Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!ssd
From: ssd@sugar.UUCP (Scott Denham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Sonix -> IFF (was Re: IMPORTANT!!!!)
Summary: The format's not bunk, the implication is!
Message-ID: <2094@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jun 88 19:56:19 GMT
References: <4314@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 29

In article <4314@gryphon.CTS.COM>, mriley@pnet02.UUCP writes:
> The Sonix RFF format existed *prior* to the IFF format; however, the
> term RFF was coined at a later date (by individuals other than myself.)
> 
> In any case, if RFF seems "bunk" or "slimy" to you, then I wish you
> all the luck in utilizing DMCS's one sound generation technique to
> the max (Sonix has *three* techniques - IFF, RFF, & SYNTHESIS.)
> 
> 'Nuff said?  -Mark-
> 
Mark, I didn't mean to flame the format so much as the implication that I
got from the manual that RFF was an 'improvement' on IFF. (I don't recall
exactly what the wording was; perhaps I was just annoyed by the name :)
Knowing that SONIX's file format preceded IFF makes me feel a lot bettter
about it; in itself there's nothing *wrong* with it - and clearly it makes
possible lots of nice things that current IFF types dont permit. In hind-
sight, if the 'standard' doesnt work for you, a true 'derivitive' of the
standard (Like EA's DMCS format) is certainly preferrable to a total 
home-brew one.  I do thing Aegis should have included at least a general
description of the file format in the Sonix documentation to facilitate
add-ons, utilites, etc.  Since you (or someone) started pre-IFF, you could
not have possibly used IFF, and I certainly can't blame you for using a 
format that works for the job at hand in preference to defining a whole 
new global standard.
 
Thanks for your response and your participation in the discussion !!
 
     Scott Denham 
> UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, <backbone>}!gryphon!pnet02!mriley
> INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com