Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 11:57
Strangely... Commit f4f2336790157d0ffaab was intended to get rid of this 😒
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 06:11
@ Ykhwong: I haven't found MT32MULTICORE #define set anywhere in DC sources. Do you compile DOSBox with MT32MULTICORE defined in config / Makefile / command line? I encountered a performance issue when enabling MT32MULTICORE with older branch of MUNT so I removed the define. However, I don't find …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 06:07
ykhwong wrote: sergm wrote: I'm intended to add reverb settings into the DOSBox patch. Would it be interesting? Sure. Are you going to add mt32reverb like mt32rate does, or to load values from midiconfig=? I'm going to add mt32reverb.mode, mt32reverb.time and mt32reverb.level for convenience
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 06:00
@ Ykhwong: I haven't found MT32MULTICORE #define set anywhere in DC sources. Do you compile DOSBox with MT32MULTICORE defined in config / Makefile / command line?
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 05:55
I'm intended to add reverb settings into the DOSBox patch. Would it be interesting?
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 05:44
Varka wrote: Are you positive that's not one of the extra sounds in the CM-32 (or whatever it's called)? The mt32emu lib can easily use CM-32L's ROMs and produce these sounds. For example, those FX in Elite plus ...
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-29, 05:27
Yes, that commit made the volume right equal (almost) to the CM-32L captures. But after that we change the mixer to use floats and the volume is about exactly right again, including wet reverb output. I've tuned the reverb Level and Time parameters in accordance. And along with the better perceived …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-28, 19:29
Great Hierophant wrote: Would anything be gained by using the Reverb ROM at this point? The emulator uses the other ROMs inside these machines already. After I've digged the reverb captures and drafted the algo, I believe it's useless for us and intended to use with the hardware only.
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-28, 18:36
If such a persistence, I've put a mt32-patched DOSBox 0.74 build at https://github.com/sergm/munt_devel/downloads At least I'm happy with this one :) And where is that CPU load?! ~2-3% @2.8GHz Athlon x2 Maybe, MSVC over-optimized the code :) And there is no Win MM API use for transferring MIDI …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-28, 17:35
😀 BTW, KingGuppy, congratulations on making a member on VOGONS! But everyone's invited to please help with the testing....
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-28, 17:16
@ KingGuppy How do you know that? Have you tested a single tune? 😀
Re: How close to real mt32 should i except?
Posted on 2011-04-28, 17:11
I believe the emu will sound indistinguishable very soon and it already does for several tunes we test most frequently. And you don't have to have a super-fast PC for it... :) But be careful comparing stuff with the Quest Studios records. I suspect they edited many tunes since the real CM-32L …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-28, 16:32
It can be said that reverb is now implemented 😀
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-26, 10:28
The cause is in Bit16u TVP::nextPitch() timeElapsed = timeElapsed & 0x00FFFFFF; After 30 sec of sustaining timeElapsed gets value of 2^24 and goes around ... If I make the mask wider, it sounds OK but I can't say whether it would be some side effects. Those tvX modules aren't so clear.... and I'd …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-22, 09:03
Basically, the project is a cross-platform library. It includes Win and ALSA drivers for now, but we want to extend support for other systems. To achieve this goal, we're moving to Qt (user interface) and RTP-MIDI.
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-21, 19:15
Actually, I have no plans of win32app further development. It's for mt32lib tests only. For production use, a cross-platform application will be developed with all necessary interface features you ever imagine (as KingGuppy once told me). So, very soon it will be available I suppose 😀
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-20, 05:35
I can't give you a percentage or accuracy estimation 'cause I ain't interesting in such statistics :) But I won't be too far from trues saying that: - PCM partials ~100% accurate - synth partials generated ~100% accurate - TVA, TVP, TVF are very close - MIDI message and SysEx processing seem to be …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-17, 18:50
Could the inf install be bypassed and the driver installed manually, i.e. copying files where they need to go, making the needed registry entries, etc.? Yes. I wasn't able to workout the .INF install since MEDIA class registration fails on x64 even after I modified .INF for NTamd64 :( But the …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-17, 18:13
tmpProp.sampleRate = section->Get_int("rate"); if(tmpProp.sampleRate <= 44100) tmpProp.sampleRate = 32000; else if(tmpProp.sampleRate <= 22050) tmpProp.sampleRate = 16000; else tmpProp.sampleRate = 32000; Shouldn't these conditions be reversed? IMHO, these conditions must look like tmpProp. …
Re: Munt Reloaded - Development
Posted on 2011-04-17, 07:23
Could the inf install be bypassed and the driver installed manually, i.e. copying files where they need to go, making the needed registry entries, etc.? Yes. I wasn't able to workout the .INF install since MEDIA class registration fails on x64 even after I modified .INF for NTamd64 :( But the …
Page 42 of 47