issue04

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 34, Issue 04

This issue's topics: Computer wrangling
	
	Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) 
		(11 messages)


Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with 
the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text.
 
The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the 
University of North Carolina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 1991 10:57:13 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper)

[Second attempt at posting...]

>I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the
>week.  The Amiga has much better sound

Huh? What does the "sound" of the machine matter for MIDI? (Given the
general areas of interest on this list, MIDI is the usual working medium.)
Sure, the Mac has trashy sound facilities, but I have no use for them.

>and the software, aside from the computer
>itself, is so much less expensive.

Sure. However, I do believe that you get what you pay for. I admit to
paying a fairly huge amount of money for my system (which is a Mac with two
screens and three hard disks (don't ask)) but it's worth it when it comes
to building a good, high-quality, reliable, environment for sound design,
sequencing, recording and performance.

I have no dispute with your claims that the Amiga is a good machine for the
sort of work you're presumably doing, but only a Mac will do what I need,
and I'm not averse to paying for it.

>Amiga : the infinitasking multimedia machine...

What does "infinitasking" mean? I presume it refers to the Amiga's
preemptive scheduling which sounds nice but for my purposes is largely
irrelevant.

        Nick.

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:32:32 GMT
From:         Ken Morton 
Subject:      Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper)

	I still get a good chuckle when I see Amiga posters talking about
how their computers are better than others for music because of their
"much better sound".  Haha.

	I use a Mac system currently, but I believe the system to watch
is the NeXT - in fact I am in the "paper" stage of developing a music
expression system for it now.  Anyone into music composition/recording
should make it a point to take a look at the NeXT systems in the
coming months.  Sure they're pricey, but as Nick says, you get what
you pay for....


			Regards!

			Ken Morton

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Morton            =    The Universe is Digital!  One sample every
kmorton@panix.com     =                        -42
----------------------=                  1 X 10    seconds!

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 11:42:38 -0500
From:         Dan Riley 
Subject:      Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper)

[Joe, is this "over the line" for computer discussions?]

> 	I still get a good chuckle when I see Amiga posters talking about
> how their computers are better than others for music because of their
> "much better sound".  Haha.

Sure, the 4 8-bit (+6 volume bits) Amiga internal voices don't qualify
for much serious work, but they are handy if you are on a budget.  I'll
admit to using them now and then for a few background voices in situations
where I don't mind the 8-bit grunge, or can effectively mask it.  And
sometimes when I'm in an experimental mood, it can be nice to have a set
of low cost D/A converters that I can beat on directly from a reasonably
powerful cpu.

In general, I think the people advertising the internal voices as a
great feature are people just getting started in e-music, not people
with the serious MIDI rigs typical of this list.  Seems like educating
them and encouraging them would be more enlightening than laughing at
'em.

> 	I use a Mac system currently, but I believe the system to watch
> is the NeXT - in fact I am in the "paper" stage of developing a music
> expression system for it now.  Anyone into music composition/recording
> should make it a point to take a look at the NeXT systems in the
> coming months.  Sure they're pricey, but as Nick says, you get what
> you pay for....

The main advantage of the NeXT, as far as I can tell, is NeXTStep.  The
cost of a DSP board for most other platforms is comparable to the incremental
cost of a NeXT, so I don't see the built-in DSP as a big advantage.  NeXTStep
and Objective C do provide a great environment for prototyping and building
extensible systems, so it makes a natural platform for testing new ideas.

For those of a more practical bent, though, I don't think the NeXT will
displace Macs, IBMs, or even Amigas, as the most viable ideas from research
platforms like the NeXT tend to migrate into production systems on other
platforms.  As examples, you might look at Max on the Macintosh, or
Bars&Pipes on the Amiga (which incorporates ideas from systems like the
Creation Station on the NeXT).

As usual, my conclusion is that different systems have different features;
the smart buyer will list her requirements first and then find the system
that best satisfies those requirements.  The NeXT does look to have a
good chance of becoming the system of choice for cutting edge research,
but there should still be lots of fun toys on other platforms for those
of use with more modest or more practical requirements.

I would be interested in hearing of any advantages to the NeXT specific to
e-music that I may have missed, but let us try to keep the discussion
factual and informative.

-dan

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 12:33:00 EST
From:         wild and crazy organist 
Subject:      computer differences

O.K.  I'll give you all a chance to talk about different computers.
I am in the beginning stages a putting together a MIDI system.  I have
a D-70 as a start.  My next purchase will probably be a computer along
with sequencer software, music printing software, and a good patch editor
package.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of Macs and PC's?
And what software should I look at?  Don't bother mentioning Amiga's, I'm
not interested in one.  And follow Raybro's recently posted guidelines
for talking about computers, I'm looking for data, not opinions.

Thanks
Kirk
tutterow@uncg.bitnet

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 12:46:13 GMT
From:         TOny M 
Subject:      Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper)

In article <1991Nov16.223232.14669@panix.com> kmorton@panix.com (Ken Morton)
writes:
>
>	I still get a good chuckle when I see Amiga posters talking about
>
>how their computers are better than others for music because of their
>"much better sound".  Haha.
>

'Sound' in this context means 'Built in sound-generating hardware' doesn't
it??
I'm sure more or less any machine could have fantastic sound if people
spent huge amounts of dosh on add-on cards, midi setups etc....

-----TOny-----
--
Tony Marshall          |
University of Warwick  |"Haha, and that's where I had you fooled because it's
Coventry UK            |       not a ferret, it's a pig!!" - Vyvyan
esucv@csv.warwick.ac.uk|

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 12:58:03 EST
From:         "Joseph D. McMahon" 
Subject:      Re: Different computers

>
> [Joe, is this "over the line" for computer discussions?]
>
Nope, because you're letting us know about what possibilities exist and
what limitations they have, as well as providing a springboard for
further discussion on what could be done with the hardware in question.
Secondarily, you've gone out of your way to be polite, too.

> Sure, the 4 8-bit (+6 volume bits) Amiga internal voices don't qualify
> for much serious work, but they are handy if you are on a budget.  I'll
> admit to using them now and then for a few background voices in situations
> where I don't mind the 8-bit grunge, or can effectively mask it.  And
> sometimes when I'm in an experimental mood, it can be nice to have a set
> of low cost D/A converters that I can beat on directly from a reasonably
> powerful cpu.
>
Amiga owners: what kind of experimentation have you done? I get the
impression that the sound subsystem has its own independent processor;
this sounds like a wonderful system for experimenting with esoterica like
waveforms generated by using the bit patterns generated by finite-state
automata, etc. Any takers? I'd love to hear more about it, personally; I think
the Amiga folks have a good cheap basis to start hacking from without
having to worry if they've wasted extra money on specialized hardware.
[N.B.: "See? I told you" is not an adequate followup; telling us about
the neat noises you've ben getting and how you use them for your music is.]

> As usual, my conclusion is that different systems have different features;
> the smart buyer will list her requirements first and then find the system
> that best satisfies those requirements.  The NeXT does look to have a
> good chance of becoming the system of choice for cutting edge research,
> but there should still be lots of fun toys on other platforms for those
> of use with more modest or more practical requirements.
>
> I would be interested in hearing of any advantages to the NeXT specific to
> e-music that I may have missed, but let us try to keep the discussion
> factual and informative.
You've pretty much summed it up from my point of view, too; if a 4K RAM
KIM-1 protyping board really trips your triggers and works with your music,
who cares what anybody else has? Unless, of course, you can steal ideas from
them and use them on your system. (and them tell us about what you've
done!)

 --- Joe M.

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1991 21:35:00 GMT
From:         Eric McCormick <0004775674@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Different computers

I have done some playing with the Amiga in the past, and it really sounds
pretty good for 8bit samples.  As I recall, it can sample and playback
in around the 30KHz range.  It has four independent voices and stereo
outputs.  The computer itself has 3 specialized microprocessors for controlling
video, audio, peripherals, etc, and these processors can all access up to
1MB of RAM.  So, you can just pass off a sample to the processor and it goes
and plays it while the computer is free to do other things with its 680x0
microprocessor.

While this is not enough power to use in a professional sampling application,
it should be noted that when the Amiga first came out, this four voice stereo
sampling machine was unlike anything in its class and amazed everyone.  This
was still around the time when the Ensoniq Mirage (8 bit) was very popular
and even in use in professional studios.

I still know people who employ 8 bit samples in conjunction with higher
quality samples because the type of music they do is "industrial" and they
like the "harsh" sounds they can get out of their 8 bit keyboards.  (Some of
you into the underground music scene will know what I mean.)

Straying from the music end of things slightly (while still on the topic of
the Amiga) I would just like to mention that there are products like the
Video Toaster that allow the Amiga to superimpose internal graphics and
animation in broadcast quality to videotape synched to SMPTE.  Someone told
me of a video on MTv that was done using the Amiga but I forget who did it
or what the song was. (Sorry.)

It has been awhile since I've used an Amiga so I may have missed some of
the new technology that is currently available.  Does anyone else out there
have anything to add that I have missed?

      +--------------------------------------------------------------+
      |       |\/\/\/|                                               |
      |       |      |      Eric McCormick                           |
      |       |  \  /|                                               |
      |       | (-)(o)      MCI Telecommunications                   |
      |      C|      _)                                              |
      |      || ,___|___o                                            |
      |       |   /                                                  |
      |      /____\         Internet: 0004775674@MCIMAIL.COM         |
      |     /      \                                                 |
      +--------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------------
Response to:

>> Sure, the 4 8-bit (+6 volume bits) Amiga internal voices don't qualify
>> for much serious work, but they are handy if you are on a budget.  I'll
>> admit to using them now and then for a few background voices in situations
>> where I don't mind the 8-bit grunge, or can effectively mask it.  And
>> sometimes when I'm in an experimental mood, it can be nice to have a set
>> of low cost D/A converters that I can beat on directly from a reasonably
>> powerful cpu.
>>
>Amiga owners: what kind of experimentation have you done? I get the
>impression that the sound subsystem has its own independent processor;
>this sounds like a wonderful system for experimenting with esoterica like
>waveforms generated by using the bit patterns generated by finite-state
>automata, etc. Any takers? I'd love to hear more about it, personally; I think
>the Amiga folks have a good cheap basis to start hacking from without
>having to worry if they've wasted extra money on specialized hardware.
>[N.B.: "See? I told you" is not an adequate followup; telling us about
>the neat noises you've ben getting and how you use them for your music is.]

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 19:34:23 GMT
From:         Ken Morton 
Subject:      Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper)

In <01GD38UH7ACG000P1N@utrcgw.utc.com> RAYBRO%HOLON@UTRC.UTC.COM (RAY
BROHINSKY) writes:

>I have to object to the turn EMUSIC is taking. The recent amiga-mac
>proto-rwar is unnecessary and uninteresting to me, and (I believe)
>to the Emusic community at large. If you wish to indulge in amiga
>or mac bashing, there are groups that love that kind of stuff.

>We were supposed to be talking about electronic music from a theoretical
>and practical view, not nyahhh-nyahhh.

>As an instance, Ken Morton's post (by no means a personal attack on Ken,
>there were others) could have easily stated the limiting parameters
>of the amiga's sound (if he knows), the increase in quality available

	I believe it is 8-bit, four channel sound.  Sampling rate I'm
not quite sure of but it's probably either 22KHz or 44.1KHz.

>from the mac system he uses now (indicating such things as noise, flexibility,
>general cost of software, if he wants to get into nuts and bolts, or
>a more objective observation of the mac's system's qualities from
>a compositional/performance point of view) and even enumerate

	For the mac system I use I of course make no use of the onboard
sound capabilites (8-bit, 22KHz, 4 channel sound (the channels being mixed
in software - I'm using a LC).  I feel the mac system is more mature
than amiga systems, but that is not saying that the hardware is better
(or cheaper - cause is isn't).  But the software availible for the mac is
the real deciding factor.  Take a look at Finale, Performer, Vision (studio
too!), *MAX*...  These applications are much more mature on the Mac, and
are only now being brought up to speed on the IBM side of things.  Amiga,
forget about it.  Though Bars and Pipes has some nice conceptual ideas
behind it.
	As for cost of hardware and software, well I think it comes down
to how much you love your music.  I still stand behind the old adage of
"you get what you pay for".

>some of the things that the NeXt does that make it better still.

	As for the NeXT... well, this is the *machine*!  25Mhz 040
processor, 56k DSP, Mach version of UNIX that will support true
multiprocessing real soon now (It already multitasks of course).
Built in stereo DACs and direct access to the DSP chip.  The GUI
is far and beyond most anything out there.  But the rel clincher is
the development environment.  If, as part of your quest to express yourself
musically, find that commercial software does not hold the answer, the
NeXT is for you.  It can do real-time synthesis, hard-disk recording,
signal anaylsis, etc.  You don't need anything else but a set of speakers
and a input controller.  And once you realize the power of an integrated
music system on the NeXT, you'll find that MIDI reeks of incompetenace.
	The software is not there yet for the NeXT though.  Certainly
nothing like Cubase on the NeXT yet.  But soon, and much more powerful.
But a NeXT system is not cheap, but then again, it is your *music* we are
talking about...

>If I wanted to see blank verse on how good or bad amigas and/or macs
>are, I'd still be subscribed to amiga-relay 8^(
	
	I hate the constant bickering computer users have bout who is better,
etc.  I had made the assumption that the readers of this group knew
their stuff....  On board sound on the Amiga and the Mac is largely a joke -
I don't believe anyone would actually use it for any serious work, and
I thought the people on this group were *serious*.  That' why I cringe
slightly when I see someone posting about the "SoundBlaster" on this
group.  (Boy will I get flamed! :)  I can't take that seriously now.
I can barely take MIDI seriously anymore...

		Regards!

		Ken


>raybro
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Morton            =    The Universe is Digital!  One sample every
kmorton@panix.com     =                        -42
----------------------=                  1 X 10    seconds!

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 1991 19:44:49 GMT
From:         Ken Morton 
Subject:      Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper)

	Just to clarify - I don't really want to discourage any readers
of this list that use Amigas, etc. for creating music.  Perhaps I was
a bit harsh (sorry! :).  I seem to have vivid recollections of how I
used my IIGS for writing music... ah the days when my ears could stand
8-bit sound and really bad alaising distortion... :)

	I simply thought this group was geared towards other things.
But it would be follish to promote anysort of elitist thing on this
group.  Just as long as you know where you stand (and your computer) stand.
:)

	As for the NeXT, I am currently in the paper stages of an integrated
music enviroment that goes way beond the norm.  Not merely a MIDI sequencer,
but a holistic conduit for musical expression and aural composition.
I should have a cube in about two months when I can begin actual codeing.
But for the most part everything is already on paper.  I know my descripting
(tion) is a tad vague, but you'll just have to wait and see.  I'll merely
say that it will be written by a musician/techno freak for a musican/techno
freak.  Should be interesting, no?


				Regards!

				Ken


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Morton            =    The Universe is Digital!  One sample every
kmorton@panix.com     =                        -42
----------------------=                  1 X 10    seconds!

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 1991 11:35:03 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Holy Conduits (Re: Amigas and Macs)

>music enviroment that goes way beond the norm.  Not merely a MIDI sequencer,
>but a holistic conduit for musical expression and aural composition.

"Holistic Conduit" huh? Through which music emerges from the universe of
noise and all that?

Actually, I'm intending to build something of this sort with MAX, since I'm
underimpressed with the state of the art wrt. MIDI environments for live
improvisation and performance (for a number of reasons which I won't go
into now, but it all comes down to the fact that playing individual notes
live on a keyboard ties up too much performance resource for too little
resulting material). The problems are immense: you have to deal with
generic MIDI (notes and controllers) as well as abstractions which let you
talk about the sound generation and alteration of the specific instruments
in ways that you can guide with the performance environment. As my thoughts
on this progress (and I've been thinking about it since 1986) I'll let you
know.

        Nick.

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 25 Nov 1991 18:49:08 -0800
From:         Phil Burk 
Subject:      AMIGA 8 Bit Sound Capabilities and some Pieces


AMIGA 8 Bit Sound Capabilities and some Pieces

This message describes some technical details of the Amiga
8 bit sound capability intended to correct some misinformation
that I have seen posted.  It also discusses some wierd pieces done
that take advantage of its properties.

[I hope this won't be seen as a continuation of computer wars.
It is not intended as such.]

The Amiga provides 4 channels of 8 bit digital audio. The output
is produced by a DMA (memory mover) dedicated to each of the 4 DACs.
The capabilites of the system is best described by looking at the hardware
registers that are used to control the sound.
Each channel has:

	PERIOD = time between samples.  The maximum period
		is 124 which yields a sampling rate of about
		28 khz.  Higher values give a lower sampling
		rate and thus a lower pitch.  You can achieve
		a low pitch and still maintain a high sample rate
		by switching to a longer waveform.

	ADDRESS = starting address for waveform/sample.
		must be in "CHIP RAM" which is accessible
		by the custom processors.  This is 512K, 1Meg
		or 2Meg depending on your Amiga.

	LENGTH = length of waveform, must be even, only 16 bits
		so length must be less then 64K. In software you
		can chain samples for longer times.  I have played
		a 3 minute soundfile from disk.  No real limit here.

	VOLUME = 0 to 64, 0 is silent.  I cannot figure out why
		this is not 0-63, or 0-127.

There is also a register that turns on and off the DMA for each
channel.  You can also modulate one channel by its neighbor.
The neighbor can specify volume, 0-64, or period.  These can
be used to generate cheap envelopes or vibrato.  In practice
the modulation tends not to be used because you have to give up audio
on that channel and you can usually do the same thing with
interrupts. An interrupt can be generated, if desired,
when the DMA registers have latched their inputs and are ready
for the next set of values.  This is used for chaining samples.


I happen to love the Amiga but I will try to address the good and bad
aspects of the sound as objectively as possible.

8 bits - not great when compared to the 12 to 16 which we are now spoiled
by.  In games, or cheap applications, they sound better than gated
square waves which is what many PCs had before this. Musically
they don't sound too bad in a mix with other instruments but I
haven't thrown out my MIDI gear.

Variable Sampling Rate - this is a complicated issue.  Most systems
nowadays have a fixed sample rate, CDs use 44.1 khz.  To play a waveform
using a fixed sample rate you have to vary the amount you move through the
waveform for each sample.  To get a certain pitch out of a 32 byte
waveform you might have to jump by 2.9713 bytes for each sample.
This can create some strange artifacts as you sweep the frequency
of an oscillator.  Interpolating between bytes can eliminate most of that.
With a variable sample rate oscillator, this problem is eliminated
because you always play each byte, never in between them.  The result
is that it sounds better than you might think. (But still not great).

THEN WHAT GOOD IS IT?

Well obviously for games and cheap drum programs its pretty nice,
but there are actually some real fun things that can be done
in the way of experimental music.

The best thing about the Amiga sound is that you have very DIRECT
control from the 68000 processor.  You can change waveform addresses
and periods so fast that you can create some very interesting timbres.
You can write algorithms that grind away on a waveform while you
are playing it so that you hear a continuous effect.  This is difficult
to do with MIDI based samplers that are restricted to sample dump.
[That was not a flame.]  Robert Marsanyi and Nick Didkovsky
have written pieces that do unusual synthesis, eg. granular,
using HMSL.  Nick has also written a piece that
connects 4 Amigas in a network where performers vote
on the timbre using a lottery system.  The winners spectrum
is used to generate a waveform using an inverse FFT and played on
one of the 4 channels.  John Bischoff has written pieces that
involve extremely rapid manipulation of samples captured live.

The Amiga also provides a fairly good system for experimentation
involving intonation.  Larry Polansky used HMSL to write a piece
that evolved from a complex tuning involving 17 as its highest
number, eg. 13/17 15/8, to a simpler tuning.  As the piece
evolved, the waveforms also became less twisted and eventually
ended up as sine waves.  He is now working on a piece that
does live processing of audio based on his mutation
algorithms described at the 1991 ICMC in MOntreal.

To summarize, I find the Amiga great for pieces involving
fast direct manipulation of sound and where extremely high
fidelity is not required.  Of course it does MIDI too
but it has not been as well supported by the software
industry so there is nothing like Vision from the Mac.
Then again it can output directly to a VCR so for video,
oops I'm slipping into computer wars!!
I'd better stop here.

Phil Burk, Center for Contemporary Music, Mills College
phil@mills.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:53:49 EST
From:         Jon Crystal 
Subject:      Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper

I could use some advice on two counts. Owning a PC, and not wanting just yet
to make the major investment in a Mac, I'm thinking of buying the top of the
line Voyetra sequencer and their new interface (about $260 combined). Any
thoughts on this low cost solution? Secondly, exactly how much more can the
JLCooper Nexus plus do than the simple Nexus patchbay. I need one or the other,
and can't decide between them. Thanks in advance for any help.

                                                            Jon

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:58:00 EST
From:         KINGD@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper

I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the
week.  The Amiga has much better sound and the software, aside from the computer

itself, is so much less expensive.  An Amiga 500P with 1MB RAM and a midi
interface would run all of $450 if you go to the right places, and for $270 more

and stereo RGB monitor.  The software available is incredible inexpensive for
the price also.  DMCS(Deluxe music construction set) run $65 or so and the least

expensive professional quality software Dr. T's runs around $250.  Now doesn't
that sound better?  The compatibility is there also because of the wide range of

PD patches, there are very few keyboards that are not supported.  I run a PD
sequencer program known as MED and the amount of instruments you can use is
limited only by RAM, and currently I can use 15 26K+ samples.  Well, I hope that

I can save yet another from the vile clutches of the Macintosh illusion.

Amiga : the infinitasking multimedia machine...

Doug King

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:34:56 MST
From:         Adam Schabtach 
Subject:      Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper

> I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of
 the
> week.  The Amiga has much better sound and the software, aside from the
 computer

I disagree.

True, the Amiga has better internal sound generators than the Mac, and has
more software available to support this hardware. However, there is much,
much more MIDI software for the Mac than the Amiga. If my memory serves me,
the author of the posting that started this thread was interested in MIDI
software and hardware, rather than sound synthesizers internal to computers.
There is relatively little MIDI software available for the Amiga, and the
number of programs available seems not to be growing.

(Although I do not own an Amiga, I have paid some attention to the
MIDI software market for the Amiga for several years, and know three
musicians who use Amigas. Two of them are planning to get rid of their
Amigas to purchase other systems, due to the lack of MIDI software.)

--Adam

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 1991 18:39:14 -0500
From:         Dan Riley 
Subject:      Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper

>I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the
>week.  The Amiga has much better sound and the software, aside from the
 computer
>itself, is so much less expensive.

*sigh*.  "My computer is better than your computer" does not belong on
emusic-l.  Please.

As far as the Amiga goes, there is a limited choice of MIDI software
available for the machine.  If that software happens to do what you
want, then it is a nice machine.  I happen to own an Amiga that I run
Bars&Pipes Pro on, and rather like it, but that certainly doesn't mean
that I don't occasionally find myself lusting after a friends Mac IIx
with MOTU Performer and Digidesign ProTools.

One more thing, while I'm at it:
>The software available is incredible inexpensive for
>the price also.  DMCS(Deluxe music construction set) run $65 or so

and is buggy, and essentially unsupported (EA has so far refused to upgrade
the Amiga version, or even fix the blatant bugs).  Get what you pay for, I
guess...

-dan

------------------------------
End of the EMUSIC-L Digest
******************************