Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!phoenix!andy
From: andy@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Andrew M. Milburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Digital synth modules
Message-ID: <1597@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 88 01:49:04 GMT
References: <2368@crash.cts.com> <394@boole.acc.virginia.edu> <952@neoucom.UUCP> <135@dsacg2.UUCP>
Reply-To: andy@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Andrew M. Milburn)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 14

In article <135@dsacg2.UUCP> nor1675@dsacg2.UUCP (Michael Figg) writes:
>
>       How about some comparisons/comments from others on these two
>       digitizers (or PerfectSound also). 

	I find the Mimetics approach to sampled sound very frustrating.
Their software and sampler have a fixed (10K?) sampling rate, and
arbritrary restrictions on sample size.  Although this apparently
makes it easier for them to write software to manipulate these sounds,
I balk at these limitations.  
	PerfectSound and FutureSound seem largely equivalent in 
behavior as far as my simple A/B testing could determine.  PerfectSound,
however, comes with a nice hunk of public domain source which 
is much better than the FutureSound black box drivers.