pouët.net

Virgill: "binary rhapsody" tune is mesmerizing. If this would also fit <20k with a player, I'm speechless.

tomkh, it´s 13.6k with player.
executable
requires a cpu with sse4.1

Very nice!

Must have overlooked that it a compo entry. Works for me!
Now, this is a good motivation to work on photorealistic 64k visuals that will be on par with quality/epicness ; P

I'm on it :)

Great tech demo, but I'd rather listen to disco, soul, funk, pop. Bossa nova or tango. But "epic" orchestral stuff is just pathetic. Violins, horns and timpani. No groove, bad vibes. How is that epic. Make a melody and play it with square waves or something. But if you don't have a groove and a melody, no amount of timpani and violins is going to save it. So make sure it grooves, and then maybe you can add some violins. My oldschool conservative opinion about scene music only.

...

yzi: whatever.

TL;DR: It's all about taste.

yzi: What? So you only listen to music with your feet? Some people, by the way, use also the head for that. Ah, tastes...

let me translate that to visuals:

I'd rather see rasterbars, sine scrollers, pixel starfields and rotating flatshaded cubes. But "epic" visual stuff is just pathetic.

so, yeah. probably a matter of taste :)

The physical modeling sounds lovely. Hopefully we can get decent electric guitars at some point in the future? :)

Thanks and sorry. I should have added some self ironic remarks or smileys to that negative rant. But yes, it's about taste. And yes, I was thinking about other kinds of instruments. You got this amazing synth, so why use it for... that??!

For some reason, orchestral stuff has always bugged me. Starting from Second Reality's great ending song's instrumentation. It felt like an advertisement, "hire me, I want to be a game music composer". Kb's C64 SID version is better in my opinion.

Preacher: challenge accepted :)

@yzi @gopher
I guess you mean "pathetique" not "pathethic" ; P

But, of course, I agree that some cheap commercial stuff is trying to achieve pathos in a pathetic way, like lots of timpanis, swooosh/swooosh or kaboom sounds, but at the same time _some_ orchestral pieces can be very impressive, moving and complex harmonically/rythmically etc... say Honegger Symphonie No. 5. Still, these are usually not "easy listening", and what you have mentioned: funk, pop, bossa nova, tango are also full of cliché. And it is really hard (or simply impossible) to escape cliché if you want to reach the wider audience, i.e. there must be some level of familiarity. But we can go on and on and whine infinitely about this topic I guess.

yeah, some norwegian black metal in 14kb would be impressive!

I did this in 2003:

http://drift.merseine.nu/~ld0d/tmp/glowing.gif

http://drift.merseine.nu/~ld0d/tmp/glowing.mp3

http://drift.merseine.nu/~ld0d/tmp/glowing_dbg.exe

and yeah, my heart is definitely still in the "roll your own" approach.

some other people also used it: http://drift.merseine.nu/~ld0d/tmp/pinza_-_he_stood_in_his_grandeur.exe

Cool stuff, ld0d!

Has anybody ever tried to include convolution into a synth?

Do you mean reverb convolution?

not only reverb (too big impulse responses for 64k) but also for amp / cabinet emulation.. I think its not possible to archieve it without fft ?

@ld0d I remember when you sent me this song long long time ago, and I still think the same as those years: it's one of the most powerful and cool song/synth in 64k I've listened, so pitty you didn't use it more!

You can do convolution without FFT just fine, but the longer ones become very CPU-intensive; that's why you want the FFT trick in the first place. It's trivial to accelerate with SIMD (SSE/AVX), though.

wait, what???

i think i'm gonna throw myself into this conversation, if you guys don't mind?

Sure, no problem!