Justin Skists wrote: >David asked: >>What's the chance of doing the oppisite? Taking the raw Midi data and >>creating a Pro/E-Tracker file from it? > >That might be an interesting problem. If my understanding >is correct, Pro/E-Tracker music files are created using >short patterns that are played over-and-over again in >different sequences... Whilst, generally, MIDI files >tend to be like one (or more if Type 1) long stream of >commands. Tho, SAM Sequencer uses the same concept of >patterns, aswell... (Which is why, even though my SMF -> >SAM-Seq converter will be easy enough, a SAM-Seq -> SMF >could turn out to be one hell of an arse-ache!) > >Then again, I don't really know how the SAM versions do >it. Can they cope with just a long pattern per MIDI >track?
No, E-Tracker and ProTracker2 both have a maximum pattern length of 64 notes. Also, MIDI files don't have to be so heavily quantized as whatever-tracker tunes. MIDI files can have many more than 6 notes playing. The MIDI instruments will be very hard to convert easily. It would be extremely difficult to write a converter which produced tracker music which actually sounded good - there's a lot more than just getting the notes in the right place, you also have to get the balance right (eg a strong bass line, usually by playing in parallel octaves, and a melody which stands out from the other tracks, usually by playing with the waveforms enabled) I've done a couple of ProTracker musics based on midi-files myself, and to be honest I don't think a converter routine would ever be able to do as good a job as a creative human. Andrew -- | Andrew Collier | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Talk sense to a | Part 2 NatSci | http://carou.sel.cam.ac.uk/ | fool and he +----------------+-----------------------------+ calls you foolish | Selwyn College Student Computer Support Team | -- Euripides
