This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

481

MilkyTracker Community / Re: Spd?

« on: September 14, 2008, 02:35:26 »

You're not wrong, that's what I was trying to say. Of course your near-120 BPM is easily made near-60 or near-240 depending on how you space your rhythmic notes (base kicks for example). You can think of the song speed as sequencer resolution in that sense.

An older version (1.5) of Renoise had this useful display (Song properties) of the actual BPM while the tracker itself works with the BPM/Spd values. The BPM display has 4 decimal accuracy so whenever it shows x.0000, you've hit a proper real world BPM value. I haven't been keeping up with Renoise that much lately as I've been pretty much preoccupied with Milky but I think the more recent versions are in fact operating with real BPM, so you cannot use them to look up tracker BPM/Spd vs real BPM equivalences.

482

MilkyTracker Community / Re: Spd?

« on: September 13, 2008, 19:58:55 »

The basic time unit in traditional trackers is a tick which comes from the original implementation on Amiga computers where trackers began. The Spd value is actually the number of ticks per row, or a line of text you see in the pattern editor.

The BPM value has a misleading name since it controls the duration of ticks, not actual beats per minute. Setting Spd to 3, 6 or 12 makes BPM appear almost like actual BPM value, but it's not entirely accurate. Only a handful of Spd/BPM combinations result in song speeds that are synchronizable with modern sequencers. It's a little unfortunate but you can't rewrite history. :/

Some pointers on Spd values:

Using Spd 1 is not advised because it renders most pattern commands nonfunctional. This is because notes are triggered on the first tick and commands mostly come into effect on the following ones. If you only have one tick per row, they'll never get their chance.

If you're into making chiptunes and you like the sound of the 0xy arpeggio command..

it is wise to use a song speed value divisible by 3 in order that the arpeggio sequence can loop smoothly.

That's because a tracker arpeggio is made of 3 notes, the base note and 2 offsets. If you choose a Spd where those 3 notes aren't spread evenly among the ticks of your rows, some notes will get more attention from the replay. But that's a subjective thing, really. It may well be a desired effect sometimes.

483

Sampling / Re: Project ST-01: The original MonoBass and Tinewave in action...

« on: September 13, 2008, 13:12:06 »

Entertaining.

484

Bug Report Archive / Re: E5X bug?

« on: September 13, 2008, 12:40:07 »

Must notify Valerio..

EDIT: The .PDFs have now been updated.

485

Sampling / Re: ST-01: Snare1 source confirmed thanks to Dr_Mabuse!!

« on: September 13, 2008, 02:38:26 »

Dunno, I can see them fine.

486

Bug Report Archive / Re: E5X bug?

« on: September 13, 2008, 00:52:47 »

You're right, there's a typo. But the center is actually E58. I don't know where that table got so mangled but I'm going to investigate. If your ears are telling you E56 is closer to a note without an E5x, your sample finetune setting (in the instrument editor) is probably closer to -32 than 0. (In fact, my wild guess is -28.)

EDIT: The manual (online) has been updated with the correct values.

487

Sampling / Re: Project ST-01: The instruments behind the historic ST-01 sample disk revealed

« on: September 11, 2008, 23:26:09 »

What is the goal of Project ST-01? Is it documenting the sample sources or should we start crossing our fingers and holding our breath for a high quality remake of the set?

488

MilkyTracker Tracks & Songs / Re: the coolest xm i've ever seen/heard

« on: September 11, 2008, 12:07:12 »

So, you found our IRC channel admin, good job. We could use those skills of yours when he goes missing again..

Did you notice he is also represented on the website AND in the binary downloads?

489

Bug Report Archive / Re: Instrument Editor Fadeout

« on: September 09, 2008, 11:16:15 »

Ok, indigo, check the bug list now. And thanks.

490

Bug Report Archive / Re: Instrument Editor Fadeout

« on: September 09, 2008, 10:40:06 »

Ok, I can confirm this.

Load any module (just tried with an XM and a MOD of mine). Create a new sample, generate a wave and loop it. Then enable volume envelope and the fadeout value sounds more like 000 than CUT. If you do this without loading a module first and just start from the scratch, it's OK.