truth5678 wrote:On typical Windows, I believe dosbox+mt32emu routes through directsound, whereas the other method may rely on waveout. However, I don't see any description above on which OS is even used, or whether these tests were done on different operating systems. It's difficult to replicate an audio issue if the test conditions are missing.
truth5678 wrote:I don't know why there is no recording from real hardware above. Other users cannot replicate which sounds "worst" without hearing the expected sound, and even better if more than one recording is included (from different versions of the MT32 device).
truth5678 wrote:If you are to answer your original question, it is ideal to have a test against real hardware. That way it can be determined which sounds "worst". It would allow others to hear the result, too.
truth5678 wrote:The munt author also previously explained the likely cause of "muffled percussion" in the thread you referenced. Perhaps you missed his post in that thread, but that is an obvious starting place to test the issue, especially since he has written a significant portion of the emulator.
sergm wrote:As I mentioned in http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=387863#p387863, DOSBox patch cannot use 'accurate' emulation of analogue LPF, so it always runs the emulation @ 32kHz. Even if you set DOSBox mixer to 48kHz output rate.
sergm wrote:DOSBox mixer simply does resampling (well, linear interpolation is a way of resampling too, heh).
sergm wrote:In contrast, mt32emu-qt thing has fully incorporated analogue emulation stuff, so you can play with the analog mode switch and hear the difference. You can even play with quality settings of the resampler you use (it's hard-coded to the fastest sinc-based interpolation by now, though). The Windows driver has been also updated but it sucks to have no UI.
sergm wrote:I don't forget about the DOSBox patch, and I plan to update it soon. Moreover, I also plan to add an optimised sinc-based resampler that is to be bit-accurate yet not to eat memory like libsamplerate nor to waste time with FFT (there is really really no need for it in munt case) like libsoxr.
sergm wrote:Especially, no reason to rush so you're able to do proper comparisons.
sergm wrote:However, it seems munt suffers a lot more of lack of proper MIDI parser. So, I put this issue to a higher priority. At the end, sending multiple/fragmented sysexes should no longer be a problem on Windows (and perhaps with OSS raw MIDI ports).
marooned_on_mars wrote:LPF = Low Pass Filter?
Also I'm curios now in which way HooT uses the munt library, as it sounds very crisp, and doesn't have the problems DOSBox has. I'll ask on the HooT thread above![]()
A little bit off-topic but do you know if this happens with the other sound modules provided by DOSBox? (OPL*, internal MIDI like Gravis, Tandy, etc.)
In that case it would make very little sense in changing the sampling rate to 49716Hz when using OPL.
Alright, I'll make sure to use the GUI emulator for the time being
Awesome, looking forward for it
Thanks for your contributions to the project sergm
marooned_on_mars wrote:Also I'm curios now in which way HooT uses the munt library, as it sounds very crisp, and doesn't have the problems DOSBox has. I'll ask on the HooT thread above
sergm wrote:So, the worse it sounds, the better for MoM.
sergm wrote:@Mok
Thanks for the clarification. I believe 'a simple resampling bridge' may appear a source of enough change in the frequency spectra. And the overdrive distortions as well. But the real issue with the 'muffled' sounding which MoM doesn't really want to hear is exactly the imperfection of the implementation in the real hardware analogue path. So, the worse it sounds, the better for MoM.
marooned_on_mars wrote:sergm wrote:So, the worse it sounds, the better for MoM.
That really depends on (perhaps) subjective preferences.
truth5678 wrote:It's not subjective, it's based on comparing real hardware to emulation.
truth5678 wrote:This comparison may even be done with equipment to measure the sound properties, although even a verified recording is insightful. However, it is better than we make conclusions based on recordings we have done rather than referencing youtube samples from unknown sources and unknown test conditions.
sergm wrote:@marooned_on_mars
Well, ignoring Hoot existence, what do you feel comparing the output of mt32emu_qt when you change "Analog emulation mode" setting (note: it requires saving the synth profile and restarting the synth to take effect)?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest