Recent posts

#91

Help and Questions / Re: export batch of xm how doi...

Last post by Saga Musix - August 29, 2023, 18:25:00

You can run openmpt123 --help from the command line to get an overview of all supported options - that's all there is regarding documentation.

#92

Help and Questions / Re: export batch of xm how doi...

Last post by diigitae - August 29, 2023, 17:36:20

does it have some manual somewhere with openmpt123

#93

Help and Questions / Re: export batch of xm how doi...

Last post by Saga Musix - August 29, 2023, 16:59:00

As long as the files don't use any VST plugins, you could use the openmpt123 command line tool and write a batch script to apply it to a bunch of files.

#94

Help and Questions / export batch of xm how doing t...

Last post by diigitae - August 29, 2023, 14:16:54

hello ,
i have a question:
 i'm making a compilation of my old work (i work with xm format) and i want to render with a tool(wich i don't know) a batch of more or less 260xm in wav.
Is there a solution you know(i'm on manjaro but i making music on win xp 32 bits)?

thanks by advance

ju

#95

Help and Questions / Re: (Feature request) for inst...

Last post by cTrix - August 29, 2023, 08:47:17

yes... thats correct..
having the choice of the patterns to sync next, would be a nice little means of toying around with all the patterns in realtime

I'd imagine 3 modes if this feature existed: 

- Mode 1 : Pattern changes but keeps the playhead and timing position (like ProTracker)
- Mode 2 : Pattern changes at multiple of a tick... keeps play head position
- Mode 3 : Cues up the next pattern and plays it after the current pattern has ended

It comes down to how to implement it without adding any clutter to the interface (which is quite perfect at the moment).  I would certainly use this feature too, especially when pattern ordering tracks.

I guess this really belongs in "Feature Requests" too :-o  (sorry Saga!)

#96

General Chatter / Re: Open-source and free softw...

Last post by LDAsh - August 25, 2023, 11:02:32

https://github.com/wareya/swtone
Godot sfx generator.

#97

Development Corner / Re: Stereo separation and diff...

Last post by Saga Musix - August 23, 2023, 16:58:19

Yep, I think that is a pretty good summary of the behaviour.

#98

Development Corner / Re: Stereo separation and diff...

Last post by cspiegel - August 23, 2023, 16:10:06

OK, so if I understand it all, for any module files/types which contain panning commands, 100% is the right setting, and will provide the most "authentic" sound.

For older MODs without panning commands, 200% will provide the most "authentic" sound, but that means L-R separation that sounds especially jarring in headphones, and the default 100% setting will give a good balance between mono and complete separation.

In short, 100% is the "ideal" setting for all module types if you don't want the hard separation in the non-panning MOD files; and the bug report you mentioned would allow for that hard separation in them, while still allowing for the correct (100% setting) stereo separation on all other module types.

#99

Development Corner / Re: Stereo separation and diff...

Last post by Saga Musix - August 22, 2023, 20:57:39

Is this the default setting of 100 for OPENMPT_MODULE_RENDER_STEREOSEPARATION_PERCENT?  If so, then I'm guessing that setting this to 200 will give the "old" behavior of Amiga trackers of complete separation?

Setting it to 200% may work as a temporary workaround for MODs where you are sure that they contain no panning commands, but in general I would advise against doing so. The stereo separation is done on the final audio signal by means of mid/side processing, not by changing the panning of individual channel, so channels whose panning is modified to not be 50% left / right will not just be pushed further to the left / right, but they start blending into the other speaker signal.

With more modern formats such as FastTracker 2, which (I think?) had panning built in from the start, is it correct to assume that a stereo separation of 200 has the same sound as the original tracker?  And since authors had access to panning, a separation of 200 is how they probably "meant" for it to sound?

No, 100% pan separation is always the correct setting for trackers / formats with panning support, including FastTracker 2.
As mentioned in the linked issue, eventually there should be a setting for formats or individual files without well-defined panning to configure them with either hard-panning or playing them as mono, but that would not affect XMs or other files with well-defined panning semantics.

#100

Development Corner / Re: Stereo separation and diff...

Last post by cspiegel - August 22, 2023, 19:02:37

That's not how most PC trackers including OpenMPT and by extension libopenmpt implement it. Channels are not hard-panned but instead 50% left / 50% right, which is somewhat pleasant even with headphones.

Is this the default setting of 100 for OPENMPT_MODULE_RENDER_STEREOSEPARATION_PERCENT?  If so, then I'm guessing that setting this to 200 will give the "old" behavior of Amiga trackers of complete separation?

This default cannot change easily because it is possible to change the panning of individual channels by using command 8xx or E8x. This is an extension introduced by PC trackers, but apart from that it's still the same MOD format as on the Amiga. As it's possible that not all channels contain panning commands, it's also not so simple to change this default.

OK, that makes sense, and I can see the difficulty in dealing with this. I suppose 8xx/E8x were introduced to get around the limitations, so to speak, of the hard L-R separation.  But that means that authors who were aware of 8xx and E8x probably wrote MODs that should have stereo separation honored, given that they could pan to make things sound how they want, vs authors of earlier formats, who had no choice in the matter.

With more modern formats such as FastTracker 2, which (I think?) had panning built in from the start, is it correct to assume that a stereo separation of 200 has the same sound as the original tracker?  And since authors had access to panning, a separation of 200 is how they probably "meant" for it to sound?

Ultimately I want all files to sound as they were intended by the author with the caveat that the earlier L-R separated MODs should have reduced separation, because authors had no choice, and I like the sound better; it's more about which effects are available: since the .mod format can have 8xx or E8x, you can't simply assume that they need a different separation than, say, FastTracker 2.  So, after all that, the default setting of 100 which makes early MODs sound good, but doesn't overly restrict properly panned modules, is probably just fine to use in general.

Thanks a lot for the info, I appreciate it!