| |
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. |
|
| |
Dr.Voice
Account closed
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 15 |
Between those two editors, I would go for the DMC 5, because It has more options to toy around with the sounds. True, it doesn't look very good, but this is music editor, not a demo, so the eye candy isn't the main thing and still DMC 5 is pretty comfortable to use. Only sucky things with DMC 5 are the huge workfiles and no 'supercommand' thing, which takes me to the SYNC. The editor I would choose over those two. It looks like DMC 5, but has the 'supercommand' thing to toy around with the sounds even more than in DMC series and also very small workfiles. It might not be the most stable editor around, but it has everything I need for composing. Tho, I've been playing around lately with JCH (the editor :p) and it starts to feel like an editor I would move to. Anyway, back to the original discussion. :) |
| |
Stryyker
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 468 |
Apart from SYNC loading and freezing/resetting etc., what other problems does it have? I may have a solution for the load issue. Want it to test? Btw, DMC 4 vs DMC 5 comes down to 2 things, indtrument flexability and sound init. DMC 4 can nicely use some ADSR continuation between notes (not switch command) vs DMC 5 where it has the frame of nothing to reset the sound better. If DMC 4 had the wavetable, pulse and filter flexability of DMC 5 I'd say DMC 4 wins hands down. For my music I'd rather use DMC 4 between the 2 although my version of SYNC is all I use now. |
| |
fade
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 290 |
richard swore.. ummahh! :) |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Oops. I swore! Who cares? Most sceners do. ;-) |
| |
fade
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 290 |
If most sceners jumped off a building, would you do so too? :)
Just so the thread doesn't get killed off, i prefer 4 because i'm too lazy to find instructions for 5.. but then again i'm quite content using analogue keyboards over digital anyday.. because progression sucks.. rasterbars for all! |
| |
heinmukk
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6 |
i made my first steps in the dmc4. nowadays i take the dmc5.
some good thing about the dmc4 is that you can use the filter with all three voices whereas in the dmc5 it's bound to the 3rd voice. missing in both are marks where the music begins. you only can start a tune from the beginning, not in the middle. when you make larger tunes it can get quite fuzzy.
the dmc5 packer gets fucked up when somewhere in the wavetable is $00. can be annoying if you don't know about it.
as above stated: the pulse-, filter- and wave-tables are killer in dmc5. they suck in dmc4. the filters were a total mystery in dmc4 when i used it. and thats the most importent point to me, since this is what you're hearing afterwards...
soundedi: in dmc4 you hit space to pre-listen to the sound, which is missing in dmc5. it's a pity...
i think i'll try sid duzz it in the future. that thing looks nice. i hope there are position marks included... |
| |
Dane
Account closed
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 421 |
Can I answer JCH? |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Dane, you're welcome to :) |
| |
dalezy
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: |
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. ;) |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Quote: Ok, sowwy. ;)
No problem ;) |
| |
Orcan
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 15 |
Quote: 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.
HI Orcan here, I have one question to DMC 5.0 editor. I need know some method for better quality of reading sounds if I compose in speed 0. CreamD has some empiric method like poke 4039,44. Yes, it is better little, but I know that it could be more. Can somebody answer? Thanx
|
| |
Finn
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 15 |
I use DMC 4 , I need to be able to use filters on all 3 tracks . I think i noticed that this is not possible in dmc5 ,, if so i would never ever give dmc5 a try. even knowing it has some good options..
I am not realy happy with dmc4 too,
befor i wil try and change editors i try and find out if it´s sort of what i am looking for.,, with funktions like filter cutoff overrule in paterns(wich dmc4 has not:(. ) and hopefuly it should show the paterns like a tracker so you could see what you are making :D .. and it must suport multi speed kind of things too and must "not only" be meant for making music to use in other programs, .. . It needs to have a good interface and .erm .... blablabla...
|
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
It has been a very long time since I last done a DMC V5.0 album, so I think I'll work on DMC V5.0 album #3 ;) Something for you techno buffs to look forward to eh?
|
| |
Stryyker
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 468 |
Finn:So you want something that isn't DMC? There would easily be over 100 different music editors without counting subversions/variations of the same editor (How many versions of DMC 4 are there?). There are trackers. DMC is not one of them. |
| |
St0fF
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 40 |
Orcan:
The problem lies in the hard restart.
If speed is 0 (which is not recommended) the player sometimes screws up in detecting that there should be a hardrestart because you gave it too little time (like Speed=0, DUR=1). if you compose in speed = 0 then you're supposed not to use the lowest duration at all.
hope this helped for you ...
now on with the topic:
DMC 4 is great for a start, but when you get to know the SID better you should switch to DMC 5.
Upgrades in my eyes are: more instrument flexibility, easier to understand from the tables, what the SID does.
Downgrades: only voice 3 filterable
actually, this Downgrade and a lot of new ideas made me create acidtracker. DMC-5-guys might easily get used to it.
ATC uses enhanced Tables, mixes filters with start-priorities, offers different hard-restarts, better vibrato, adjustable tablespeeds, and in-effect-resonance changing with filters.
greez, St0fF |
| |
Finn
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 15 |
Hello Stryyker.
O yes,.
I have tested lots of editors and trackers . Some how i just keep coming back to good old DMC4 :D even knowing it does not do all i want. I was trying to say that i just have not found (for me) an editor that feels more ok for me and would like to find one or see one being made...Maybe i will give "TFX" a try. And yes i do try and recheck and look for some other editors/trackers (versions of) to see if they fit me..
|
| |
Orcan
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 15 |
StOfF
Thanx for answer. Hmm, but I have one of Dgazz techno music and after depacking I am able load it to DMC 5.0 editor. I must switch to speed 0 and music play but I feeel that drums are not identic like in player. I tried contact Dgazz for this problem, but he didn't answer. If you want I can send it to analyze:)
Topic: is not reason return from DMC 5 to DMC 4 if you have improved version of DMC 5+ by Creamd. I was long time composing in DMC 7, what is improved DMC 4. Great editor...but in this type of editors are sound limited abilities. In DMC 5+ you can finally edit in audible mode, ufff this was my first request to Creamd. Without this function I'm never DMC 5 composer. Another super utility is tracking into sector. I'm still asking Creamd for another function which I was using in DMC 7 but I am still waiting because he is enough busy. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3048 |
Okay, so I couldn't stand it and decided to sit over C64.sk and do some slavecoding again. Possibility to start from any part of the tune added to DMC5.0+ today.
enjoy Orcane ;-) |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3048 |
scheiss.. I mean.. #C-64... eee. nnaah... CCS64... Commodore64 .. or how is that called... |
