GUS Daily Digest Thu, 13 Jan 94 0:07 Volume 10: Issue 13 Today's Topics: 3d files to wav format 3 Questions A good memory source. Doom and OS/2 revisited. Doom under OS/2 ( ie. does DOS + DOS = OS/2?) Gus mixer GUS Mixer, the GF1, and WaveTable Synth HIRED GUNS by Psygnosis: 3D? Is there a Band-in-a-Box that will work the GUS??? Mailing lists. MicroProse Bashes the GUS Mod4Win and WinModPro Mod and Windows Qs orchhit Os2 & Ultrasound message2 PatchDir PatchDir, SB PatchDir to Hell Problems with SBOS and DUNE I SB + GUS, BLASTER question Should I swith to v2.06a? Sim City 2K doesn't work on my system Sound Blaster and GUS Standard Info: - Meta-info about the GUS can be found at the end of the Digest. - Before you ask a question, please READ THE FAQ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:42:11 GMT-0800 From: ferris@mezzanine.mse.arizona.edu (Bob Ferris) Subject: 3d files to wav format Who Ever Can Help, I was wondering if anyone knows how to take a sound file that is rendered in one direction and then store that sound file as a wav. This is important as not every one has an Ultrasound board. This way soundblaster people can also enjoy enjoy 3d sounds. Thanks, Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 06:36:46 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Gelinas Subject: 3 Questions This is my first letter to the digest so forgive me for any format error. As the subject says I have 3 unrelated questions I need answered. 1) Does the Gravis record properly from a standard RCA jack? reason: A friend of mine came over with his portable and we plugged his CD-out directly into the gus to perform some samples using USS8 unfortunately the VU meters kept on peeking. Since it is direct there is no way we could control the volume.. 2) Where can I get the 16bit recording daughtercard, and how much does it cost. I live in montreal and cannot find any place that sells this. 3) Unlike most other people.... I want to use patches in my mod files. How exactly would I go about going from a patch to a file suitable to be used by a tracker. reason: I have no musical knowledge whatsoever, therefore I cannot program midi files, but using a tracker I can easily compose music. Thanks in advance. Daniel Gelinas gelinas@cam.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 16:48:14 -0800 (PST) From: Don Munsil Subject: A good memory source. Subject: GUS Memory Found. Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard Organization: The Munsil/Stone Organization Summary: Keywords: Quite a few friends of mine just bought GUSes recently and had trouble finding the memory at a good price and in stock. I called around and found that, in fact, 256k DRAMs are running about $7 most places, and some places don't have any. In any event, the best place I personally could find was JDR Microdevices, with 80ns Fast Page mode 256kx4 DRAM for $5.25 a chip, plus $5 shipping ($7.50 2nd Day Air). I thought that was quite reasonable. Anyone else is welcome to suggest other places. I am not in any way affiliated with JDR. Numbers: 800-538-5000 408-559-1200 Hope this helps someone. --Don BTW, I bought my own memory from Memory Express some time ago. They were fine, and the price was reasonable. They're out of stock right now, but the number is 800-877-8188 or 818-333-6389 for future reference. ******************************************************** * Don Munsil * If you open your mind too far, * * dmunsil@netcom.com * people will throw trash in it. * ******************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 09:59:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "By this time, my lungs were aching for air" Subject: Doom and OS/2 revisited. Thanks to Robert Manley, who had the answer that nobody else on the net seemed to know. On that, I'll serve myself a big slice of humble pie. **************************************************************************** * * * Goldschlager- because you can't puke a Rolex.... * * * **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 16:48:16 -0600 From: Don Eller Subject: Re: Doom under OS/2 ( ie. does DOS + DOS = OS/2?) > From tay2.dec.com!dantonio@uunet.uu.net Wed Jan 12 09:09:52 1994 > To: Don Eller > Subject: Re: Doom under OS/2 ( ie. does DOS + DOS = OS/2?) > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 14:09:52 -0500 > From: "Momentary language, sexual situations" > X-Mts: smtp > Content-Length: 4057 > > > > Yet again another staunch believer in OS/2 that seems to believe that > > if a program won't run under OS/2's DOS window, than it won't run > > under DOS either. > > Whoa! Having read both the original message and your reply twice (to make > sure I din't miss anything), I gotta ask you where you got this conclusion? > The person clearly stated that IT DOESN'T WORK UNDER OS/2 AND THE GUS IS > THE PROBLEM. They said nothing about it not working under DOS. > Yes, I did assume he didn't try to run DOOM under DOS since I know from experience that it does. I have also learned from experience that when someone has trouble running a DOS application under OS/2 if you ask them if they tried to run it under DOS they typically have not. Assuming that DOS emulation under OS/2 is perfect, and therefore if it fails it should probably exhibit the same failure under DOS. Also from experience I know that OS/2's emulation of DOS is not perfect and that you can find DOS applications, like DOOM, that work fine, (although sometimes you still have to know the right configuration) but fail to work correctly (or the same) under OS/2's DOS emulation. For the record, when the finger was pointed at the GUS for failure to provide digital sound effects for DOOM, it was not clear if he was indicating a hardware fault or a driver fault. One must assume it is not a hardware fault unless we are to assume that there a versions of Ultrasound cards that work differently for digital output under DOOM. I estimate this as a slim possibility, so I would go after version of drivers or configuration differences from those of us who have gotten it to work with both music and digital effects. To help him narrow this down, I simply suggested he try to emulate more closely the environment that DOOM is known to work in, simply put run it under DOS. That is how experienced trouble shooters diagnose problems, we try to eliminate differences between what works and what doesn't to focus on those factors which play a role. > > Why don't you try running DOOM under DOS, I think that although this > > is not a trivial task to get the environment correct (ie interrupts, > > correct DOOM setup file), if you've been following along like I have, > > you should be able to get this to work, including digital effects. > > Everything seems to work fine under DOS after you duplicate the > > environment that Doom was tested in. > > Perhaps because they don't have DOS on their machine? Or they can't > duplicate the environment? For example, I have DR DOS on my machine (in > addition to OS/2) and I truly doubt they tested DOOM under DR DOS. > I don't recall reading in the DOOM documentation that they tested their product under OS/2 or DR DOS. If they did you've got a point, if not I don't see that this is much different than complaining that DOOM doesn't run properly with Borlands sidekick installed. I'm sure you could find hundreds of configurations where Doom doesn't run, and I'm sure that the developer would be interested if it is a common configuration, as most people who read the digest. If it is not a common configuration, you probably need to realized that problems will appear. > > I empathize with you that IBM should not have "guaranteed" full DOS > > compatibility with OS/2 since DOS applications and drivers have always > > assumed that they are in full control of the PC's hardware. It should > > come as no surprise that when this rule is violated, such as OS/2, > > that unexpected problems arise, since this is not the environment that > > DOS applications are designed for. > > I've had quite alot of success with OS/2 runing things that I can't run > (for whatever reason, usually memory) under DOS or under Windows NT. In any > case, Id tested DOOM under OS/2 (in a DOS box) and says that it works. So > the problem is the GUS, not DOOM or OS/2. > I concede that you might have had lots of success with OS/2 when you couldn't get them to work with DOS, but I've heard this story before from people who were not using some of the new tricks in DOS 6. They found OS/2 gave them better DOS environments (memory wise) that DOS 5, and haven't bothered to continue their education with DOS after going to OS/2. I disagree with your point that since ID stated to test DOOM with OS/2 in a DOS box, and it worked, that the GUS has a problem. I've seen this points raised from DOS users also, even after reading for the upteenth time that digital effects will not work with an IRQ's set too high, it invariably turns out the the person was ignorant to this fact and sheepily admits later that setting IRQ to 7 fixed the problem. If you've been following the posts for long, you're sure to have noticed this. I'm sure that if ID were contacted to get the exact configuration used for testing DOOM under OS/2, and you configured your setup as such, DOOM would work! If an application that uses hardware works correctly under DOS, and doesn't under OS/2, how can you conclude that it is the hardware's fault? Or are you pointing your finger at the hardware's device drivers? Either way it sounds like a configuration issue, not a hardware problem. > > I also, agree that Gravis should state whether that have any firm > > committment to OS/2 and not leave OS/2 users waiting for something > > which may never arrive. But you should understand, that nowhere on > > the GUS package, did it state support for OS/2 (or future support). > > Gravis has stated many times they WILL support OS/2. Of course, they've > also stated at various times that they WON'T. So it's not clear by any > means. I've seen this same behavior from most application developers. I think it may have something to do with developers perception of the most commonly used environment being DOS with Windows and not OS/2. I wonder where they got this idea from. Maybe they read the same surveys that I've read. Or better yet maybe they've tried to do some development under OS/2 and found out that like the Mac, it isn't possible easily port their software to run in native mode, and the DOS box isn't 100% compatible like I've suggested. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that OS/2 isn't technically superior to DOS/Windows, just that the current installed base isn't sufficient to build a strong case for everything that exist's to be ported to it yet. When native OS/2 support for Ultrasound comes along, I'm sure some really nice applications will appears that those of us in DOS and Windows cannot run, or won't run as well. But I don't see why you'd expect Gravis to have as many people working on OS/2 support as DOS/Windows support! BTW - I haven't tried it, but I'm fairly sure DOOM wouldn't run in a DOS window under Windows either. But windows users just bite the bullet and exit to DOS when this happens. One of OS/2 greatest strengths, protecting the user from DOS applications, may turn out to be one of its greatest weaknesses. > > > OS/2 is still not seen as a mainstream > > environment by most people that develop hardware and software for > > PC's. Note Wordperfect dropping development efforts of Wordperfect > > for OS/2. Lotus is the only large software vendor I can think of that > > trys to support may OS's and platforms. Even Microsoft, which it > > would seem could afford to offer support for other platforms, has > > chosen to only support MAC's (System 7) and PC's (Windows only). > > Microsoft isn't really interested in helping OS/2, since it a direct > competition for both DOS/Windows and Windows NT. As for WordPerfect, last I > heard they are indeed supporting OS/2 as are a number of other companies. > But this is the GUS Digest, not comp.os.os2.advocacy. > You may be right on this point as Microsoft does make WAY more money on operating systems and their upgrades than on applications, but if Microsoft really had faith in their strategy, they should see some benefit in picking up the cash in the application starved OS/2 environment. This show of good faith toward a competitor might even grant them more warm fuzzies toward their users about cross platform support, and not having to relearn applications when companies decide to more users to a new hardware platform. I know that this is one of the things we use to evaluate applications for purchasing at our company. > > Now where do you think Gravis should draw the line for supporting the > > GUS? Should they be expected to make it work under Solaris for Intel, > > Poweropen, etc. Careful now, the next two years could double the > > possible OS's to support for Intel platforms. Yes, I see that OS/2 is > > starting to go beyond the niche market with an installed base of a > > couple million, and sure this base will most likely grow more quickly, > > due to what was released as Windows NT and forecasted delay's in > > Microsoft "Chicago" OS. But lets be realistic and compare it to the > > installed base of over 50 million users of Microsoft Windows. > > They should provide support for OS/2 as a marketing move to sell > soundcards. OS/2 is indeed mainstream and they are missing a number of > users (who regularly post to OS/2 groups saying they like the GUS and > wondering if it is supported). When they find it's not (or that the support > is 3rd party, if any), they usually buy a competitor's card. > Their are more MACS than PC's running OS/2. I just heard that the 15th Million Mac was sold. It would seem to me that Gravis would have Forte build them a Mac version of the Ultrasound it would buy them more marketshare than supporting OS/2. Perhaps that is where funding got diverted. > BTW, given the recent review of "Chicago", it will suffer (as Windows NT as > suffered) from lack of drivers and/or applications and poor DOS support. Alas, I think this is that fate of all new OS's. How can you fix some of the really bad things about DOS, without messing up compatibility with DOS applications. Of course new OS's cannot have guaranteed working drivers and applications until the design of the OS is frozen. In todays environment, this means a month after the latest beta version is found to be bug free by more than half the beta testers. The experience of Windows tells us that it took Microsoft nearly 7 years and three major revisions before it achieved major acceptance by users and developers. The vote is still out on OS/2, but so far it is close to 5 years, in its second major revision, and still has not reached critical mass(es). (grin) I agree that if IBM hangs in there another couple of years and provides that next major revision, OS/2 may just take over the DOS/Windows environment. It is just too early to tell, and there are new players coming every year, and this is just the Intel platform. Factor in the other platforms here now and those coming and there is going to be a further dividing of marketshare. The resulting confusion to users is also causing many users to stay with DOS/Windows even longer than most of us support people would like to see it. But remember, to users, a computer is just a fancy desktop decoration without applications that they can use, and users can only be pulled along a little at a time. Most throw horrendous tirades when asked to switch applications, no matter how much superior in features, easy of use, etc. Most people don't want change or progress that they didn't ask for. I know this from experience, because this has been my life for the last eight years. > Whereas, OS/2 is already "up and running" as the ads say... True, but running what? The built-in app's that came with it! There are still few major business application vendors with good OS/2 products. Most could only do a poor job of porting existing Windows applications that frequently run slower in the OS/2 environment. Say's something about their development environment, doesn't it? > > DDA > Please forgive my longwinded response, and my posting it to the digest. I felt many people could benefit from the discussions of the issues presented here. I for one will sadly remain with my outdated DOS/Windows environment until a clear winner emerges, I like Gravis am just not sure who'll win. I'd give IBM a really fighting chance with two contenders, but sometimes this just divides your supporters so that Microsoft might win, even with a product inferior to OS/2 or Poweropen. I still believe that the victory will be won in the business world, this is why Apple has had such a long uphill battle with a clearly superior platform. It has taken many vendors several years collaborating on standards like VESA, etc. to try and turn the Intel platform into something as powerful and sophisticated. Don Eller Internet: d.eller@medtronic.com Instruments PC/Network Support UUCP: uunet!medtron!de7043 Medtronic, Inc. AT&T: (612) 574-4916 7000 Central Ave NE. T408 Minneapolis, MN 55432 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:02:58 -0500 (EST) From: dionf@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Francois Dion) Subject: Gus mixer First, this is a question for the gus-MUSIC list, not gus-GENERAL. > From: bsteinf@eis.calstate.edu (Burke Steinfelt) > Subject: GUS Mixer, the GF1, and WaveTable Synth > > I find it unusual that the GUS doesn't have Treble, Bass, Mic, and possibly > other mixing level controls like PAS's and SBP's(?). Is there a reason these > controls weren't included in the GF1? These controls would be external to the GF1 in any case. Now the reason why there is no treble and bass is because these controls inside a computer add a lot of noise (PAS and SBPros have very low SNR. The PAS has a SNR 15dB lower than the GUS). As for the mic and line in levels, well they are on the daughterboard, which is for people who want to record quality samples on the GUS. The included 8 bit recording on the GUS was included for MPC compatibility and for speech recognition (and with the ALC on the mic input, this is enough). > Regarding WaveTable Synthesis... > > It's known that when you have a sample recorded at a certain frequency, you > play it back at that frequency to hear the sound as it was recorded. But > when you play it back at a different rate, higher or lower, the sound > speeds up or slows down, respectively, and the sound becomes quite distorted > the further away from the original frequency you recorded it at. This is why you use several samples to cover the range of the instrument you sample (which is never C0-A8 for real instruments btw). 7 samples are usually enough to cover the range of a typical instrument like a piano or guitar and the result is quite good. > Since time compress/expand features are included into Wave editors, why not > have it built into the GUS hardware? Because that would mean a totally different concept and it would mean to scrap the GF1 and do something else. >It should be realtime like other >filters, and enable looping portions of a sound to sound the same on each note >as it does on the middle key note, in addition to the sound being played back >at the same speed on all notes. It is more flexible to use the current scheme as this permit you to use time compress/expand if you want, to generate more samples. >Alas, this wouldn't be useful for making voices sound like The Chipmunks, >but hey, it would be NiCE to enable for instruments and F/X. To do this, you >would use the ratio between the "original" note and the "new" note to time >compress (if its a lower note) or time expand (if its a higher note) to make >the sound play back at the same speed, but different pitch. The duration will be kept but the range is not that great because you introduce distortion in either direction. You would still need about the same quantity of samples and get only marginally better sound. Take note that the harmonics on real instruments are not at the same ratio at different notes, so this part would not improve. >I don't know how feasable this would be, since everyone would need an upgrade >if this actually happened (yeah, right.) but I would atleast like to see a >software attempt at this. (Attn: ASM programmers! :) Not in real time without a DSP. In non real time however check out cool editor (and i hope you have a 486...) Ciao, -- Francois Dion ' _ _ _ CISM (_) (_) _) FM Montreal , Canada Email: CISM@ERE.UMontreal.CA (_) / . _) 10000 Watts Telephone no: (514) 343-7511 _______________________________________________________________________________ Audio-C-DJ-Fractals-Future-Label-Multimedia-Music-Radio-Rave-Video-VR-Volvo-... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 14:27:10 +1030 (CST) From: Gavin Subject: Re: GUS Mixer, the GF1, and WaveTable Synth bsteinf@eis.calstate.edu (Burke Steinfelt) writes... >I find it unusual that the GUS doesn't have Treble, Bass, Mic, and possibly >other mixing level controls like PAS's and SBP's(?). But I've never seen any professional synth with these controls or even a CD player with bass/treble. As any audiophile will tell you flat frequency response is what you're looking for. > ...when you play it back at a different rate, higher or lower, the sound > speeds up or slows down, respectively, and the sound becomes quite distorted > the further away from the original frequency you recorded it at. 'layering' is supposed to help this somewhat, eg. sample once per octave or something like that. Check out acguit.zip at epas in ..../sound/patches/files. >I'm interested in hearing any other new ideas for GUS synthesis, or whatever >too. You may get a better response in the GUS music digest. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 17:16:04 EST From: Greg Subject: HIRED GUNS by Psygnosis: 3D? The following was written in the most recent issue of PC Entertainment: "Psygnosis has released 'Hired Guns', the first game to take advantage of Gravis' 3D Holographic Sound. The Ultrasound's 3D sound effect are stunning, and should make for a much more realistic gaming experience." I know that 'Hired Guns' has been released for the Amiga, and I think the PC version will be out soon. BUT can anyone confirm if the game will really support the Ultrasound in 3D. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 05:15:23 PST From: ud907@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Christopher L. Mackay) Subject: Is there a Band-in-a-Box that will work the GUS??? I recently acquired a copy of Band-in-a-Box from a friend, and am quite impressed with it. However, it's getting annoying when ever I start Windows and want to use BB(Band-in-a-box), and have to go into the GUS' patch manager, and manually load all the patches into my GUS' 1024k memory. Is there a version Band-in-a-box that supports Windows MCI(?) function? From what I understand, MCI would allow an application to be 'scripted'. Thus, BB would load up the necessary patches into the GUS memory when it starts up. Am I even close? I'd sure appreciate any help you could give me on either question. Thanks in advance. -- Chris Mackay | "Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, Victoria Freenet Association | do it. Boldness has genius, power, and ud907@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | magic in it - Goethe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 15:59:20 -0500 (EST) From: m8088044@llohio.ll.pbs.org (Fred Coffey) Subject: Mailing lists. Fellow GUSsers: What I'm about to say probably doesn't follow net.ethics, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the GUS, (which, bye the way has been my soundcard of choice for the past 2 years or so, the sound is excellent, and I'm going to bump the RAM up to 1 MB this weekend.)but this is my only way of reaching a large audience of people that know (most of the time) what they're talking about. I'm looking for more mailing list groups like this one, on mostly computers, networking, etc. If you have list, mail it to me. My address should be in the header above. Thanks a million! For anyone thinking of flaming me, go right ahead, but DON'T do it on the digest, do it privately, it's much for fun that way. :) No more bandwith needs to be wasted ... Fred -- Fred Coffey | Sandusky, Ohio | PGP Public Key Available Upon Request m8088044@llohio.ll.pbs.org | "....for the world is hollow and I have touched the sky...." -- Star Trek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:00:38 -0500 From: David Demski Subject: MicroProse Bashes the GUS I was calling Micro Prose BBS the other day and decided to look in the message base to see if any one was talking about the GUS. To my suprise there was a fair amount of discussion. Unfortunatlly the GUS owners were being shot down left and right. Every time any one asked about GUS support a Microprose Rep. tld them that they won't support it now and that its not their faught that they won't. I felt that it would be a good idea to log some of these attacks on GUS and share them with every one on the digest. If any one out there would like to reply to any Micro's comments just mail me with them and I'll be glad to send them to them. You can mail me at the_gonz@access.digex.com . Here are a few of the comments made by Micro Prose Reps: -> and should I get a Gravis Ultrasound (returning my SB Pro) for better -> music and sounds if microprose will support this? I wouldn't recommend it right now. There is still precious little support for the GUS in the industry while SB is considered the standard. If you still play a lot of older games, the GUS's SB emulation is poor at best, don't count on it. You can always add the WaveBlaster, which sounds every bit as good as a GUS or you could switch to the new MediaVision PAS16XL with wavetable synthesis and full SB compatibility. The combo of an SB16 and Roland SCC-1 is about the best you can do, though it is a little pricey. -> Thanks for your message regarding the Gravis Ultrasound (Advanced, -> that is.:P ) I have heard buzzchat about the Gravis being easier to -> program as opposed to the Sound Blaster, and other cards. -> Is this true? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The originator of these rumors was either Gravis or someone who has never programmed. If you have space to link all Gravis's library code, and only need to playback standard MIDI files, it may not be that hard, but doing anything else involves a considerable amount of programming. God help you if you need to do your own patch management! -> I am the the very happy owner of many MPS games however, I must s -> that I am very disappointed by the lack of support for the Gravis -> Ultra-Sound sound board. While the GUS can sound good, there still are relatively few of them out there compared to other sound cards. Creative ships more Sound Blasters in two weeks than Gravis shipped GUS's all last year. -> This wonderful sound board is on the cutting edge of sound board -> technology. The GUS uses wave table synthesis to achieve 16 bit 44.4 -> Mhz CD quality sound. There are a dozen boards with better specs out these days, even if the GUS is the cheapest. -> It uses RAM cacheing (as opposed to ROM) to get almost unlimited -> sound and digital effects. A side effect of RAM caching is also uncontrollable pauses whenever the music needs a new sound. -> In addition to the wonderful sound, Advanced Gravis has done a gr -> deal to make it easy for programmers to use the GUS. A free develope They only make it easy if you can use their extremely inefficient and large drivers. They have been extremely slow to give us the hardware details we require. -> Many other companies are supporting or have GUS support planned f -> the GUS; Sierra, Id, Epic, Accolade, Lucas Arts, Impressions, and -> Westwood Studios, to name a few. I know that Microprose, like many -> other software developers have limited resources but the GUS is a gre -> new technology that warrants a serious look. Almost all of these companies are supporting the GUS only in a General MIDI mode. Since all of our games now support General MIDI for music and Sound Blaster (or other cards) for digitized sounds, you can use the new MegaEm software from Gravis for GUS support. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 08:11:41 -0500 From: "Michael Grant Wilson" Subject: Mod4Win and WinModPro Thanks to , I finally clue'ed in that the GUS only does stereo at exact multiples of 11025. So, for Mod4Win if you edit the mod4win.ini file to have a multiple of 11025 as the sample rate and set the number of channels to 2, it will play correctly in stereo. Similarly, if you configure the sample rate for WinModPro to be a multiple of 11025 and turn on stereo, it too will work. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 15:23:48 EST From: Chad Smith Subject: Mod and Windows Qs Hello GUS Masters. I have a couple of question for those more informed than myself. First, does anyone know which FTP sites have the MODUS mod player for the GUS and Windows? Second, the sound quality of playback through Windows for mod and midi files is inferior to that of DOS. I am using MOD4WIN, MidiSurfer, and the Media Player for PB in Win. I just use the GUS mod and midi players in DOS. I'm pretty sure all my software is the latest ver. Anyone have any suggestion as to why this is so? My GUS hardware is ver. 2.4, is this the problem? One more thing is anyone having trouble with MOD4WIN hanging when selecting Stereo playback for frequencies >11k? Thanks for your help!=-) ----------------------------------- = OCdt. Chad Smith = = Royal Military College of Canada = = Kingston, Ontario = = EMail Addr - s19915@rmc.ca = ----------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 11:37:46 -0500 (EST) From: dionf@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Francois Dion) Subject: orchhit First, this is a question for the gus-MUSIC list, not gus-GENERAL. > From: Yossi Oren > Subject: Dumb, dumb, dumb! (wrong patch trouble) > > Hello fellow GUSsers! > I have just installed the 2.06a patches (wow! mega sound!) and I got > strange sound out of some MIDIs with Orchestra Hits - namely, > passport.mid and freaker. mid. I opened orchhit.pat with PMak, and > lo! The dwoozles put a MAJOR hit, not a MINOR hit! The whole IDEA of > Orchestra Hits is to make a minor chord! Maybe i remember wrong, but the SCC is a major hit too. And that works just great for most GM/GS songs that use the orchestral hit like dasboot.mid (604-dasb.mid is another name for it). It is the same hit as in the real song made by U96. One hit that is lame however is the brass section. They use something called hitbrass.pat. Now, this is not a brass hit, and doesn't sound like a brass section. The sound used in Close encounter of the third kind IS a brass hit. I have one in the hits.zip file i had uploaded to epas (but it seems to have vanished once again...) Ciao, -- Francois Dion ' _ _ _ CISM (_) (_) _) FM Montreal , Canada Email: CISM@ERE.UMontreal.CA (_) / . _) 10000 Watts Telephone no: (514) 343-7511 _______________________________________________________________________________ Audio-C-DJ-Fractals-Future-Label-Multimedia-Music-Radio-Rave-Video-VR-Volvo-... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 08:49 EST From: BERNIE3@vms.cis.pitt.edu Subject: Os2 & Ultrasound message2 #1 12-JAN-1994 08:38:19.10 NEWMAIL X-Vms-To: IN%"ultrasound%itchy@dsd.es.com" I am interested in buying an Ultrasound board. Will it work with OS2? Will it work with WINOS2? Do you have drivers for OS2? Would SBOS have to be run for OS2? I'd like to know these answers before I make my buying decision. Thanks for your help. Be of good cheer. John