David W. Fenton wrote:
I am very anti-iTunes for anything other than as a media player
(which I use it for). I won't use it for anything else because I
don't like the choices that have been made for me. For MIDI-to-WAV
conversion it's useless, since it uses the horrid QT instruments.
This is true about Quicktime Instruments, but, seriously, way would you
render a Midi using it?
iTunes does allow you to CHANGE settings. Not sure what you mean by "I
won't use it for anything else because I don't like the choices that
have been made for me." iTunes doesn't encode your files with DRM. That
is totally FUD.
They may be, but I consider that a stupid trend. Systems are moving
towards handing off all the graphics processing to dedicated devices,
so I don't quite understand why the trend in audio is going in the
other direction. There was a time when there was a move to share
video and system memory, but that obviously didn't work out very well
for the new graphics-heavy OS's, so that's ending.
It just makes sense to have a separate device for this and I just
think it's bloody stupid for the industry to try to move towards all-
software synthesis. Soundfonts are great, but they can just as easily
be loaded into the synthesizer card's RAM as into the PC's.
Soundfonts pale in comparison to all the great sample players out there.
And there are cards available that will take some of the audio
processing away from the computer, though its more for plug ins. As
horsepower increases, why do you need a card to handle the task. You
could probably easily run a full 30 piece band using an intel version of
GPO or something, and it would sound more convincing than using soundfonts.
Seriously though, soundfonts are a thing of the 90s.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
