Munt Reloaded - Development

Developer's Forum for discussion of bugs, code, and other developmental aspects of the Munt Project.

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby gdjacobs » 2017-11-10 @ 17:44

Yeah, I suspect a 31250 baud bus in software is nothing compared to the synthesizer core.
User avatar
gdjacobs
l33t++
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: 2015-11-03 @ 05:51
Location: The Great White North

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby Myloch » 2017-11-11 @ 00:25

I cannot install latest munt drv (snapshot) from 1st october, I use standard 2.2.0 version. How am I supposed to update driver?
I feel stupid.
"Gamer & collector for passion, I firmly believe in the preservation and the diffusion of old/rare software, against all personal egoisms"
User avatar
Myloch
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2007-4-18 @ 22:13

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-11 @ 19:37

Myloch wrote:I cannot install latest munt drv (snapshot) from 1st october, I use standard 2.2.0 version. How am I supposed to update driver?
I feel stupid.


Hmm, why so? It works almost perfectly... on Windows 98. You just need to install that ;)
OK, there is only one notable thing worth to mention that version 2.2.0 is missing and I'm on cleaning things up. Likely do a release since I completely out of time these damn days :(
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-11 @ 19:44

HunterZ wrote:For performance I was comparing embedded Munt to driver Munt. The performance of the MT-32/CM-32 emulation core shouldn't be appreciably different, and may even be effectively better with the driver version because it could be more likely to run on a separate CPU core.


Just to clarify, the DOSBox patch started to support rendering in a thread (enabled via "mt32.thread on"), so this is kinda obsolete info :)
But you guys are right, there is no noticeable difference in performance of DOSBox+MT-32 vs. DOSBox+mt32emu_win32drv. In a Windows NT environment, there is even no context switches when DOSBox transmits a message to the driver, it's like a usual DLL running in the context of user process. In Windows 9x, this is far not so simple, though.
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-11 @ 19:55

Another matter is that integrated mt32emu engine is far more convenient than dealing with MIDI arch in modern Windows...

Normal way of MIDI driver installation seems to work more reliably than the way used with the driver setup. Unfortunately, this way requires driver signing for x64 arch, despite it is a userland driver, so it's kinda weird for me why. Nevertheless, the registry hack used to install the driver is incomplete and Windows often overrides it. Not too convenient. Perhaps, I'll end up adding a MIDI driver checker that will run e.g. using task scheduler and restore things to work.

As for the argument "I don't want to start a program...". Well, there is no need to start a program if it is started automatically. ;) One can simply put a shortcut to mt32emu-qt to the startup folder and viola. Besides, there is no need to start a program if it is unnecessary. lol
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby HunterZ » 2017-11-11 @ 20:42

sergm wrote:Normal way of MIDI driver installation seems to work more reliably than the way used with the driver setup. Unfortunately, this way requires driver signing for x64 arch, despite it is a userland driver, so it's kinda weird for me why. Nevertheless, the registry hack used to install the driver is incomplete and Windows often overrides it. Not too convenient. Perhaps, I'll end up adding a MIDI driver checker that will run e.g. using task scheduler and restore things to work.

Ah, that explains a lot.

I wonder what the CoolSoft stuff (VirtualMIDISynth, MIDIMapper) does, and whether it's more resilient than Munt?
User avatar
HunterZ
l33t++
 
Posts: 6074
Joined: 2003-1-31 @ 19:04
Location: Seattle

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-12 @ 08:03

Yeah, Coolsoft stuff is really cool. Sadly, it's hard for me to find time to hack Windows internals as deep as they did, and I didn't success in finding the sources, so that munt would also benefit from using these techniques :)
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-12 @ 08:35

Myloch wrote:any of you programmers volunteer to fix munt implementation in dosbox-x?

Latest dosbox-x builds: selecting mt32 output, even with mt32 roms, sound output is broken/crap. It used to work in the past.


Myloch, what do you think about DOSBox ECE (Enhanced Community Edition) builds? IIRC, YesterPlay80 pays attention on both mt32emu engine and the DOSBox patch updates, so I believe his solution is recent enough.

Perhaps, we should really be providing an "official" DOSBox build patched with mt32emu but again, if only I was cloned :(
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby HunterZ » 2017-11-12 @ 13:42

sergm wrote:Perhaps, we should really be providing an "official" DOSBox build patched with mt32emu but again, if only I was cloned :(

Probably the ideal solution would be for DOSBox the be enhanced to support .dll/.so based MIDI driver backends, so that you could produce precompiled Munt drivers that could be plugged into DOSBox without rebuilding DOSBox.
User avatar
HunterZ
l33t++
 
Posts: 6074
Joined: 2003-1-31 @ 19:04
Location: Seattle

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-12 @ 13:45

Yep, that would also be a nice solution.
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-12 @ 13:46

On the other hand, a MIDI driver in Windows is a kind of plug-in already. It just has an awkward interface...
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby Myloch » 2017-11-13 @ 18:58

Never tried the ECE builds, but as far as I remember the coolsoft guy is a forumer here and maybe he agrees to give ya some advices.

Munt bug(?): I noticed some (subtle) static sounds during level 1 music in prehistorik in latest munt compared to this. I use all munt default settings (except for dac: generation 1) and mt32/blueridge roms. Hard to explain but you can easily catch and test the game out there ;)

Game bug(?): in colonel bequest: rumble sound outside, near the fountain gate is audible only if you lower ingame speed to low values. Same for the mansion chandelier, except the sound is not mute but it truncates and loops repeatedly.
"Gamer & collector for passion, I firmly believe in the preservation and the diffusion of old/rare software, against all personal egoisms"
User avatar
Myloch
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2007-4-18 @ 22:13

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby sergm » 2017-11-16 @ 19:55

Note, that prehistorik has limited MT-32 support (as well as SB support - this is a rare game that relies on the Creative SB driver lol). It neither defines custom patches nor even sends SysEx messages. Thus, be sure to reset the synth manually in advance.

Also, it does suffer from the digital overflow problem when using new-gen devices. For instance, I can hear slight cracklings with CM-64 (very similar to the performance of mt32emu in the DAC Emulation mode "Generation 2").
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby Myloch » 2017-11-25 @ 11:22

Minor suggestion would be to add a hide button in the munt control panel itself.
"Gamer & collector for passion, I firmly believe in the preservation and the diffusion of old/rare software, against all personal egoisms"
User avatar
Myloch
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2007-4-18 @ 22:13

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby a0divided » 2018-2-07 @ 03:02

There seems to be a problem with the "Engl Horn" patch sounding quite distorted on lower notes at high velocities, here's a previous post with longer explanation:

http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=58299
a0divided
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 2017-9-25 @ 09:50

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby SLON » 2018-7-29 @ 20:43

What I have long wanted to ask... Will there ever be support of CM-64?
SLON
Newbie
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 2018-5-16 @ 17:00

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby HunterZ » 2018-7-29 @ 22:22

SLON wrote:What I have long wanted to ask... Will there ever be support of CM-64?

The only difference between CM-64 and CM-32L is that the CM-64 also includes CM-32P functionality, which is not used by any games as far as I know.
User avatar
HunterZ
l33t++
 
Posts: 6074
Joined: 2003-1-31 @ 19:04
Location: Seattle

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby Kaminari » 2018-7-30 @ 09:14

Any Western game.

Quite a few Japanese games support it, especially on Sharp X68000.
Core2 Quad Q6600 3.0 GHz | Radeon R9 280X 3 GB | DDR2 8.0 GB | Win7-64 SP1
User avatar
Kaminari
Oldbie
 
Posts: 775
Joined: 2002-12-06 @ 01:54

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby NewRisingSun » 2018-7-30 @ 17:00

The CM-32P part uses a wholly different synthesis engine. You basically have to start from scratch to emulate it. It may seem simpler being just a ROMpler, but will be just as difficult as a Sound Canvas if you want the emulation to be accurate.
NewRisingSun
Oldbie
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 2005-9-02 @ 02:26

Re: Munt Reloaded - Development

Postby Great Hierophant » 2018-7-31 @ 13:41

Moreover, you need to start with the dumps of the built-in CM-32P Sample ROM and Control ROM and build out with the expansion cards. While the Sample ROM and Control ROM may be easy enough to dump, dumping the cards is going to be a tad more challenging. The CM-32P can shape the output of the samples to some extent and it also has a reverb unit.
http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/ - Nerdly Pleasures - My Retro Gaming, Computing & Tech Blog
User avatar
Great Hierophant
l33t
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: 2003-4-27 @ 08:20

Previous

Return to MT-32 Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests