi, it's by note, Not quite right, but certainly a good point. GM instruments by default have a pitch of bend of +-2 semitones, but any synth worth its salt will enable you too amend this. It is not unreasonable to perform 3 octave pitch bends a la MOD. Remember, GM Instruments != Extent of MIDI.

quote: It's all software additive synthesis, so you can still support legacy hardware and not have to tell your users SBLIVE+16MEG SOUNDFONT ONLY

True, but as I said, I am not aware of any professional musicians who use the built in FM Blaster on their soundcard. In this respect, if you are distributing music over the net then MOD will be superior. It is impossible to reliably transmit MIDI files and expect it to sound okay, simply because most users don't have access to a Proteus or JV-1080. But I am not aware of any people who DO distribute .mid files - what is the point when you can ogg up a composition to 1Meg.

quote: Unfortunately though, I'm going to get an argument about how nobody who matters still uses old hardware, so I'll go back to my unimportant shelf of forgotten sound and video cards.

Sorry - As I said, the main advantage of the MOD format is that you can get it up and running for free and not worry about having to spend a fortune on soundcards, sequencers and synths. But you could extend the argument to say nobody who matters uses old processors; I'm guessing that to play a 64 channel track MOD at 44KHz with effects uses a hell of a lot of processing power. For my approach, the MOD format is just abstracted from musical terms. And I am aware of the quality of some MODs ( Unreal springs to mind ), but for me, I'm gonna be using MIDI until something better comes along ( like KARMA. ) In any case, its nice to have a bit of a debate on the music board

Edited by - Colin Barry on October 17, 2001 4:44:31 AM