issue03

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 59, Issue 03

This issue's topics:
	
	Dr. T's Beyond (10 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:         Sun, 12 Dec 1993 11:10:59 EST
From:         JOHN ALBERT PINION 
Subject:      Dr. T's Beyond

Just thought this was interesting:  When sequencing with Dr. T's
Beyond 2.0 (under system 7.1) (on a Performa 200/(Classic II)), leaving
the Memory window top-most (selected) (under Windows menu),
Beyond allows background processing (I am listening to it while
typeing this, logged onto our Vax, now.)  Otherwise, changing programs stops
Beyond.  Do other sequencers do background processing?

Does anyone else have any interesting experience or tips for using Beyond?

John P.

------------------------------
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1993 12:35:01 -0500
From:         William Matthews 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

Well, for me, Beyond 2.1 on a Quadra 700 under System 7.1 seems to crash
the whole machine when I so much as try to move another window on the
screen.  Hmmmm.  Have I done something wrong?  The program M, however, is
running in the background as I type this to OUR mainframe.

Yrs,
        Bill Matthews
        wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1993 17:58:05 -0500
From:         not Robert 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

> Just thought this was interesting:  When sequencing with Dr. T's
> Beyond 2.0 (under system 7.1) (on a Performa 200/(Classic II)), leaving
> the Memory window top-most (selected) (under Windows menu),
> Beyond allows background processing (I am listening to it while
> typeing this, logged onto our Vax, now.)  Otherwise, changing programs stops
> Beyond.  Do other sequencers do background processing?

Cubase, which beyond is heavily based on, does, as does Vision... as far
as i know, Performer is the only purportedly good Mac sequencer that
cannot (or so i'm told by a friend / performer fan who of course added,
"why would you want your sequencer to run in the background?" duh) ;-)


bobby

i find that vision will slack on the midi clocks if a screen saver is
running but the actual note output remains sync'd
--

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1993 10:52:38 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

>Performer is the only purportedly good Mac sequencer that
>cannot

Yes it can. It's nothing to do with the sequencer, it's all to do with the
mess over arbitration and sharing of the port hardware. Given a
multi-client MIDI system, there's no problem.

                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1993 12:40:37 -0500
From:         not Robert 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

> >Performer is the only purportedly good Mac sequencer that
> >cannot (run sequences in the background)
>
> Yes it can. It's nothing to do with the sequencer, it's all to do with the
> mess over arbitration and sharing of the port hardware. Given a
> multi-client MIDI system, there's no problem.

pardon my french, but, what the *(&%^$ are you talking about?

please, define "multi-client MIDI system" 'cuz as far as i know we are
talking about 1 user and 1 Macintosh CPU, not a mac network or a mac full
of radius rockets or similar multi-CPU setups and the question is if one
can run other applications in the foreground without affecting the sequencer's
playback by simply switching applications via standard sys 7.1 techniques:
the Finder menu or clicking on another apps' window

so, either you can switch to another app or not and the person who wrote
the message did it with Beyond, i do it with Vision and i've been told be
a Performer owner and salesman that Performer does not.

if it does, a simple, "version XXX does" would be an appropriate response.
--

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1993 14:49:39 EST
From:         JOHN ALBERT PINION 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

Since I started this all, I wanted to comment that Beyond 2.3 seems to
play sequences in the background ONLY if the Memory window is uppermost.
I could not get the demo version of Beyond 3.? to play in the background
at all.  I was not using Apple's Midi-Manager either time, but I think this
doesn't matter.

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1993 14:39:19 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

>pardon my french, but, what the *(&%^$ are you talking about?

Pardon me: some explanation for the hard-of-thinking:

>please, define "multi-client MIDI system" 'cuz as far as i know we are
>talking about 1 user and 1 Macintosh CPU, not a mac network or a mac full
>of radius rockets or similar multi-CPU setups

You don't know what a "client" is: I'll tell you. A client is something
which requires services. a Multi-client system is one which can offer
services to several clients at once. In the Mac world, MacTCP is a good
example: incoming mail, outgoing mail, news, FTP at the same time from
different applications.

>if it does, a simple, "version XXX does" would be an appropriate response.

Wrong. A simple "version XXX does" would be inappropriate. If a sequencer
is running under MIDI Manager or OMS (which is multi-client (see above))
then there is no contention with other programs and it can happily run as a
background task without any change in functionality. If it's *not* running
under such a system then it's talking to the hardware directly. In such a
case the program is expected to release control of the hardware when going
to the background in case some other application wants to use it (in the
foreground). Hence, a sequencer cannot run in the background; it cannot
require access to the hardware.

So there isn't a simple answer to your question. How about asking a more
intelligent question?

                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1993 11:02:53 EST
From:         JOHN ALBERT PINION 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

Nick,
I asked the question, but didn't write the flame.
Thanks for the info!
John Pinion

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1993 15:31:41 -0500
From:         not Robert 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

> >if it does, a simple, "version XXX does" would be an appropriate response.
>
> Wrong. A simple "version XXX does" would be inappropriate. If a sequencer
> is running under MIDI Manager or OMS (which is multi-client (see above))
> then there is no contention with other programs and it can happily run as a
> background task without any change in functionality. If it's *not* running
> under such a system then it's talking to the hardware directly. In such a
> case the program is expected to release control of the hardware when going
> to the background in case some other application wants to use it (in the
> foreground). Hence, a sequencer cannot run in the background; it cannot
> require access to the hardware.
>
> So there isn't a simple answer to your question. How about asking a more
> intelligent question?


why don't we talk about scheduling algorithms and semaphores while we're
at it?  i'm sure you've impressed all readers with your vociferous
response. congradulations. unfortunately, all anyone else really cared
about was which sequencers will continue to play in the background -- the
Finder *user* definition as in, the program whose icon is showing at the
upper right corner of the screen in the menu bar is in the foreground, all
others are in the background -- the simple minded definition that we all
use in day to day speech. you know, like, "printing in the background" gosh,
we're so intellectually vacant your brain must hurt thinking down to our
level... please, accept my apology

bobby

ps
  to the other readers: i think cubase will play in the background, too --
the demo at the store seemed to have such an option. sorry for my stupid
questions and answers
--

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1993 16:36:16 -0600
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Re: Dr. T's Beyond

>
> > >if it does, a simple, "version XXX does" would be an appropriate response.
> >
> > Wrong. A simple "version XXX does" would be inappropriate. If a sequencer
> > is running under MIDI Manager or OMS (which is multi-client (see above))
> > then there is no contention with other programs and it can happily run as a
> > background task without any change in functionality. If it's *not* running
> > under such a system then it's talking to the hardware directly. In such a
> > case the program is expected to release control of the hardware when going
> > to the background in case some other application wants to use it (in the
> > foreground). Hence, a sequencer cannot run in the background; it cannot
> > require access to the hardware.
> >
> > So there isn't a simple answer to your question. How about asking a more
> > intelligent question?
>
>
> why don't we talk about scheduling algorithms and semaphores while we're
> at it?  i'm sure you've impressed all readers with your vociferous
> response. congradulations. unfortunately, all anyone else really cared
> about was which sequencers will continue to play in the background -- the
> Finder *user* definition as in, the program whose icon is showing at the
> upper right corner of the screen in the menu bar is in the foreground, all
> others are in the background -- the simple minded definition that we all
> use in day to day speech. you know, like, "printing in the background" gosh,
> we're so intellectually vacant your brain must hurt thinking down to our
> level... please, accept my apology
>
> bobby
>
> ps
>   to the other readers: i think cubase will play in the background, too --
> the demo at the store seemed to have such an option. sorry for my stupid
> questions and answers

I don't think that Nick's answer was techno-babble. A simple version number or
simply sasying it's not the foreground application will not do with that the
garbage one has to dig through to get OMS or MidiManager to work with other
applications in the same environment. Just because you can get it to it it one
way doesn't mean that it'll work with another combination. And i still can't
get Appletalk to go away, damn it...


--
Arne F. Claassen                 |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4
     | E pluribus Moo"  | Mac Centris 650
              |                  |

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