Please Assist: Help Requested for EDTN

On 9/30/07 10:44 AM, in article 46ffdddd$0$26390$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
>
>>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>>> I'm ready to believe that Radium is just a spoiled kid, sufficiently
>>>> taken with his intellectual power to believe (despite what experts tell
>>>> him/her) that one can reproduce music with one sample per second and
>>>> 1/100th of a bit per sample.
>
>>> I use to believe that music can be reproduced with one sample per second
>>> 1/100th of a bit per sample until I was taught differently by experts.
>
>> If you had as little as half a clue you could have found out why for yourself
>> by
>> doing some minimal 'research'. Instead you insist on asking absurd quesions
>> in
>> the hope of being spoon-fed the answers.
>>
>> It's tiresome in the extreme.
>
> I already found the answer to this 4 years ago. Okay, 3.5 years ago.
> Bits cannot be fractional and there can't be less than 1-bit/sample.
>
> However, this is history. Its the past and its gone. I know realize my
> mistake. More importantly, its totally irrelevant to EDTN.

But you still want to be spoon-fed.

The answer is out there if you will use your head. You cannot expect to
find it by searching on "EDTN"; you, personally, have made it almost
impossible with your *very* frequent, numerous posts. You must connect some
dots and be logical, not emotional, about the answer.

Richard Dobson wrote:

> The trick therefore
> is to learn enough about the technology to engineer your own version,

Oh and just how the !$!#%$ do I learn about this technology when
Creative-Technology -- being the sick f**k it is -- is keeping the
technical info of Creative Music Synth a secret???!!!

As you might have seen in the link I posted. I describe how I politely
asked them about information on Creative Music Synth. One person named
"Catherina" responded. This was the only reply I ever got to my
question. Before I read the reply, I was jubilant. I was extremely
optimistic and thought that person would assist me and tell me how
Creative Music Synth works and other wonderful technical details. I
couldn't have been more wrong.

The message by the Cathy b!+C# read "I've removed this message and any
similar messages because you posted them to more than one forum"

I was so upset and disappointed. I just wanted to find out where that
piece of Kathy human kakaa lives and burn her alive -- along with the
rest of Creative Technology.

F--k Creative Technology. F--k them for their crappy customer service.
F--k them for not talking to me about Creative Music Synth -- despite me
politely asking them and waiting patiently several times.

I hope Creative Technology dies the slowest, most painful, yet surest
death possible. I hope they are humiliated beyond imagination prior to
their execution.

I am so enraged at them that I feel like busting into their stations
with an oxyacetylene flame-thrower and forcing them -- with threats of
extreme skin-scalding torture -- to provide me with all the info about
Creative Music Synth. If they refuse, then I would like to scorch their
skins with yellow oxyacetylene flames until they die from pain-induced
shock. OTOH, I'd rather not stoop to their sub-fecal level as I don't
want to get pregnant with bubbas' kids.

Creative Technology = scumbag excuse for a company.

Despite what I've said above, I am an extremely compassionate and caring
individual. Philosophically, I can't justify vengeance. However, I
really have a hard time not wishing harm on cold-hearted scum like
Creative Technology and its "Catherina".

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:08:45 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
>
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>> > I'm ready to believe that Radium is just a spoiled kid, sufficiently
>> > taken with his intellectual power to believe (despite what experts tell
>> > him/her) that one can reproduce music with one sample per second and
>> > 1/100th of a bit per sample.
>>
>> I use to believe that music can be reproduced with one sample per second
>> 1/100th of a bit per sample until I was taught differently by experts.
>
>If you had as little as half a clue you could have found out why for yourself by
>doing some minimal 'research'. Instead you insist on asking absurd quesions in
>the hope of being spoon-fed the answers.
>
>It's tiresome in the extreme.

Amen! (Or do I mean "AOL"? :-) )

--
Al in St. Lou

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Richard Dobson wrote:
>
>> The trick therefore is to learn enough about the technology to
>> engineer your own version,
>
>
> Oh and just how the !$!#%$ do I learn about this technology when
> Creative-Technology -- being the sick f**k it is -- is keeping the
> technical info of Creative Music Synth a secret???!!!
>
You've probably succeeded in putting them off from any help they might
have been able to give. But that wouldn't have been much, becuase the FM
you like so much comes actually from the Yamaha OPL3 FM chip (used in
lots of cards and even on some motherboards of Pentium 2 vintage); not
~designed~ by Creative Labs, just used by them.

You will find loads of OPL3-related info on the net - I even found a
patent about emulating it. There are documents outlining the exact
configuration of FM operator nodes, and how the mixture of 2-operator
and 4-operator tones are organised. Not so long ago, once could
actually buy the OPL3 chip, and use it as the foundation of a diy sound
board (and yes, there is an example of just such a project on the net).
However, it is so old now that supplies have almost certainly dried up.

This will only make sense if you know what the term "operator" means
with respect to FM synthesis. That is what "learn about the technology"
means. Nobody else can do that for you. Suffice it to say, people have
done whole emulations of a full-blown DX7 using Csound. With digital,
FM is FM is FM; if you know the operator structure (which ~is
documented; search on OPL3 and it will pop up pretty quickly) you can
emulate it in software. FM synthesis is one of the most comprehensively
documented synthesis techniques ever. There is a vintage Csound opcode
that does basic 2-operator FM, and of course more elaborate structures
can be built up using groups of basic oscillators.

And, guess what - there is a complete open-source OPL3 emulator
available on the net, in the form of a load of C++ code - look for
"adplug". It is used for a Winamp plugin module to play OPL3 music
files, such as you may be using even now on your Soundblaster. Of
course, to make use of it you have to be comfortable reading, building
and if necessary modifying C++ code.

What nobody on this list can know, since you have never revealed it, is
~exactly~ what you imagine "the technical info" is that you seek so
intently; and what you assume you will do with it when you have got it!

Richard Dobson

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
...
> The only reason I've ever been rude to Creative Technology is because
> they are such jerks. I was nice to them at first but they were mean to
> me. So I took revenge but being impolite to them. It's their fault.
>

Doesn't work. They won't feel they have been revenged upon (if they are
even aware of it - email is so easily ignored or dismissed as from a
"crank"), and it only has the effect of diminishing the view others have
of you. Rudeness doesn't work, ever, period. It is always the total
responsibility of the person using rudeness. So it is always your fault.
"Own your stuff". And by investing so much attention in that
company, you have missed the fact that there is shedloads of inforation
about the OPL3 and the SB cards elsewhere.


..
> The FM synthesis was initiated by Yamaha. However, I suspect that
> Creative Technology made some alterations to it before putting it on the
> SB16 card. These alterations could possibly change the way the synth
> sounds. This is something they will not discuss because they are such
> sick stingy secretive f--ks.
>

It isn't the sort of chip you can "alter" - but it is of course a
programmable chip at least at the patch level - they may well have
developed their own patches. They are a commercial company, and that
sort of information is their "intellectual property". Did you offer to
sign an NDA? Anyway, rather than waste time asking for such things,
people have figured out pretty much what those patches are, OPL3
emulators and music players are dotted all over the net. You can even
find patent documents with full technical data on the thing, as
published by Yamaha. It really is a no-brainer to find this stuff on the
net.

> I am hoping this is not the case. I am hoping the SB16 ISA FM synth is
> just the OPL3 given a different name but otherwise is exactly the same
> as the Yamaha OPL3 FM chip -- this would really make my life a lot easier.
>

If its an old card, might be the earlier OPL2. There were various
families of the OPL3 chip made. The main one is, acccording to the net,
marked YMF262, Information here for example:

http://www.oplx.com/opl3.htm

Of course, companies such as Creative bought chips in such quantities it
was easy for them to put their own label on them, for whatever reason.
There is information on the net about that too.

>
> If you read the links to the two messages I posted, you'll find that I
> don't like emulation.
...
> Nothing like the the real FM in my older SB16 ISA card.

So, either you stick with that card, or build your own, if you can lay
your hands on a viable mountable chip. There is this project here for
example:

http://www.ucapps.de/mbhp_opl3.html


I have for example hung onto an old Pentium machine as it has an ISA
slot, and "you never know when that might come in useful". So far it
hasn't, but...

The differences may not be in the FM side, but in the choice of DAC and
external analog cpomponents. But it is impossible to know what causes
the difference from what you write. Opinions do not impart information.
To account for why the emulators don't stack up you need clinical
objective analyses - different patch setups? Spectrum? Distortion? Needs
a cheap DAC to get the right sound? There are loads of sites discussing
the weaknesses of OPL3 emulation, but they don't waste time throwing
opinions such as "kakaa" around, they ~analyse~ and discuss, with a view
to getting hopefully better emulation, or at least, a clear
understanding of why the original device was so special. Be scientific!

I have done as much as I have time for, as it has amused me to find out
for myself what is available - it's a lot. So the rest is up to you.

Richard Dobson

Richard Owlett wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Will someone please assist me in answering my questions in the below
>>> thread?
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Where did you hear of your particular combination of letters? Isn't
>> that a good place to start if you want to track down its meaning? You
>> seem to have an idea that it's a kind of telephone service for people
>> with a particular disability. That's pretty specific. What makes you
>> think so?
>>
>> Jerry
>
>
> Using *_ONLY_* information from his "Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:03 -0700"
> post and spending approximately 10 minutes with Google I came up with 10
> URL's of agencies/firms which would be able to answer ANY legitimate
> question or be willing/able to "tell him where to go" [intentional
> double entendre]. The majority of sources are either commercial or
> governmental sites. Remainder appear to be charitable sites.
>
> All he would probably need would be a cogent reason for asking.

The above has been empirically proved correct.
If phrased politely, "being curious" is "cogent" enough.
BTW there is a one-to-one association between EDT and EDTN.

NO. I will not post reference to source. Will only say he is a
professional with daily association with EDT/EDTN.