GUS Daily Digest            Thu, 13 Jan 94  0:07         Volume 10: Issue  13 

Today's Topics:
						3d files to wav format
							 3 Questions
						A good memory source.
					   Doom and OS/2 revisited.
			Doom under OS/2 ( ie. does DOS + DOS = OS/2?)
							  Gus mixer
			   GUS Mixer, the GF1, and WaveTable Synth
					 HIRED GUNS by Psygnosis: 3D?
		  Is there a Band-in-a-Box that will work the GUS???
							Mailing lists.
					  MicroProse Bashes the GUS
						Mod4Win and WinModPro
						  Mod and Windows Qs
							   orchhit
					  Os2 & Ultrasound message2
							   PatchDir
							 PatchDir, SB
						   PatchDir to Hell
					Problems with SBOS and DUNE I
					  SB + GUS, BLASTER question
					  Should I swith to v2.06a?
				Sim City 2K doesn't work on my system
						Sound Blaster and GUS

Standard Info:
	- Meta-info about the GUS can be found at the end of the Digest.
	- Before you ask a question, please READ THE FAQ.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:42:11 GMT-0800
From: ferris@mezzanine.mse.arizona.edu (Bob Ferris)
Subject: 3d files to wav format

Who Ever Can Help,

I was wondering if anyone knows how to take a sound file that is
rendered in one direction and then store that sound file as a wav.

This is important as not every one has an Ultrasound board.  This way
soundblaster people can also enjoy enjoy 3d sounds.

Thanks,

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 06:36:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Gelinas <gelinas@CAM.ORG>
Subject: 3 Questions

This is my first letter to the digest so forgive me for any format error.

As the subject says I have 3 unrelated questions I need answered.

1) Does the Gravis record properly from a standard RCA jack?
reason: A friend of mine came over with his portable and we plugged his 
CD-out directly into the gus to perform some samples using USS8 unfortunately
the VU meters kept on peeking.  Since it is direct there is no way we could 
control the volume..

2) Where can I get the 16bit recording daughtercard, and how much does it cost.
I live in montreal and cannot find any place that sells this.

3) Unlike most other people.... I want to use patches in my mod files.  How
exactly would I go about going from a patch to a file suitable to be used
by a tracker.
reason: I have no musical knowledge whatsoever, therefore I cannot program midi
files, but using a tracker I can easily compose music.

Thanks in advance.

Daniel Gelinas
gelinas@cam.org

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 16:48:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Munsil <dmunsil@netcom.com>
Subject: A good memory source.

Subject: GUS Memory Found.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard
Organization: The Munsil/Stone Organization
Summary: 
Keywords: 

Quite a few friends of mine just bought GUSes recently and had trouble 
finding the memory at a good price and in stock. I called around and 
found that, in fact, 256k DRAMs are running about $7 most places, and 
some places don't have any. In any event, the best place I personally 
could find was JDR Microdevices, with 80ns Fast Page mode 256kx4 DRAM for 
$5.25 a chip, plus $5 shipping ($7.50 2nd Day Air).

I thought that was quite reasonable. Anyone else is welcome to suggest 
other places. I am not in any way affiliated with JDR.

Numbers:

800-538-5000
408-559-1200

Hope this helps someone.

--Don

BTW, I bought my own memory from Memory Express some time ago. They were 
fine, and the price was reasonable. They're out of stock right now, but 
the number is 800-877-8188 or 818-333-6389 for future reference.

********************************************************
* Don Munsil          * If you open your mind too far, *
* dmunsil@netcom.com  * people will throw trash in it. *
********************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 09:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "By this time, my lungs were aching for air" <JKS4675@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>
Subject: Doom and OS/2 revisited.

Thanks to Robert Manley, who had the answer that nobody else
on the net seemed to know. On that, I'll serve myself a big
slice of humble pie. 
****************************************************************************
*                                                                          *
*      Goldschlager- because you can't puke a Rolex....                    *
*                                                                          *
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 16:48:16 -0600
From: Don Eller <don.eller@inst.medtronic.com>
Subject: Re: Doom under OS/2 ( ie. does DOS + DOS = OS/2?)

> From tay2.dec.com!dantonio@uunet.uu.net Wed Jan 12 09:09:52 1994
> To: Don Eller <don.eller@inst.medtronic.com>
> Subject: Re: Doom under OS/2 ( ie. does DOS + DOS = OS/2?) 
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 14:09:52 -0500
> From: "Momentary language, sexual situations" <dantonio@tay2.dec.com>
> X-Mts: smtp
> Content-Length: 4057
> 
> 
> > Yet again another staunch believer in OS/2 that seems to believe that
> > if a program won't run under OS/2's DOS window, than it won't run
> > under DOS either.
> 
> Whoa! Having read both the original message and your reply twice (to make
> sure I din't miss anything), I gotta ask you where you got this conclusion?
> The person clearly stated that IT DOESN'T WORK UNDER OS/2 AND THE GUS IS
> THE PROBLEM. They said nothing about it not working under DOS.
> 
Yes, I did assume he didn't try to run DOOM under DOS since I know from
experience that it does.  I have also learned from experience that when someone
has trouble running a DOS application under OS/2 if you ask them if they tried
to run it under DOS they typically have not.  Assuming that DOS emulation under
OS/2 is perfect, and therefore if it fails it should probably exhibit the same
failure under DOS.  Also from experience I know that OS/2's emulation of DOS
is not perfect and that you can find DOS applications, like DOOM, that work
fine, (although sometimes you still have to know the right configuration) but
fail to work correctly (or the same) under OS/2's DOS emulation.

For the record, when the finger was pointed at the GUS for failure to provide
digital sound effects for DOOM, it was not clear if he was indicating a
hardware fault or a driver fault.  One must assume it is not a hardware fault
unless we are to assume that there a versions of Ultrasound cards that work
differently for digital output under DOOM.  I estimate this as a slim 
possibility, so I would go after version of drivers or configuration differences
from those of us who have gotten it to work with both music and digital effects.

To help him narrow this down, I simply suggested he try to emulate more closely
the environment that DOOM is known to work in, simply put run it under DOS.
That is how experienced trouble shooters diagnose problems, we try to eliminate
differences between what works and what doesn't to focus on those factors which
play a role.

> > Why don't you try running DOOM under DOS, I think that although this
> > is not a trivial task to get the environment correct (ie interrupts,
> > correct DOOM setup file), if you've been following along like I have,
> > you should be able to get this to work, including digital effects.
> > Everything seems to work fine under DOS after you duplicate the
> > environment that Doom was tested in.
> 
> Perhaps because they don't have DOS on their machine? Or they can't
> duplicate the environment? For example, I have DR DOS on my machine (in
> addition to OS/2) and I truly doubt they tested DOOM under DR DOS.
> 
I don't recall reading in the DOOM documentation that they tested their product
under OS/2 or DR DOS.  If they did you've got a point, if not I don't see that
this is much different than complaining that DOOM doesn't run properly with
Borlands sidekick installed.  I'm sure you could find hundreds of configurations
where Doom doesn't run, and I'm sure that the developer would be interested if
it is a common configuration, as most people who read the digest.  If it is not
a common configuration, you probably need to realized that problems will appear.

> > I empathize with you that IBM should not have "guaranteed" full DOS
> > compatibility with OS/2 since DOS applications and drivers have always
> > assumed that they are in full control of the PC's hardware.  It should
> > come as no surprise that when this rule is violated, such as OS/2,
> > that unexpected problems arise, since this is not the environment that
> > DOS applications are designed for.
> 
> I've had quite alot of success with OS/2 runing things that I can't run
> (for whatever reason, usually memory) under DOS or under Windows NT. In any
> case, Id tested DOOM under OS/2 (in a DOS box) and says that it works. So
> the problem is the GUS, not DOOM or OS/2.
>
I concede that you might have had lots of success with OS/2 when you couldn't
get them to work with DOS, but I've heard this story before from people who
were not using some of the new tricks in DOS 6.  They found OS/2 gave them
better DOS environments (memory wise) that DOS 5, and haven't bothered to
continue their education with DOS after going to OS/2.

I disagree with your point that since ID stated to test DOOM with OS/2 in a DOS
box, and it worked, that the GUS has a problem.  I've seen this points raised
from DOS users also, even after reading for the upteenth time that digital
effects will not work with an IRQ's set too high, it invariably turns out the
the person was ignorant to this fact and sheepily admits later that setting
IRQ to 7 fixed the problem.  If you've been following the posts for long, you're
sure to have noticed this.  I'm sure that if ID were contacted to get the exact
configuration used for testing DOOM under OS/2, and you configured your setup
as such, DOOM would work!

If an application that uses hardware works correctly under DOS, and doesn't 
under OS/2, how can you conclude that it is the hardware's fault?  Or are you
pointing your finger at the hardware's device drivers?  Either way it sounds
like a configuration issue, not a hardware problem.

> > I also, agree that Gravis should state whether that have any firm
> > committment to OS/2 and not leave OS/2 users waiting for something
> > which may never arrive.  But you should understand, that nowhere on
> > the GUS package, did it state support for OS/2 (or future support).
> 
> Gravis has stated many times they WILL support OS/2. Of course, they've
> also stated at various times that they WON'T. So it's not clear by any
> means.
I've seen this same behavior from most application developers.  I think it may
have something to do with developers perception of the most commonly used
environment being DOS with Windows and not OS/2.  I wonder where they got this
idea from.  Maybe they read the same surveys that I've read.  Or better yet
maybe they've tried to do some development under OS/2 and found out that like
the Mac, it isn't possible easily port their software to run in native mode, and
the DOS box isn't 100% compatible like I've suggested.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that OS/2 isn't technically superior to 
DOS/Windows, just that the current installed base isn't sufficient to build
a strong case for everything that exist's to be ported to it yet.  When native
OS/2 support for Ultrasound comes along, I'm sure some really nice applications
will appears that those of us in DOS and Windows cannot run, or won't run as
well.  But I don't see why you'd expect Gravis to have as many people working
on OS/2 support as DOS/Windows support!

BTW - I haven't tried it, but I'm fairly sure DOOM wouldn't run in a DOS window
under Windows either.  But windows users just bite the bullet and exit to DOS
when this happens.  One of OS/2 greatest strengths, protecting the user from
DOS applications, may turn out to be one of its greatest weaknesses.

> 
> >   OS/2 is still not seen as a mainstream
> > environment by most people that develop hardware and software for
> > PC's.  Note Wordperfect dropping development efforts of Wordperfect
> > for OS/2.  Lotus is the only large software vendor I can think of that
> > trys to support may OS's and platforms.  Even Microsoft, which it
> > would seem could afford to offer support for other platforms, has
> > chosen to only support MAC's (System 7) and PC's (Windows only).
> 
> Microsoft isn't really interested in helping OS/2, since it a direct
> competition for both DOS/Windows and Windows NT. As for WordPerfect, last I
> heard they are indeed supporting OS/2 as are a number of other companies.
> But this is the GUS Digest, not comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> 
You may be right on this point as Microsoft does make WAY more money on 
operating systems and their upgrades than on applications, but if Microsoft
really had faith in their strategy, they should see some benefit in picking
up the cash in the application starved OS/2 environment.  This show of good
faith toward a competitor might even grant them more warm fuzzies toward their
users about cross platform support, and not having to relearn applications when
companies decide to more users to a new hardware platform.  I know that this is
one of the things we use to evaluate applications for purchasing at our company.

> > Now where do you think Gravis should draw the line for supporting the
> > GUS?  Should they be expected to make it work under Solaris for Intel,
> > Poweropen, etc.  Careful now, the next two years could double the
> > possible OS's to support for Intel platforms.  Yes, I see that OS/2 is
> > starting to go beyond the niche market with an installed base of a
> > couple million, and sure this base will most likely grow more quickly,
> > due to what was released as Windows NT and forecasted delay's in
> > Microsoft "Chicago" OS.  But lets be realistic and compare it to the
> > installed base of over 50 million users of Microsoft Windows.
> 
> They should provide support for OS/2 as a marketing move to sell
> soundcards. OS/2 is indeed mainstream and they are missing a number of
> users (who regularly post to OS/2 groups saying they like the GUS and
> wondering if it is supported). When they find it's not (or that the support
> is 3rd party, if any), they usually buy a competitor's card.
>
Their are more MACS than PC's running OS/2.  I just heard that the 15th Million
Mac was sold.  It would seem to me that Gravis would have Forte build them a
Mac version of the Ultrasound it would buy them more marketshare than
supporting OS/2.  Perhaps that is where funding got diverted.
 
> BTW, given the recent review of "Chicago", it will suffer (as Windows NT as
> suffered) from lack of drivers and/or applications and poor DOS support.
Alas, I think this is that fate of all new OS's.  How can you fix some of the
really bad things about DOS, without messing up compatibility with DOS
applications.  Of course new OS's cannot have guaranteed working drivers and
applications until the design of the OS is frozen.  In todays environment,
this means a month after the latest beta version is found to be bug free by
more than half the beta testers.

The experience of Windows tells us that it took Microsoft nearly 7 years and
three major revisions before it achieved major acceptance by users and 
developers.  The vote is still out on OS/2, but so far it is close to 5 years,
in its second major revision, and still has not reached critical mass(es).
(grin)

I agree that if IBM hangs in there another couple of years and provides that
next major revision, OS/2 may just take over the DOS/Windows environment.  It
is just too early to tell, and there are new players coming every year, and 
this is just the Intel platform.  Factor in the other platforms here now and
those coming and there is going to be a further dividing of marketshare.  The
resulting confusion to users is also causing many users to stay with DOS/Windows
even longer than most of us support people would like to see it.  But remember,
to users, a computer is just a fancy desktop decoration without applications
that they can use, and users can only be pulled along a little at a time.  Most
throw horrendous tirades when asked to switch applications, no matter how much
superior in features, easy of use, etc.  Most people don't want change or 
progress that they didn't ask for.  I know this from experience, because this
has been my life for the last eight years.

> Whereas, OS/2 is already "up and running" as the ads say...
True, but running what?  The built-in app's that came with it!  There are still
few major business application vendors with good OS/2 products.  Most could
only do a poor job of porting existing Windows applications that frequently
run slower in the OS/2 environment.  Say's something about their development
environment, doesn't it?
> 
> DDA
> 

Please forgive my longwinded response, and my posting it to the digest.  I felt
many people could benefit from the discussions of the issues presented here.
I for one will sadly remain with my outdated DOS/Windows environment until
a clear winner emerges, I like Gravis am just not sure who'll win.  I'd give
IBM a really fighting chance with two contenders, but sometimes this just
divides your supporters so that Microsoft might win, even with a product
inferior to OS/2 or Poweropen.  I still believe that the victory will be won
in the business world, this is why Apple has had such a long uphill battle with
a clearly superior platform.  It has taken many vendors several years 
collaborating on standards like VESA, etc. to try and turn the Intel platform 
into something as powerful and sophisticated.

Don Eller                        Internet: d.eller@medtronic.com
Instruments PC/Network Support       UUCP: uunet!medtron!de7043
Medtronic, Inc.                      AT&T: (612) 574-4916
7000 Central Ave NE. T408
Minneapolis, MN 55432

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:02:58 -0500 (EST)
From: dionf@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Francois Dion)
Subject: Gus mixer

First, this is a question for the gus-MUSIC list, not gus-GENERAL.

> From: bsteinf@eis.calstate.edu (Burke Steinfelt)
> Subject: GUS Mixer, the GF1, and WaveTable Synth
> 
>  I find it unusual that the GUS doesn't have Treble, Bass, Mic, and possibly
> other mixing level controls like PAS's and SBP's(?).  Is there a reason these
> controls weren't included in the GF1?

These controls would be external to the GF1 in any case. Now the reason why
there is no treble and bass is because these controls inside a computer add
a lot of noise (PAS and SBPros have very low SNR. The PAS has a SNR 15dB lower
than the GUS). As for the mic and line in levels, well they are on the
daughterboard, which is for people who want to record quality samples on the
GUS. The included 8 bit recording on the GUS was included for MPC compatibility
and for speech recognition (and with the ALC on the mic input, this is enough).

> Regarding WaveTable Synthesis...
> 
>   It's known that when you have a sample recorded at a certain frequency, you
>  play it back at that frequency to hear the sound as it was recorded.  But
>  when you play it back at a different rate, higher or lower, the sound
>  speeds up or slows down, respectively, and the sound becomes quite distorted
>  the further away from the original frequency you recorded it at.

This is why you use several samples to cover the range of the instrument you
sample (which is never C0-A8 for real instruments btw). 7 samples are usually
enough to cover the range of a typical instrument like a piano or guitar and
the result is quite good.

>   Since time compress/expand features are included into Wave editors, why not
>  have it built into the GUS hardware?

Because that would mean a totally different concept and it would mean to
scrap the GF1 and do something else.

>It should be realtime like other
>filters, and enable looping portions of a sound to sound the same on each note
>as it does on the middle key note, in addition to the sound being played back
>at the same speed on all notes.

It is more flexible to use the current scheme as this permit you to use
time compress/expand if you want, to generate more samples.

>Alas, this wouldn't be useful for making voices sound like The Chipmunks,
>but hey, it would be NiCE to enable for instruments and F/X.  To do this, you
>would use the ratio between the "original" note and the "new" note to time
>compress (if its a lower note) or time expand (if its a higher note) to make
>the sound play back at the same speed, but different pitch.

The duration will be kept but the range is not that great because you introduce
distortion in either direction. You would still need about the same quantity
of samples and get only marginally better sound. Take note that the harmonics
on real instruments are not at the same ratio at different notes, so this
part would not improve.
>I don't know how feasable this would be, since everyone would need an upgrade
>if this actually happened (yeah, right.) but I would atleast like to see a
>software attempt at this. (Attn: ASM programmers! :)

Not in real time without a DSP. In non real time however check out cool editor
(and i hope you have a 486...)

Ciao,
-- 
Francois Dion
	'  _   _   _ 
 CISM (_) (_)  _) FM       Montreal , Canada       Email: CISM@ERE.UMontreal.CA
	  (_)  / . _)             10000 Watts          Telephone no: (514) 343-7511
_______________________________________________________________________________
Audio-C-DJ-Fractals-Future-Label-Multimedia-Music-Radio-Rave-Video-VR-Volvo-...

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 14:27:10 +1030 (CST)
From: Gavin <SCARMAN@hfrd.dsto.gov.au>
Subject: Re: GUS Mixer, the GF1, and WaveTable Synth

bsteinf@eis.calstate.edu (Burke Steinfelt) writes...
>I find it unusual that the GUS doesn't have Treble, Bass, Mic, and possibly
>other mixing level controls like PAS's and SBP's(?).

But I've never seen any professional synth with these controls or even a CD 
player with bass/treble. As any audiophile will tell you flat frequency response 
is what you're looking for.

> ...when you play it back at a different rate, higher or lower, the sound
> speeds up or slows down, respectively, and the sound becomes quite distorted
> the further away from the original frequency you recorded it at.

'layering' is supposed to help this somewhat, eg. sample once per octave or 
something like that. Check out acguit.zip at epas in ..../sound/patches/files.

>I'm interested in hearing any other new ideas for GUS synthesis, or whatever 
>too.

You may get a better response in the GUS music digest.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 17:16:04 EST
From: Greg <BGUZ@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: HIRED GUNS by Psygnosis: 3D?

The following was written in the most recent issue of
PC Entertainment:

"Psygnosis has released 'Hired Guns', the first game to
take advantage of Gravis' 3D Holographic Sound. The
Ultrasound's 3D sound effect are stunning, and should make
for a much more realistic gaming experience."

I know that 'Hired Guns' has been released for the Amiga, and
I think the PC version will be out soon. BUT can anyone confirm
if the game will really support the Ultrasound in 3D.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 05:15:23 PST
From: ud907@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Christopher L. Mackay)
Subject: Is there a Band-in-a-Box that will work the GUS???

 I recently acquired a copy of Band-in-a-Box from a friend, and am quite
impressed with it. However, it's getting annoying when ever I start
Windows and want to use BB(Band-in-a-box), and have to go into the GUS'
patch manager, and manually load all the patches into my GUS' 1024k
memory. Is there a version Band-in-a-box that supports Windows MCI(?)
function? From what I understand, MCI would allow an application to be
'scripted'. Thus, BB would load up the necessary patches into the GUS
memory when it starts up. Am I even close? I'd sure appreciate any help
you could give me on either question. Thanks in advance.


--
Chris Mackay                 | "Whatever you can do, or dream you can do,    
Victoria Freenet Association |  do it. Boldness has genius, power, and
ud907@freenet.victoria.bc.ca |  magic in it       - Goethe
	

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 15:59:20 -0500 (EST)
From: m8088044@llohio.ll.pbs.org (Fred Coffey)
Subject: Mailing lists.

Fellow GUSsers:
	What I'm about to say probably doesn't follow net.ethics, because 
it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the GUS, (which, bye the way has been 
my soundcard of choice for the past 2 years or so, the sound is excellent, 
and I'm going to bump the RAM up to 1 MB this weekend.)but this is my only 
way of reaching a large audience of people that know (most of the
time) what they're talking about.  I'm looking for more mailing list groups
like this one, on mostly computers, networking, etc.  If you have list, mail
it to me.  My address should be in the header above.  Thanks a million!

	For anyone thinking of flaming me, go right ahead, but DON'T do it
on the digest, do it privately, it's much for fun that way. :)

No more bandwith needs to be wasted ...

Fred


-- 
Fred Coffey                |  
Sandusky, Ohio             |  PGP Public Key Available Upon Request
m8088044@llohio.ll.pbs.org |  
"....for the world is hollow and I have touched the sky...." -- Star Trek

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:00:38 -0500
From: David Demski <the_gonz@access.digex.net>
Subject: MicroProse Bashes the GUS

I was calling Micro Prose BBS the other day and decided to look in the
message base to see if any one was talking about the GUS.  To my suprise
there was a fair amount of discussion.  Unfortunatlly the GUS owners
were being shot down left and right.  Every time any one asked about GUS
support a Microprose Rep. tld them that they won't support it now and
that its not their faught that they won't.  I felt that it would be a
good idea to log some of these attacks on GUS and share them with every
one on the digest.  If any one out there would like to reply to any
Micro's comments just mail me with them and I'll be glad to send them to
them.  You can mail me at the_gonz@access.digex.com .

Here are a few of the comments made by Micro Prose Reps:


-> and should I get a Gravis Ultrasound (returning my SB Pro) for better
-> music and sounds if microprose will support this?

I wouldn't recommend it right now. There is still precious little
support for the GUS in the industry while SB is considered the standard.
If you still play a lot of older games, the GUS's SB emulation is poor
at best, don't count on it. You can always add the WaveBlaster, which
sounds every bit as good as a GUS or you could switch to the new
MediaVision PAS16XL with wavetable synthesis and full SB compatibility.
The combo of an SB16 and Roland SCC-1 is about the best you can do,
though it is a little pricey.


-> Thanks for your message regarding the Gravis Ultrasound (Advanced,
-> that is.:P ) I have heard buzzchat about the Gravis being easier to
-> program as opposed to the Sound Blaster, and other cards.
-> Is this true?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! The originator of these rumors was either Gravis or
someone who has never programmed. If you have space to link all Gravis's
library code, and only need to playback standard MIDI files, it may not
be that hard, but doing anything else involves a considerable amount of
programming. God help you if you need to do your own patch management!


->     I am the the very happy owner of many MPS games however, I must s
-> that I am very disappointed by the lack of support for the Gravis
-> Ultra-Sound sound board.

While the GUS can sound good, there still are relatively few of them
out there compared to other sound cards. Creative ships more Sound
Blasters in two weeks than Gravis shipped GUS's all last year.

-> This wonderful sound board is on the cutting edge of sound board
-> technology.  The GUS uses wave table synthesis to achieve 16 bit 44.4
-> Mhz CD quality sound.

There are a dozen boards with better specs out these days, even if the
GUS is the cheapest.

-> It uses RAM cacheing (as opposed to ROM) to get almost unlimited
-> sound and digital effects.

A side effect of RAM caching is also uncontrollable pauses whenever the
music needs a new sound.

->     In addition to the wonderful sound, Advanced Gravis has done a gr
-> deal to make it easy for programmers to use the GUS.  A free develope

They only make it easy if you can use their extremely inefficient and
large drivers. They have been extremely slow to give us the hardware
details we require.

->     Many other companies are supporting or have GUS support planned f
-> the GUS; Sierra, Id, Epic, Accolade, Lucas Arts, Impressions, and
-> Westwood Studios, to name a few.  I know that Microprose, like many
-> other software developers have limited resources but the GUS is a gre
-> new technology that warrants a serious look.

Almost all of these companies are supporting the GUS only in a General
MIDI mode. Since all of our games now support General MIDI for music and
Sound Blaster (or other cards) for digitized sounds, you can use the new
MegaEm software from Gravis for GUS support.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 08:11:41 -0500
From: "Michael Grant Wilson" <Mcq@oti.on.ca>
Subject: Mod4Win and WinModPro

Thanks to <dantonio@tay2.dec.com>, I finally clue'ed in that the
GUS only does stereo at exact multiples of 11025.

So, for Mod4Win if you edit the mod4win.ini file to have a multiple
of 11025 as the sample rate and set the number of channels to 2, it
will play correctly in stereo.

Similarly, if you configure the sample rate for WinModPro to be
a multiple of 11025 and turn on stereo, it too will work.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 15:23:48 EST
From: Chad Smith <s19915@hp.rmc.ca>
Subject: Mod and Windows Qs

Hello GUS Masters.  I have a couple of question for those more informed than 
myself.  First, does anyone know which FTP sites have the MODUS mod player for 
the 
GUS and Windows?  Second, the sound quality of playback through Windows for mod 
and midi files is inferior to that of DOS.  I am using MOD4WIN, MidiSurfer, and 
the Media Player for PB in Win.  I just use the GUS mod and midi players in DOS. 
 I'm pretty sure all my software is the latest ver.  Anyone have any suggestion 
as to 
why this is so?  My GUS hardware is ver. 2.4, is this the problem?  One 
more thing is anyone having trouble with MOD4WIN hanging when selecting 
Stereo playback for frequencies >11k? 
	  Thanks for your help!=-)
 -----------------------------------
= OCdt. Chad Smith                 =
= Royal Military College of Canada =
= Kingston, Ontario                =
= EMail Addr - s19915@rmc.ca       =
 -----------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 11:37:46 -0500 (EST)
From: dionf@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Francois Dion)
Subject: orchhit

First, this is a question for the gus-MUSIC list, not gus-GENERAL.

> From: Yossi Oren <LIOREN1@WEIZMANN.weizmann.ac.il>
> Subject: Dumb, dumb, dumb! (wrong patch trouble)
> 
> Hello fellow GUSsers!
> I have just installed the 2.06a patches (wow!  mega sound!) and I got
> strange sound out of some MIDIs with Orchestra Hits - namely,
> passport.mid and freaker.  mid.  I opened orchhit.pat with PMak, and
> lo!  The dwoozles put a MAJOR hit, not a MINOR hit!  The whole IDEA of
> Orchestra Hits is to make a minor chord!

Maybe i remember wrong, but the SCC is a major hit too. And that works just
great for most GM/GS songs that use the orchestral hit like dasboot.mid
(604-dasb.mid is another name for it). It is the same hit as in the real
song made by U96.

One hit that is lame however is the brass section. They use something
called hitbrass.pat. Now, this is not a brass hit, and doesn't sound like
a brass section. The sound used in Close encounter of the third kind IS a
brass hit. I have one in the hits.zip file i had uploaded to epas (but it
seems to have vanished once again...)

Ciao,
-- 
Francois Dion
	'  _   _   _ 
 CISM (_) (_)  _) FM       Montreal , Canada       Email: CISM@ERE.UMontreal.CA
	  (_)  / . _)             10000 Watts          Telephone no: (514) 343-7511
_______________________________________________________________________________
Audio-C-DJ-Fractals-Future-Label-Multimedia-Music-Radio-Rave-Video-VR-Volvo-...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 08:49 EST
From: BERNIE3@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: Os2 & Ultrasound message2

	 #1          12-JAN-1994 08:38:19.10                          
	   NEWMAIL 
 X-Vms-To: IN%"ultrasound%itchy@dsd.es.com" 
 
 
I am interested in buying an Ultrasound board. 
 
Will it work with OS2? 
Will it work with WINOS2? 
Do you have drivers for OS2? 
 
Would SBOS have to be run for OS2? 
 
I'd like to know these answers before I make my buying decision. 
 
Thanks for your help. 
 
Be of good cheer. 
 
John
