Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canyon.mid

canyonmid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 214 posts

Re: Canyon.mid

#41

Post by ksherlock »

layer8 wrote: post #2

The Zip drive in the picture feels slightly anachronistic though. Technically it isn’t, having been release a few months before Windows 95, but still.

The Tandy 1000 RSX had a 386SX. The 386SX was a lower cost, 16-bit data bus version. Windows 95 minimum requirements were a 386DX (32-bit data bus) or better with a 486 recommended. Here's an excerpt from the comp.sys.tandy FAQ. If nothing else, read the second paragraph.

* III.C.1. Can I run Windows on my 1000?

...

The RLX's can run Windows 3.1 in standard mode only, if they have the RAM upgraded to 1M. The RLX just barely meets the minimum hardware require- ments for Windows 3.1, however, and performance will be poor. Windows will not recognize the built-in mouse (see section II.G.2.). One user says of Windows 3.1 on the 1000RLX:

Windows' performance is tolerable on a 486DX2/66. I like it on the RLX because I can start a program, go to the bathroom, and when I come back only have to wait a few minutes before I can actually use the #@$% thing.

The RSX's can run Windows 3.1 (or 3.11) in 386 enhanced mode if the memory has been upgraded to 2M or more. There is a Windows sound driver for the RSX's built-in sound at my ftp/WWW site and at Tandy's support WWW site (see sections IV.B.1. and IV.B.2.).

Tandy does not officially support the use of Windows on any model of the 1000-series. The RSX's could theoretically run Windows 95, but Microsoft does not recommend Win95 for 386's.

Re: Canyon.mid

#42

Post by MPSimmons »

layer8 wrote: post #27
Dwedit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zip Drives began as Parallel Port devices, and PCs had parallel ports since the beginning. It's not like it's a USB device or something like that.

I don’t think that’s a good counterargument. For example, an Olympus P-330 dye-sublimation photo printer from 1998 also uses a parallel port, but would nevertheless seem out of place for the Windows 3.11 era.

I mean... to be super honest, I was there, and 1998 was ALSO Windows 3.1 era. The future is not evenly distributed and a TON of people in 1998 still had Windows 3.1 as their daily driver. Windows 95 was a big big thing but a lot of people waited out of choice or necessity. 4MB of RAM was hard to come by for a lot of computers.

Re: Canyon.mid

#43

Post by echelon »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #22
api wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apps shouldn’t even have local volume controls. It’s an OS function.

I do not want to have to go hunt down the app in a list of all currently running apps in some os-level mixer to turn down or up one app. It is absolutely both an os and an app function. Both are needed.

It's a problem because the OS doesn't mandate control. If every app had to function via OS volume controls and APIs, the world would be a wonderful place.

Truly first-class audio with sublime control plane ergonomics.

That'll never happen since any random app developer can just multiply audio volume by a float in whatever API and attach their own unique take on a slider. I'll merit the cases where you need to have individual level and channel controls, such as editing software and professional music tools, but most apps are not these.

It's times like this when I do appreciate Apple's dictatorial take on things, though even they could not win this fight.

Re: Canyon.mid

#44

Post by brudgers »

sotix wrote: post #33
Disposal8433 wrote: post #7

You remind me that I didn't have a sound card at the time and I played all my games (mostly LucasArts) with the PC speaker. For me, the MIDI versions are too boring as they lack the "raw electric power" of the speaker that I loved for years.

What exactly was the difference between PC speakers and MIDI? Why do we no longer need a MIDI device today to play the “correct” sound?

Speakers (and rooms) have their own unique acoustical properties (e.g. distortion, frequency response, etc.). Also it matters where your ears are.

Finally, “high fidelity” is not a synonym for “musical.”

Re: Canyon.mid

#45

Post by brudgers »

badc0ffee wrote: post #38
sotix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly was the difference between PC speakers and MIDI? Why do we no longer need a MIDI device today to play the “correct” sound?

The PC speaker could only play square waves, and had only one voice. There is no "correct" sound for a MIDI file as it's just note and tempo data. But many people probably associate them with the OPL2 synthesizer chip on AdLib and early SoundBlaster cards. [1] Now that we have high fidelity digital sound output on even the cheapest computers/devices, at least 44 kHz, at least two channels, and at least 16 bits per sa…

There is no "correct" sound for a MIDI file

In the case of canyon.mid there is because it was composed for a specific midi instrument with a particular set of timbres.

Or to put it another way, it’s music and therefore complicated.

Re: Canyon.mid

#47

Post by tgv »

If you like that kind of thing: manufacturers used to create demo songs for synth keyboards and modules:

* Emu Proteus 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5FffG_0sqw

* Emu Proteus 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4KW9uWCY3A

* Roland MT-32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdSKg5G9MPc&t=22s

* Roland D-10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXGdyp7Ml-Y

* Roland SC-33: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as_jVNIvleI (complete with MIDI animation)

* Yamaha MU100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BL_RzeWDxg (1 hour!)

Etc. Don't know if they still do, but it was a thing when these "romplers" came on the market.

Re: Canyon.mid

#48

Post by seba_dos1 »

rtkwe wrote: post #36
p1mrx wrote: post #11

I'm slightly impressed that the video (3.4 MB) is only 100 times larger than the original MIDI (33 kB)

That's probably mostly audio too given the vido is a 95% static screen. That has to encode to basically nothing.

It's 2/3 audio and 1/3 video - 1.1MB.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, most video codecs aren't tremendously efficient with static screens.

Re: Canyon.mid

#49

Post by eminence32 »

I remember this media player from back in the day :)

Looking at it now, I love how they used a scroll bar as the UI widget to represent playback progress.

Post reply on HN