No, i mean just have a pre-defined instrument pack named "VRC7" and have Genesis FM replicas of the VRC7 instruments there or something.
I'm not saying that "oh just add VRC7 instruments, it's simpler than the genesis sound so it's possible" like a noob.
not really related but this just passed the instrument thread in posts
: O
za909 wrote:
No, i mean just have a pre-defined instrument pack named "VRC7" and have Genesis FM replicas of the VRC7 instruments there or something.
Oh, good idea. However, I think that the differences between the YM2612 and the YM2413 are sufficent to make the idea almost impossible: the instruments would never sound in the same way (differents values, registers and resolutions).
So umm, I have no idea what the deal is, but the volume sounds all wrong. When you put lower values in the volume column to turn it down, it sounds all hollow and... Uhh, fake? Idk, just try it and see.
You are talking about the volumes of the YM2612, right?. You are modifying the TL values of the soundchip when you are putting a value on the volume column. So, it depends of the actual instrument configuration. For example, if the ALG of the instrument is:
o->o->o->o->OUT
Changing the TL a little of the operators would change the volume in HUGE ways. It is not that simple to "down" the volume on a FM chip, there are too much reactions involved.
If you want more VOLUME CONTROL, use the TL Modifiers per operator instead:
12xx - TL Operator 1 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 1. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
13xx - TL Operator 2 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 2. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
14xx - TL Operator 3 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 3. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
15xx - TL Operator 4 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 4. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
You can check what ALG your instrument is using and down a bit the EXACT operator. This is more recommended than using the volume column, that will down ALL the operators' TL.
PS: Maybe a better idea is to down the carrier operator of the current ALG when you use the volume column. I think that I will add this on next version.
You are talking about the volumes of the YM2612, right?. You are modifying the TL values of the soundchip when you are putting a value on the volume column. So, it depends of the actual instrument configuration. For example, if the ALG of the instrument is:
o->o->o->o->OUT
Changing the TL a little of the operators would change the volume in HUGE ways. It is not that simple to "down" the volume on a FM chip, there are too much reactions involved.
If you want more VOLUME CONTROL, use the TL Modifiers per operator instead:
12xx - TL Operator 1 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 1. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
13xx - TL Operator 2 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 2. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
14xx - TL Operator 3 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 3. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
15xx - TL Operator 4 Control:
With this effect you can modify the TL of the operator 4. You can designate xx with a value from 0 to 7F.
You can check what ALG your instrument is using and down a bit the EXACT operator. This is more recommended than using the volume column, that will down ALL the operators' TL.
PS: Maybe a better idea is to down the carrier operator of the current ALG when you use the volume column. I think that I will add this on next version.
Yeah, I am using the YM2612. I will only use it for now until I finally manage at least a 95% accurate cover of a Genesis song (of which I already have in mind).
But those examples you are giving me sound all wrong. How can I use an effect for controlling the TL when there is only one effect slot? I already have effect used so I cannot add more to it. This is a reason why the volume column should be handling that. What you should do is make the volume column effect all operators (Output, Carriers and Feedback at once) and have the effect control a single operator. It is especially helpful that way so you won't have to waste an effect slot.
This is a reason why the volume column should be handling that. What you should do is make the volume column effect all operators (Output, Carriers and Feedback at once) and have the effect control a single operator.
That is how is done now. The volume column controls all the TLs of the operators. I don't get why you are suffering problems with this.
Screw it, just listen to this. You ask why I suffer with it? Well, just observe frame "A" very carefully. You can probably tell, but these countless dead ends I run into are really frustrating and as you can see, I'm barely even getting started on it. It makes covering anything feel pointless to me...
But I mean, Why have the volume column only effect the output TL? It just feels backwards and like I said before, is a waste of space for the effect column.
Screw it, just listen to this. You ask why I suffer with it? Well, just observe frame "A" very carefully.
The frame A is doing exactly what you tracked. I don't see volume commands causing problems. Well, actually, I don't see volume commands at all. What is your problem with the volume?, in your example the problem didn't exist.
Raijin wrote:
You can probably tell, but these countless dead ends I run into are really frustrating and as you can see, I'm barely even getting started on it. It makes covering anything feel pointless to me...
I covered various Sonic Tracks easily, the volume command worked and work right now.
Raijin wrote:
But I mean, Why have the volume column only effect the output TL? It just feels backwards and like I said before, is a waste of space for the effect column.
You don't understand.
The Volume Column is the controller of the ALL TLs of the current instrument.
What I've said after that is that if you want PER TL control, you can use 12xx, 13xx, 14xx and 15xx.
Dood, ok, first of all that's not what I implied by saying "observe frame A". Look at the effect column on the last few notes in row 0. Oops, no room for an effect to control volume, I'm screwed.
Second of all, about your sonic covers, they don't sound perfect. I'm trying to cover a song as perfect as possible and there are nothing but flaws and dead ends so far. I probably need to start over and adjust the speed timing. I also need to adjust the attack of an instrument, but there's also no attack command adjustment, although that's no big deal because no one requested one yet.
And lastly, I'm trying to say, why not have the volume column effect the volume like your effect does and have the effect work like the volume commands?
Dood, ok, first of all that's not what I implied by saying "observe frame A". Look at the effect column on the last few notes in row 0. Oops, no room for an effect to control volume, I'm screwed.
Yeah, you have too much NOTE CUT, I think that you have to do a Expand and use a higher tempo. The fact that you are using that count of NOTE CUT is a clue that you actually need to up a bit the speed.
However, on the next version I will add 3 columns for effects.
Raijin wrote:
Second of all, about your sonic covers, they don't sound perfect.
Yeah, they don't sound perfect, but that's because I was lazy, no because of a missing feature in the tracker.
Raijin wrote:
I also need to adjust the attack of an instrument, but there's also no attack command adjustment, although that's no big deal because no one requested one yet.
Have you tried adjust the AR (attack rate) value?.
Raijin wrote:
And lastly, I'm trying to say, why not have the volume column effect the volume like your effect does and have the effect work like the volume commands?
So you have to SET an OPERATOR in the VOLUME COLUMN?, that will convert the volume column in another Effect Column. And does not make sense in a multi-system tracker, because the volume column does not need to control operators in a NOT FM soundchip (for example the SN76489).
Yeah, they don't sound perfect, but that's because I was lazy, no because of a missing feature in the tracker.
...But if you tried to make them perfect, you wouldn't be able to make them 100% perfect.
Delek wrote:
Have you tried adjust the AR (attack rate) value?.
Then I'd have to make a number of different instruments with slightly different attack rates.
Delek wrote:
So you have to SET an OPERATOR in the VOLUME COLUMN?, that will convert the volume column in another Effect Column. And does not make sense in a multi-system tracker, because the volume column does not need to control operators in a NOT FM soundchip (for example the SN76489).
Well then, a way around that is to add more effect columns like we said before.
...But if you tried to make them perfect, you wouldn't be able to make them 100% perfect.
I not tried to make them perfect, I do not have time for that. But I swear you that it is possible to make them perfect, because those tracks were made using the SMPS sound driver, and it does not have too much strange commands (Verytex uses Terpsichorean, a driver known for being one of the most advanced, and for that reason you need DYNAMIC AR values).
I did those tracks to show the capabilties of the tracker to the "normal" people (for the 80%, those covers are perfect enough).
I think that you have to start covering something more simple, Sonic games maybe?.
Raijin wrote:
Then I'd have to make a number of different instruments with slightly different attack rates.
Yeah, that's because you are not PROGRAMMING in ASM the Motorola 68000 dude, the fact that you are using a tracker implies that you have to do some redundant things.
DefleMask needs to have AR Control Effects-DT Control Effects-RS Control Effects and so on, and RUN @900BMPs in order to get super perfect covers of ALL THE PROGRAMMED stuff for the Genesis. It's POINTLESS, for that reason, VGMMM and DefleMask does not have an AR modifier value, and for that reason the 100% of the accurate covers in Famitracker are running @900BPMs or using A LOT OF INSTRUMENTS.
It's a question of usability/composition-power dude.
Raijin wrote:
Well then, a way around that is to add more effect columns like we said before.
Yeah, I will add more columns for effects on next version, however, you need to up a bit the speed, those NOTE CUTS are all over the place without a good reason.
I think that you have to start covering something more simple, Sonic games maybe?.
You think I need to try something simpler? Uhh, I think I'm fine with Verytex thanks. It's not hard, why would you say it is just because your tracker apparently can't replicate it perfectly?
Delek wrote:
Yeah, that's because you are not PROGRAMMING in ASM the Motorola 68000 dude, the fact that you are using a tracker implies that you have to do some redundant things.
DefleMask needs to have AR Control Effects-DT Control Effects-RS Control Effects and so on, and RUN @900BMPs in order to get super perfect covers of ALL THE PROGRAMMED stuff for the Genesis. It's POINTLESS, for that reason, VGMMM and DefleMask does not have an AR modifier value, and for that reason the 100% of the accurate covers in Famitracker are running @900BPMs or using A LOT OF INSTRUMENTS.
It's a question of usability/composition-power dude.
I honestly think that creating alot of instruments in FT is way WAY less of a pain in the ass to recreate near perfect covers compared to creating the same instrument 32 times with slightly different attack rates and 128 more instruments with slightly different volume settings for the output operators =\
Delek wrote:
Yeah, I will add more columns for effects on next version, however, you need to up a bit the speed, those NOTE CUTS are all over the place without a good reason.
I know my speed is wonky. In order to shoot what I'm aiming for I alredy figured I have to up the BPM to 900. I doubt I will even bother though.
Also, those note cuts are no different than all the "NOTE OFF" commands I would be putting up at 900BPM.
I honestly think that creating alot of instruments in FT is way WAY less of a pain in the ass to recreate near perfect covers compared to creating the same instrument 32 times with slightly different attack rates and 128 more instruments with slightly different volume settings for the output operators =\
Of course!, because you are comparing a 2A03 with a YM2612!. It is INSANE to code an ENVELOPE MANAGER of ALL THE REGISTERS of the YM2612. Please code your own tracker, because NOONE in the world will code that, it is complex, useless and only for a few extreme people trying to do 100% covers of a strange track of a game with a custom and super driver.
Raijin wrote:
You think I need to try something simpler? Uhh, I think I'm fine with Verytex thanks. It's not hard, why would you say it is just because your tracker apparently can't replicate it perfectly?
LOL, I am saying this because it is a soundtrack done with a COMPLEX driver, does not even exist a tracker in this world for SEGA Genesis that can handle multiple AR changes rapidly like how Verytex is doing in that track. I repeat myself, choose a different track to cover for Genesis, you will NEVER get a perfect cover of that song at least that you make a LOT of instruments with differents AR changes (with DefleMask, MVS Tracker or VGM MM, it's the same), or at least that you can program your own tracker with AR Envelopes. Choose your option or forget about it.
It is a very complex track using a powerful driver, it would be cool that you can understand this and then stop attacking me and DefleMask Tracker like you are doing.
