Why is Midiman better than Audigy?

Discussion in 'comp.music.midi' started by Doc, Aug 25, 2003.

  1. Doc

    Doc Guest

    I've read where some say Midiman is superior to Audigy. What does
    Midiman do that Audigy doesn't? Does it give you essentially unlimited
    size of midi patches the way the Audidy does?
  2. >I've read where some say Midiman is superior to Audigy. What does
    >Midiman do that Audigy doesn't? Does it give you essentially unlimited
    >size of midi patches the way the Audidy does?


    You talking about the budget M-Audio sound cards, like the Audiophile?
    And "midi patches" - you mean SoundFonts?

    No, M-Audio cards don't directly support SoundFonts. Though it's easy
    enough to use them in software, with no size limitations.

    What you get by going up-market from a consumer/gamer card is the
    possibility of reliable multi-track audio without being restricted to
    working at 48KHz. You lose a lot of "features".

    CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
  3. Doc

    Doc Guest

    Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9fokkv8rn2dur9hpgeaaq6mf558fdook2k@4ax.com>...
    > >I've read where some say Midiman is superior to Audigy. What does
    > >Midiman do that Audigy doesn't? Does it give you essentially unlimited
    > >size of midi patches the way the Audidy does?

    >
    > You talking about the budget M-Audio sound cards, like the Audiophile?
    > And "midi patches" - you mean SoundFonts?
    >
    > No, M-Audio cards don't directly support SoundFonts. Though it's easy
    > enough to use them in software, with no size limitations.
    >
    > What you get by going up-market from a consumer/gamer card is the
    > possibility of reliable multi-track audio without being restricted to
    > working at 48KHz. You lose a lot of "features".


    By midi patch, I mean midi patch. I was under the assumption that
    Midiman uses some other protocol of its own, but the concept is still
    the same. Using .wav files and storing/editing them in some manner to
    be accessed by a midi device. Soundfonts seem pretty tough to beat
    given how easy it is to create them and tweak them.

    You can do multitrack audio with Sounblaster cards, you just can't
    record more than 2 tracks at once. Not an issue for me at this point.

    It's not clear to me what the ultimate advantage is of working at
    these high rates when they all have to go down to 44.1 eventually.
  4. >By midi patch, I mean midi patch. I was under the assumption that
    >Midiman uses some other protocol of its own, but the concept is still
    >the same. Using .wav files and storing/editing them in some manner to
    >be accessed by a midi device. Soundfonts seem pretty tough to beat
    >given how easy it is to create them and tweak them.


    No, the MidiMan and most other semi-pro and upward cards have no
    onboard sample player. That's a feature of SoundBlaster cards, and a
    good one. Though, as I said, SoundFonts can be played in software,
    and there are other sample players that go beyond the scope of
    SoundFonts with MUCH larger sample sets. SoundFonts have been around
    a long time, when computers weren't powerful enough to run softsynths
    they weren the only game in town.

    >
    >You can do multitrack audio with Sounblaster cards, you just can't
    >record more than 2 tracks at once. Not an issue for me at this point.
    >

    The issue is that SB cards resample everything internally to 48KHz, on
    the fly. When inputting and outputting at the (more useful) 44.1KHz,
    synch between the tracks in a multitrack sequence tends to slip. If
    all your work is cut-and-paste of short samples, this may not be a
    problem. When you come to record (say) a vocal track over the whole
    song, or a live instrument part, you'll find nasty things happening.

    >It's not clear to me what the ultimate advantage is of working at
    >these high rates when they all have to go down to 44.1 eventually.


    The headroom of inputting at 24-bit is nice. I tend to agree with you
    about the small advantage of higher sample rates.

    CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
  5. JB Seattle

    JB Seattle Guest

    One could try downloading a demo of LiveSynth that is a software synth that
    uses soundfonts and simply check it out.
    JB
    "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:if3pkvgrpqb4vmgjvk7cs34mml5r7ojl2i@4ax.com...
    > >By midi patch, I mean midi patch. I was under the assumption that
    > >Midiman uses some other protocol of its own, but the concept is still
    > >the same. Using .wav files and storing/editing them in some manner to
    > >be accessed by a midi device. Soundfonts seem pretty tough to beat
    > >given how easy it is to create them and tweak them.

    >
    > No, the MidiMan and most other semi-pro and upward cards have no
    > onboard sample player. That's a feature of SoundBlaster cards, and a
    > good one. Though, as I said, SoundFonts can be played in software,
    > and there are other sample players that go beyond the scope of
    > SoundFonts with MUCH larger sample sets. SoundFonts have been around
    > a long time, when computers weren't powerful enough to run softsynths
    > they weren the only game in town.
    >
    > >
    > >You can do multitrack audio with Sounblaster cards, you just can't
    > >record more than 2 tracks at once. Not an issue for me at this point.
    > >

    > The issue is that SB cards resample everything internally to 48KHz, on
    > the fly. When inputting and outputting at the (more useful) 44.1KHz,
    > synch between the tracks in a multitrack sequence tends to slip. If
    > all your work is cut-and-paste of short samples, this may not be a
    > problem. When you come to record (say) a vocal track over the whole
    > song, or a live instrument part, you'll find nasty things happening.
    >
    > >It's not clear to me what the ultimate advantage is of working at
    > >these high rates when they all have to go down to 44.1 eventually.

    >
    > The headroom of inputting at 24-bit is nice. I tend to agree with you
    > about the small advantage of higher sample rates.
    >
    > CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
  6. In-Reply-To: <Kfa3b.6093$3E.4108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Lines: 7
    Message-ID: <OAB4b.1657$ZB4.831@reader1.news.jippii.net>
    Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 09:24:31 +0300
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.182.197.18
    X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@saunalahti.com
    X-Trace: reader1.news.jippii.net 1062397358 212.182.197.18 (Mon, 01 Sep 2003 09:22:38 EEST)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 09:22:38 EEST
    Organization: Saunalahti Customer
    Xref: news.newshosting.com comp.music.midi:17714

    JB Seattle wrote:
    > One could try downloading a demo of LiveSynth that is a software synth that
    > uses soundfonts and simply check it out.
    > JB

    ....or why not download my free SynthFont (www.synthfont.com) and try that?
    Kenneth

Share This Page