SS1 Midi in wav form

[674355c64725cGamma]

I am new to the forums, and well, telling from the name, I am here to post the original SS1 midis in wav form just to introduce myself.  Anyways, It's quite simple. You see, I actually downloaded the midis from another thread, and were surprisingly accurate to the xmi's from what I can tell. Anyways, there has been demand of wav files of the midis for a bit on that thread, and so it is my job to take it upon myself to post them. And from my knowledge, technically speaking you can't convert midis, but record them. I'm using a website called Solmire to do so. Though, I'll be converting them tomorrow as I am currently busy with something else on another forum.

[674355c64765bZylonBane]

And from my knowledge, technically speaking you can't convert midis, but record them.

This statement is ridiculous. Software MIDI players have existed for decades, and of course software can record its own output.

What you cannot do automatically is go the other way, converting a WAV to a MIDI.

[674355c647754Gamma]

Yeah, I know. What I meant to say was... basically what you said.
I'm not exactly sure how solmire does it's thing.

[674355c64787fZylonBane]

Solmire does its thing like I just said-- it has a software MIDI player running on their server that "plays" its output to a WAV file, which it then converts to an MP3 that it sends back to the client.

[674355c647abfOlfred]

And that's exactly what Gamma said.
You don't convert them, but you record them.

[674355c647bdeZylonBane]

Gamma said you can only record MIDIs, not convert them. This statement implies that there is no all-software solution-- that you have to actually run the MIDI through a physical MIDI synth and record the output through the line-in port on your PC. This of course is not true. Claiming you can't convert MIDI to WAV makes as much sense as claiming you can't convert MP3 to WAV-- that you can only "play" an MP3 into a buffer, then record the output.

[674355c647d28Olfred]

In a simplified way midi is just notes. And you need some kind of database or tone generator allocted to the instruments which are being played. So you actually have to "play" these instruments to be able to record it. No matter if you do it with hardware or software.

Were wav is simply sound signals stored in a digital way, and when you convert it to mp3 you can just take the data, do some calculations, and you get the mp3.
You can't really do it with midi. Even if you want to do it with calculations only and not actually with playing it you still need external resources which get inputted into it, and that isn't called converting anymore.

Besides, you got what he wanted to say. No point to start the usal bickering again.

[674355c647e65ZylonBane]

That's an extremely narrow definition of "convert". Would you assert that it's impossible to convert, say, postal codes to latitude and longitude? That's another conversion process that requires a supporting dataset. How about converting ASCII to EBCDIC? Can't do that with just math. Word to HTML? XML to JSON? C to JavaScript? And so on, etc. Whether a conversion algorithm requires a formula, a translation table, a database, a state machine, a sound font, or a self-aware neural net, it's just matters of degree. It's all conversion.

There's nothing wrong with correcting people when they're misusing terminology. Saves them headaches and funny looks in the future.

[674355c647f92Olfred]

The definition of "converting" is just like that.
And the tools you use to create sound files out of midi really just play the file and record them. They don't convert.

[674355c6481f0Kolya]

Gamma was just quoting what I had said in the thread he linked (although the link was broken, I fixed it now). Which is exactly the line of argument that Olfred makes here. And if you read the linked thread you will see why.

I stand by my original statement: You cannot convert MIDIs to WAV because that implies an exact process with a predictable outcome: The result of a conversion is expected to be the same as the original, only in a different format. Or at least as close as the new format allows.
However depending on which soundtable you use to record the MIDI file, the result will be very different. And all results are valid although there is no restriction on the destination format.

If you gave notes to an orchestra, asked them to play it and record the outcome: Would you call that "converting" the music? That's exactly what happens when recording MIDI.

[674355c6485cbZylonBane]

I stand by my original statement: You cannot convert MIDIs to WAV because that implies an exact process with a predictable outcome: The result of a conversion is expected to be the same as the original, only in a different format.

By this very narrow definition, it's impossible to convert a GIF to a JPEG, or a JPEG to a GIF, because in both cases you'll end up with images that are different from what you started with. Or a better analogy, a vector image format to a bitmap image format-- Would you say it's impossible to convert an AI file to a PSD file?

If you gave notes to an orchestra, asked them to play it and record the outcome: Would you call that "converting" the music?

No, because an orchestra isn't a computer program. You'd say that they were "performing" it. Likewise, you don't say that Windows Media Player is performing a MIDI. Different contexts, different terminology.

Anyway, if you do a search for "convert midi to wav" or "convert midi to mp3" you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits, so it's accepted usage of a word that, ultimately, does not have a precise technical definition.

BTW your link is broken.

[674355c648819Olfred]

Just because there is a group of people who misuse a phrase still doesn't make it correct.
But let's just open up the narrowed definition of a conversion.
If you convert something from one thing to another you would assume that you will always get the same result. (The optimum you can get given the specifications of the new format.)

This is a very different thing with MIDI.
As already noted, MIDI is basically just a notesheet. Or to be more excact, a group of notesheets.
Each sheet is labeled with something like "trumpet" or "guitar" whatever instrument.
The actual information how the trumpet, guitar or whatever instrument actually sounds like is not stored inside a MIDI file.

So when you want to listen to a MIDI file you actually need a set of instruments (no matter if it's hardware or software).
And this set of instrument can be very different given the platform/tool you use for playing it.

Now when you want to "convert" a MIDI file to another format all the tools actually just play the instruments given the instructions given by the MIDI file. And it doesn't matter if you use hardware or software to process this, all the tools just play it, and the output is recorded.

And the output differs given the platform you use, and the set of instruments. (There is nothing like THE trumpet, you have a variety of thousands of trumpets you could use.)
Even if you run the process with the exact same settings, you might get a different output. It can be slight changes to the system which will have a big impact on the output.
This is not the case for a conventional conversion which is just computed (Actually you have changes there as well, but they are not as significant)

Just inform yourself about how MIDI works and how it is handeled by the systems (hardware and software).

[674355c648944Kolya]

Pretty sure ZB knows how MIDI works.
Re: image conversion: The result is not different from an observers point of view, save for format limitations.

If you want a picture analogy, the conversion from MIDI to WAV is more like painting an image by a text description. It doesn't matter whether you let the painting do a software, the original text just says "duck" and you can get a thousand different images of ducks from that.

[674355c648f81ZylonBane]

Just because there is a group of people who misuse a phrase still doesn't make it correct.

But the word "convert" does not have a formal definition in computer science. Does anyone question the truth of this statement? Given the absence of a formal definition, the popular usage is, de facto, correct.

If you convert something from one thing to another you would assume that you will always get the same result.

False. I would make such an assumption only under the most trivial circumstances, like converting miles to kilometers. If I hired someone to convert (translate) a book from one language to another, I would assume only that the conversion would be roughly similar to any other conversions.

Re: image conversion: The result is not different from an observers point of view, save for format limitations.

It absolutely can be visibly different. From GIF to JPEG you will get color shifting due to the image being stored as a mathematical approximation rather than explicitly per-pixel. You'll get ring and blocking artifacts. You'll get vastly different results depending on the compression quality selected. From JPEG to GIF you'll get palette reduction, which there are many different algorithms for. You may or may not get dithering, depending on the options selected. If there's dithering, again, there are many dithering algorithms available.

So something as trivial as GIF<->JPEG is neither lossless nor unambiguous, which seems to be the criteria asserted here for when it's okay to use the word "convert".

Color space conversion is another good example of a seemingly simple process which is actually not strictly defined.

[674355c6492f1Olfred]

But the word "convert" does not have a formal definition in computer science.

Oh, it does. Actually there are different kind of conversions in computer science which do have a formal definition.
In this case you would have to look at "Data conversion".

But going from your statements, everything is conversion.
So now going back to the initial statement, it is still true as the means of conversion is to "play and record" a MIDI.

[674355c64967eKolya]

Given the absence of a formal definition, the popular usage is, de facto, correct.

First time I see you making an argument on behalf of popular language use. Usually you're the purist and I'm like: Who cares, as long as everyone knows what is meant. 

However as the SS1 OST thread clearly shows, the people who use "convert" in this way don't have a clue what MIDI is. That alone should be reason enough to distinguish and illustrate the process by calling it "recording". 

[674355c6498c4ZylonBane]

First time I see you making an argument on behalf of popular language use.

Nothing wrong with that when popular usage is the only definition. If there's a more scientific one available, well then, [CITATION NEEDED].