Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!philip
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: Once again, questions concerning the ensoniq chip...
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.221627.24547@utstat.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Statistics
References: <m0jXFPu-00007ZC@jartel.info.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 22:16:27 GMT

In article <m0jXFPu-00007ZC@jartel.info.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes:

[stuff dealing with the AA, GS sound, 12bit,8bit,4bit,etc...]

>though, after all the Ensoniq does only 8-bits, but it's still much better than
>any other computer when comes to sound... with the exception of the NeXT which
>does 16-bit CD quality audio.

I have both a GS and a NeXT(cube/040). There is this issue of digital
versus synthesized sound. I have yet to hear anything on the NeXT that
comes anywhere near the quality of some of the sounds coming out of
Diversi-Tune. Digitized sounds take up enormous space and use a lot of
RAM. It would seem to me that MIDI( using the Ensoniq's midi mode) is a
far better way to store musical sounds at least, and as for digitized
sounds, one would be better off (I think, not sure here) storing the
Fourier coefficients of the decomposition rather than the whole waveform.
Somehow I have this feeling that digitizing is simply not the way to go,
not only for music but also for other forms of sound.

The NeXT has a demo program called Ensemble which uses up an enormous
amount of RAM(it keeps crashing on my 16meg cube). It will play back
midi files. It's nowhere near as good as Diversi-Tune.

The PC's now have this M-Sound device which attaches to the || port
and uses a DSP chip. It would be interesting to compare it to the
8 bit Mac digitized way of handling sound.

Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.utoronto.ca

