MT-32 emulator development: Good news!

noize · Post by **noize** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:58 pm

I know performance is a priority in munt development. Right now the Wii already runs mt32 emulation quite nicely for most games, which uses a PPC running at 729 Mhz. So one day Munt might work smooth even on the iphone.

Concerning the roms: although legally you might be able to download these roms even if you don't own any of the hardware, as the patent is expired, Roland was causing trouble for the development team anyway. Claiming that you need to have possesion of the hardware was just canadacow's way of keeping out of any legal bother. AFAIK owning the hardware is still the rule of using the emulator.

ancalimonungol · Post by **ancalimonungol** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:10 pm

noize wrote:AFAIK owning the hardware is still the rule of using the emulator.

Which is no longer possible.

LordHoto · Post by **LordHoto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:21 pm

ancalimonungol wrote:
noize wrote:AFAIK owning the hardware is still the rule of using the emulator.
Which is no longer possible.

You mean owning the hardware isn't possible today? Oh well my MT-32 is right next to my monitor over here... :-).

fingolfin · Post by **fingolfin** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:52 pm

rented mule wrote: Perhaps...but software and hardware evolve. Even if the current implementation is inadequate for current mobile phones, it'll run just fine on phones manufactured two years from now. .

You were quite specific on the current iPhone, though *ggg*.

MusicallyInspired · Post by **MusicallyInspired** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:28 pm

ancalimonungol wrote:
noize wrote:AFAIK owning the hardware is still the rule of using the emulator.
Which is no longer possible.

They're usually readily available on eBay. That's how I got mine.

rented mule · Post by **rented mule** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:35 pm

fingolfin wrote:
rented mule wrote: Perhaps...but software and hardware evolve. Even if the current implementation is inadequate for current mobile phones, it'll run just fine on phones manufactured two years from now. .
You were quite specific on the current iPhone, though *ggg*.

Nope. I said "an iPhone/Android phone". You can infer that it meant the iPhone 3G but it doesn't mean I was talking about that particular model.

And even if you truly believe that I was talking about the current model, we've still yet to disprove that MT-32 emulation isn't possible on it. Has anyone tried it?

fingolfin · Post by **fingolfin** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:54 am

rented mule, I suggest that you try it and help improve it. Considering you seem to be very knowledgeable and far more able than any of us stupids over here

.

SuperDre · Post by **SuperDre** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:22 pm

noize wrote:Concerning the roms: although legally you might be able to download these roms even if you don't own any of the hardware, as the patent is expired, Roland was causing trouble for the development team anyway. Claiming that you need to have possesion of the hardware was just canadacow's way of keeping out of any legal bother. AFAIK owning the hardware is still the rule of using the emulator.

Mostly the problem isn't with patent, but with copyright.. And as Roland hasn't made the roms public'domain' there isn't a legal way to use the roms if you don't own the hardware.. BTW, MT32 isn't the only device, there is also the LAPCI card which is a MT32 stuck onto a PCcard, and for all I know the complete D-series of the time are the same.. (I own MT32/LAPCI and a D-5 (the D-50 was out of my pricerange back then.. LOL))

LogicDeLuxe · Post by **LogicDeLuxe** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:33 pm

ancalimonungol wrote:
noize wrote:AFAIK owning the hardware is still the rule of using the emulator.
Which is no longer possible.

Owning the hardware works fine for me. Using ScummVM with those ROM images works fine, too.

And getting one isn't hard, either. They are sold second hand all the time, and actually much cheaper than they were back then in the 80's.

Another good reason to have the emulator: Once it works perfect (assuming it does one day), it could actually sound better than the original device which has some sub optimal designed circuitry. Analog noise is completely avoided in the digital domain, and the overflow crackle can be eliminated with the implementation of a simple limiter.

fingolfin · Post by **fingolfin** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:50 pm

SuperDre wrote: Mostly the problem isn't with patent, but with copyright.. And as Roland hasn't made the roms public'domain' there isn't a legal way to use the roms if you don't own the hardware..

If you read the URL I posted way up in this thread (i.e., http://www.artworxinn.com/alex/history.htm), you'll find that there is actually reason to believe that the copyright for the ROMs has expired.

noize · Post by **noize** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:29 pm

fingolfin wrote:If you read the URL I posted way up in this thread (i.e., http://www.artworxinn.com/alex/history.htm), you'll find that there is actually reason to believe that the copyright for the ROMs has expired.

What is also something that canadacow stated on the vogons forum a long time ago. And yes SuperDre you are right, it should have said copyrights, not patent.

If you want to follow development progress check out:
http://munt.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ ... te#dirlist

noize · Post by **noize** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:56 am

Someone made a build of the windows driver from the cvs repository.

Running Quest of Glory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7g_xF7Z3UQ&fmt=6

As you can hear, sound has already improved very much.

MusicallyInspired · Post by **MusicallyInspired** » Sat May 09, 2009 2:05 pm

Wow! That really is miles ahead of the previous versions!

SuperDre · Post by **SuperDre** » Sat May 09, 2009 2:37 pm

Looks great, but it definitly needs more work as CPU usage is way too high I guess, considering other commercial companies have virtualinstruments running with more different racks running concurringly.. But then again I haven't got a clue what kind of computer the youtube-example was running on. But great to see/hear it..

bobdevis · Post by **bobdevis** » Sat May 09, 2009 11:08 pm

SuperDre wrote:Looks great, but it definitly needs more work as CPU usage is way too high I guess, considering other commercial companies have virtualinstruments running with more different racks running concurringly.. But then again I haven't got a clue what kind of computer the youtube-example was running on. But great to see/hear it..

I'm curious whether this is multicore friendly. Even if this was VERY inefficient and maxed out 3 of the 4 cores of my Phenom, I would not care. The 4th core would be more then enough to carry the OS and ScummVM itself.

If it would stutter using only one core, I would be less pleased.

Since every instrument has it's own track it _should_ be easy to multi-thread this.