stevepoole wrote:Hi Wietz,
Perhaps you could define exacty what performance you expect to get from a QL music tracker?
The QL only has one speaker, so unless you use square-waves, you can only BEEP one double note at a time. (Square waves are rough on the ear).
If you are hoping for precise durations, graphical interfaces are impractical. So, better to use Data statements for input, especially for games use !
You can use any of my own code you wish, (See : fastStave6_bas.zip on this forum). Still undergoing slight development....
Good luck with your project : I will download your code tomorrow and take a close look at it.
Steve.
_____________________
Hi Steve,
Im not sure if we understand each other. The context of the tracker is to compose music (sounds?, on a stock machine) to go with demos. Within the demoscene we are very used to the actual chip sounds of oldschool machines
, so no worries there.
My tracker is just a tool to wrap around the QL sound capabilities. I am not expecting any kind of `sound quality' goal, apart from making all the stock sound capabilities the QL has accessible to the trackers user. As far as Im concerned, FUQL does exactly that (albeit the UI constraints the user slightly with regards to entering instrument notes into the pattern, but if need arises, this can be fixed).
As such, all the precise duration, instrument settings and stuff, equal to punching in data, is exactly possible with this. One can argue that in practice there are a few constriants, but basically these have not been considered a constraint ant thus not been solved.
Im afraid many democoder musicians (that I work with anyhow) find it impracticle to punch in data statements, hence the birth of FUQL.
Kind regards,
Wietze
