Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I'm not too familiar with the ATARI so I can't compare IBM to ATARI,
    but I have an IBM (Compaq) setup. My only software right now is
    Jim Miller's Personal Composer (available at MUSICATION in N Y City
    for about $400.00 (elsewhere for $495). I'm just getting familiar
    with it, but it appears to be a very powerful MIDI application.
    It can support 16 channels, 32 tracks, sequences of unlimited lengths,
    you can create your own keyboard macros to perform multiple keystrokes
    (up to 2000 per macro), it will transpose, you can convert MIDI
    recordings to score, edit the score, playback the edited version,
    and save the old version and new version.
    
    It has a voice librarian for DX7, FB01, plus a Yamaha TX synth (forget
    which one). It also has a "universal" librarian for any other synth,
    which has fewer automated librarian features than the others mentioned,
    but apparently is still pretty powerful.
    
    I'm just learning how to use it, so I can't describe all its features,
    but it has quite a few. I haven't heard too much talk about it,
    I suspect because it is an IBM/compatible software package, and
    Apples, MACs, Amigas, and Ataris seem to be gearing themselves more
    specifically to music applications. You do need a graphics card
    to run this software, like a Hercules or compatible, or and EGA
    card. The card has to support something like 720 x 340 PIXELS.
    
    You also need a hard disk for version 2 which is now out, and a
    MIDI interface - I have the VOYETRA OP/4001 which seems to have
    more features than the Roland MPU 401 interface which you can also
    use. 
    
    I got the Compaq because I wanted this software package, but also,
    the IBM/compatibles have much business software/spreadsheets, etc.
    
    If you plan on getting heavily into MIDI/composing/sequencing,
    I would highly recommend this sofware (Personal Composer) - but
    it may take some time to figure out so that you can fully utilize
    its potential - another thing that you can do is create your own
    graphics symbols, and modify/add functionality using a Lisp
    interpreter (I think it's Lisp, although it supports something called
    Syntellect which I'm not familiar with).
    
    I would recommend comparing systems/software with regard to your
    needs, because I ksnow a LOT of people use the other PCs I mentioned,
    so there has to be a lot going for those systems, also. Mark of
    the Unicorn has software out for the Apple line (Performer - I think),
    plus theres tons of other software out there.
    
    Oh, yea, Personal Composer also has a function which interfaces
    with IBM's new music feature card, which is like having a synthizer
    with 32 or so voices right in your PC.
    
    Well, good luck! Keyboard magazine alwasy has a full page ad on
    Personal Composer, plus lots of other software.
    
    Bill
    

Faced with a similar decision (I was also considering a MAC and the AMIGA), 
I went with an AT-clone and the Voyetra midi interface.   My system consists
of:

	MicroSMART AT Clone (10MHz about 1.4 MIPS), 1MB RAM, 0 wait state, 
	   hard disk controller, 1.2MB floppy, hercules
	   graphics, packard bell monitor, extended AT keyboard,
	   MSDOS 3.2/GWBASIC....................................$1400.00

	Voyetra MIDI interface..................................$ 259.00
	   



My reasons:

	1. XT/AT clones are becoming *real* economical.  A 10Mhz AT-clone
	   can be had for under $1000.00, with 40mb hard disk for 
	   $1400.00.  XT clone systems start around $600.00.

	2. Expansion slots.  My AT-clone came with a 200W power supply and
	   8 expansion slots.  This allows a lot of options to be added 
	   later.  One intriquing possibility is a 16bit DAC or ADC converter
	   (made by a company called DYAXIS?? - trying to get details/price).  

	3. Disk controller compatibility.  The hard disk controller in my
	   AT clone (which is a standard vanilla clone disk controller) can
	   be used with DEC RDxx style disks.  This means you can take old
	   RD50,51,52s etc and use them in your PC.  This saved me substantial
	   $$$$.

	4. Shareware.  There is a vast amount of "free" public-domain 
	   software for the IBM-PC, a lot of which can be found on the
	   E-net (see the NAC::IBMPC notes file). I've found editors, 
	   communications programs, spreadsheets, and many, many utilities.
	   Most ask you to send a small fee ($10-$50). if you decide you 
 	   like the program, you send them the money and they send you 
	   documentation and updates.

	5. The music software I want to run (Leland Smith's SCORE, and a real
	   interesting public-domain program for the DX7 from Queens 
	   University called "DXSCORE") only runs on the IBM.

	6. I like the way the Roland MPU and Voyetra look-alike MIDI interfaces
	   buffer MIDI data and off-load the PC.  I'm not sure about the ATARI,
	   but I don't think its MIDI interface is nearly as smart as the
	   MPU-401.  I could be wrong.


There are tradeoffs, of course.  I think there is more music software for the
ATARI ST and MAC than the IBM, but I think this may improve as time goes on 
(due to the drastic price reductions of the clones).

There are numerous sequencers, librarians, patch editors etc for the IBM, but
none of the exotic toys like M and Jam Factory for the MAC.

Hope this helps,
-Rob

    I have an Atari ST, and I am very pleased with it. There is a great
    deal of Music software for the ST, Hybrid Arts, Dr, T's, Steinberg,
    to mention a few off the top of my head. Something you should consider
    is that the ST setup will cost you about half the price of an IBM
    clone setup. The machine itself is less expensive, about $800. The
    midi is built in, which saves you an additional $200. The software
    I've seen is less expensive. I got Dr. T's KCS for $200 and got
    the MT32 caged artist which runs within KCS for an additional $100.
    
    The bottom line price is $1300, which is very reasonable for such
    a powerful setup. The ST also has some very good PD software. ST
    writer is a good word processor, and is completely PD. Uniterm is
    a vt200 terminal emulator which is also 100% PD.
    
    The ST doesn't have any expansion slots, everything is built in,
    so there are no hidden costs. How often do you get to spend less
    money, and I mean significantly less money, without having to sacrifice
    performance? The comment previously about offloading the CPU for
    MIDI transfers is not really significant, as MIDI is very slow compared
    to any CPU speed.
    
    In conclusion, the only reason you might want an IBM clone is if
    you have some specific esoteric software package you want to run.
    MIDI is pretty standard ( The MAC was the first to break into this
    market ), so it isn't very hard to find the software that does what
    you want. Most of the better software is available on all machines,
    anyway.
    
    The ST is kind of a pain if you are a software developer, because
    the operating system has a few bugs, and it is not very well
    documented. However, I've done some programming on the ST, and there
    are no show stoppers. You can always find a suitable workaround.
    If you are running standard applications like MIDI, you have nothing
    to fear.
    
    						John.

    I sorted through a decision like this recently.
    
    The Atari ST has a *LOT* going for it: it is really cheap (a lot of
    power for a very small price), there is lots of good general purpose
    software available for it, and it seems to be close to running neck
    and neck with the Mac as the the "established computer of choice for
    MIDI applications".  The Amiga got off to a bad start MIDI-wise
    (compared with the ST at least) but seems to be gaining momentum.
    
    Only problem is, recently it has not competed well in the general purpose
    PC market.  It seems to be losing ground (according to a trade magazine
    I've been reading).  They are also raising their
    prices which isn't going to help.  They also seem to be losing
    dealerships.  I know of only two stores in the Nashua area that
    carry it: Lechmere's and White Mountain.  Lechmere's isn't going to
    carrying the Mega ST, and its possible that they may even drop the 520
    and the 1040.  However, there are several stores you can buy Macs, 
    IBMs and clones and Amiga.
    
    That is the ONLY consideration which has stalled me from getting one. 
    In all other respects it is a real winner.  This one thing may not
    be important to you, if you're just looking for a horse to power a
    specific set of software applications.
    
    	db
    
    p.s. I really don't want to get flames from the Atari folks.  My
         information is the result of a non-trivial research effort
    	 that I feel is worth sharing.

    I have both an Atari 1040ST and a PC clone.  It's funny that these
    should be the two machines you ask about, because I decided to sell
    one of them.  
    
    I was using the Atari strictly for sequencing (Dr. T's), and the PC
    was used (mostly by my wife) for mailing lists, word processing, and 
    desktop publishing. But with the advent of Number_two_son 6 weeks
    ago, I'm finding that the Atari is collecting dust, and it's the
    likely candidate for sale.  So if you, (or anyone else, natch) is
    interested in the Atari and/or sequencing software, send mail. 
    It'll be available in a couple of weeks after I get my current project
    down on tape.
    
    But to respond to your question, if all you'll be doing is midi-related
    stuff, I'd go with the Atari.  But if you also want to do "regular"
    stuff also, I'd go with a PC/clone.  As was mentioned, there's just so
    much more software available for non-music applications with the
    PC.
    
   Rodney M.
    
    But to answer your question, 
    
    
    B

re: .3
    
>    The comment previously about offloading the CPU for
>    MIDI transfers is not really significant, as MIDI is very slow compared
>    to any CPU speed.
    
I'd like to know more about this - why did Roland bother creating an
intelligent MIDI interface if it doesn't really buy you anything?  Does
off-loading the CPU allow greater precision (quicker response) in sequencer
applications? When midi traffic is heavy, won't an intelligent inteface  help
filter out redundant midi events? 


-Rob

    These are not flames - only rebuttals. My pulse is normal.
    
    First of all, let me admit that I've had an ST for two years with
    no problems of any kind. I guess that makes me biased. I got the
    ST before I even thought about using it for MIDI. Now it seems that
    all I use it for is MIDI recently.
    
    Atari sends most of their units overseas, and mostly to Germany.
    This is quite a natural reaction from a company that has been attacked
    by spoiled programmers and developers who expect an $800 machine
    to have the same support and testing of a $10000 workstation. Atari
    was the first to offer that kind of computing power for under 1K.
    Admittedly, that power is kind of raw. The documentation stinks,
    and the operating system has a few bugs. All the complaints targeted
    at Atari and the proposed solutions would have surely driven them
    into the higher priced market. They would have been better off with
    a MAC clone. All the Atari needed was programmers with enough patience
    to harness the raw power the Atari had to offer. Not so in the US.
    However, the Atari is flourishing in Europe, especially Germany,
    where "naive" programmers are developing some really astounding
    software with a new found power within their price range. The
    expectation that Atari ST's should have all the support and
    documentation of business machines is what is driving them out of
    the US market ( although I think can think of 5 stores in the Boston
    area that carry Atari ST related products ).
    
    Second of all, the story about piles of available software was
    propagated by IBM advertising. What they don't tell you is that
    while you only have 10 choices of Atari ST word processors, you
    have about 50 with the PC. I only intend to use 1. Yes, there are
    some titles that are unique to the PC, like waveguide synthesis
    and turnkey retail systems, but I don't intend to buy these.
    
    Porting Business applications to the Atari is just plain silly.
    No wonder so many who tried it feel they got burned. It was never
    marketed as a business machine, it was never intended as a business
    machine, why are so many people upset that it isn't a business machine?
    
    Too radical a concept . . .
    
    						John.

    Another note regarding reply # 1 - MUSICATION also specializes in
    putting together IBM clones for musicians. They might be worth calling
    up to get their hardware configuration and prices. They also sell
    a keyboard (keystroke) macro library to go along with Personal Composer
    for about $65.00. Depending on your editing expertise, this might
    save you time as opposed to developing your own.
    
    For example, with one macro command (a 2 character command), a macro
    might create an entire page of music staves. Doing this with the
    basic commands provided with the software might take you several
    individual commands, of which the macro is already made up of.
    
    Forgot to mention also that this software has an event editor (I
    haven't delved into this yet) which looks something like the piano
    scroll sequencing software I have seen for Apples. It lets you control
    the nit-pickiest little aspects of your composition/sequence.
    
    Good luck!

    Why an intelligent interface? It's easier to program. I'm sure there
    are other advantages, mostly in the area of features, like offline
    MIDI merge, but the performance difference is insignificant. The
    MIDI cable itself is the bottleneck, so you have intrinsically limited
    bandwidth, 32Kb, that is. The UART driving MIDI is hardware queued,
    and the driver bandwidth only has 32Kb to beat. This, of course,
    does not imply that an ingeneous programmer can't figure out a way
    to do it wrong . . .
    
    						John.

    Intelligent so far from what Ive seen 
    means that the interface also has a counter
    that gives you a time stamp of when the
    data arrived. Some have a silo. wow.
    
    Micros tend to want to do other things than be
    bothered EVERY 320 MICROSECONDS. 
    
    ron
    

I was also faced with this decision recently and opted for the Atari. The midi
Programming is easy if you want to play around with these things. You can even
write bulkdump collectors from high level languages if you like. (I bought
the machine instead of the Yamaha Midifiler). I still use the QX5 for 
sequencing. 

If you have a DX7 then the Steinberg librarian/editor is a must. Except you
have to insert dongles to change programs which is boring. How does the DR T
Software get past software protection etc?

I think the basic approach we are offer our customers could be considered. 
Find the application you need then select the machine!

				Paul

(another testimonial)

    I also went thru this, and like many others opted for the ST.  Unlike
    .0, however, I had (have) no use for business applications on the ST (I
    use the VAX for that).  Nor did I intend to write my own software (to
    any great degree), so programmability was not a consideration, either.

    Do you intend to gig with this stuff?  Unless you get the rackmount
    mentioned earlier, portability is an issue.  The ST and b/w monitor
    together can't weigh much more than 10�, if that.  Any clones I've
    seen are a boatload heavier.

    Unless business software and programming are real big issues, I can't
    see why anyone would want to diddle with a PC and a monitor and an MPU
    when the ST has it all built in (and weighs less, too). 

-b

    Dr. T's has copy protected disks. Granted, this is a pain. I've
    noticed that almost all MIDI applications are protected. I guess
    they figure "starving" musicians are more likely to pirate. It's
    a shame, really.
    						John.

    I have a couple of questions....
    
    I recently acquired a Compaq portable computer with 640K of RAM
    and two floppy disk drives. I'd like to get some MIDI stuff happening
    with it. I would like to get either a Roland MPU 401 or Voyetra
    OP-4001 MIDI interface. 
    Are these functionally equivalent? Will software written for the
    Roland MPU 401 interface also work with the Voyetra OP-4001 interface?
    I've heard that the Voyetra OP-4001 is better for those with "portable"
    IBMs (and compatibles in my case). Can anyone tell me if this is
    true, and if so, why?
    
    Mike D
    

    I own a Compaq Desk Pro 286 and have the Voyetra OP/4001. I chose
    it over the MPU 401 because it seemed to have more functionality
    in the realm of syncing. I will try to be more specific in another
    reply - I'll have to check out the specs - but it does some neat
    stuff with FSK which I'm not sure that the MPU supports. On the
    minus side, it only has one MIDI out, and the Roland has 2, I
    believe. If you need more than one MIDI out, Voyetra has an add-on
    feature that has another MIDI out. Also, the Voyetra doesn't have
    the DIN hookup which I think the MPU has, which I believe older synths
    used. I'm just getting into MIDI so I can't be too specific on
    certain things! I have no experience with the Roland, this comparison
    is all from talking with dealers and from reading the Voyetra manual.

    As far as compatibility, I don't know of any problems. I'm using
    Jim Miller's Personal Composer which specifies the Roland MPU 401.
    Before getting the Voyetra, I checked out the compatibility issue
    with the dealer. It seems to work fine.
    
    If you get the Voyetra, the manual specifies that if you do a certain
    thing (hook up something) with the power on, that this could short
    things out and void the warrenty if you hook things up wrong.
    
    So, you have to be careful hooking it up!
    
    I don't know if the Voyetra is better for portables for any specific
    reason.
    
    Good luck in choosing!
    
    Bill
    

    re .14
    	I have an IBM AT and use the VOYETRA interface.  It is functionally
    equilavent to the Roland and offers a couple nice additional features
    like FSK if you need it.  As pointed out above the Roland does have
    one more MIDI port, but given the total comparison I felt the VOYETRA
    was definitely the way to go, especially in view of the lower price.
    Mine works perfectly with both Sequencer Plus (I should hope so!)
    and with Dr. T's Copyist.
    
    re 0.0
    	The reason I decided to go with the ibm versus atari was that
    the former has so much more software available.  My major reason
    for buying an ibm clone for my own use was primarily for games and
    personal financial management (Hah!).  When I return the IBM-AT,
    which is on loan, the clone should be able to step in at no additional
    cost.
    
    Clusters, 
    Bill
    
    PS One additional plus for the V: the Roland had a separate MIDI
    junction box while the V's box plugs into the back of your PC system
    unit.  Of course, this does mean that you must keep the PC a little
    further out from the back wall.
    

    Why does the PC use 'intelligent' MIDI interfaces?
    
    Because those interfaces were designed back when there was one kind
    of PC: the 4.77 MHz 8088 variety. Which was incredibly underpowered.
    And had interrupt/interrupt latency problems. So... you got an
    interface that had its own microprocessor in it that would timestamp
    everything because the PC was too bloody slow to respond to MIDI
    data in a timely manner. Some MIDI data doesn't need timestamps
    (like bulk dumps).
    
    Why are they still around?
    
    Because a boatload of software was written to support these interfaces,
    and nobody wanted to make something that would invalidate all that
    software.
    
    Why does the ST use a 'dumb' MIDI interface?
    
    Because an 8 MHz 68000 with no interrupt handling problems doesn't
    need the extra hardware.
    
    Why is that good?
    
    All MIDI software for the ST works. Out of the box. No problems
    with 'is this compatible with my Voyetra', etc.
    
    Witness Atari's ad: 'The difference between a computer that makes
    music and one that makes trouble.'
    
    Are there other reasons why I should buy an ST?
    
    You bet. The DMA winchester interface is really (I mean "really")
    fast. They're cheap (for what you get). They're easy to carry. And
    if you work for DEC, you can get the best terminal emulator in the
    known universe, bar none: WHACK. It makes your ST, connected to
    a VAX, do multiple windows in multiple fonts (A mini VAXstation)
    over a single serial line...
    
    I really like my ST even though Atari doesn't support them well.
    				- HBM

RE: .17

    Ok, you've roused my curiosity.

    What kind of hard disks are we talking, here?  What size, what shape,
    how durable, power supplies, price, etc etc etc? 

    I'm getting real tired of hearing my floppy whine.  Or should I
    look in the ATARIST conference?

-b

    Brad,
    
    Read the Atari ST conference and/or send me mail (in that order) about
    rolling your own hard-disk resonably inexpensively. 
    
    Steph

    Re: .18
    
    Brad, you can also email me about rollin' your own winchester (I've
    done it too)
    				- HBM