| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
DMC 4 or DMC 5?
Here's a discussion topic. Which DMC version tunes do you prefer, DMC V4.0 or DMC V5.0 if so then why.
I like DMC V5.0 myself, you can make even better enhanced effects, but I seem to be more comfortable using DMC V4.0, because of my original style of music, which I compose. DMC V4.0 is more simpler compared to DMC V5.0, and it is more user-friendly to play around with.
DMC V5.0 however is better. Although it looks like dogshit, the music editor allows you to do professional music. I noticed that talented musicians had their own styles using that particular music editor. |
|
... 17 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Dane, you're welcome to :) |
| |
dalezy
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 476 |
from what i've read, dmc seems to be a very bad alternative =)
i second what dane said. nothing beats jch. |
| |
Puterman
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 188 |
Depends on what you're after. Unfortunately people who make music prefer good editors, while people who write code prefer good players (where "a good player" means that it uses very little rastertime). You just can't use a JCHv20 tune in some demo parts, unless you've hacked up the player a lot. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3048 |
I use DMC5.0 with few enhancements like audible editing, sector tracker etc. That possibility to start tune from mark is a nice idea. I was talking about that with Orcan, maybe I'll add it to my version.
Roman |
| |
Merman
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 140 |
It took me a while to get used to DMC v5, in fact at times I find it uncomfortable after using Music Assembler for so long, but it does produce good results.
I agree that the work-file size is too large, by the time you have half a dozen tunes and the editor on a disk it is full! |
| |
bOOZElEE
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 35 |
somewhen back in 1996 ive added an rle (de)packer (for others: equal char (de)PACKER ;)) to DMC 5.0
as i got pissed off by those huge workfiles.
anyway i only did one single tune in DMC 5.0 as i didnt manage the "understanding step" from V4 to V5;
it looked a bit too complicated for me ;)
if anyone likes to take a look at this V5 please email me, but i take no responsibilty if anything might go wrong during packing/depacking
coming to DMC V4:
a very interesting editor, which fits exactly for my purposes; as it was quiet easy to do a double sid version of this editor. there was enough memory left
to imply a music packer&relocator to hold a second (packed) tune in memory and still edit the "first" tune.
to edit the "second" you can easly switch between both tunes.
up to 4x speed is possible, also with both tunes playing. this version seem to base on KBs modified version.
if anybody is interested feel free to email me
boozelee@web.de
|
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Quote: It took me a while to get used to DMC v5, in fact at times I find it uncomfortable after using Music Assembler for so long, but it does produce good results.
I agree that the work-file size is too large, by the time you have half a dozen tunes and the editor on a disk it is full!
Yes, I agree there regarding space restriction. DMC V5.0 has its own drawbacks. I think DMC V5.0 would be cool if it had its own built-in- packer so you did not have to load in a packer. :) |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
Can I answer Run DMC? |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Quote: Can I answer Run DMC?
No Cruzer, dude. This subject is regarding the C64 music tracker 'Demo Music Creator'. ;) |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
Ok, sowwy. ;) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
