Author Topic: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?  (Read 9997 times)

metamorph0sis

  • Posts: 3
MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« on: 2 Sep '02 - 08:45 »
Hi, Ian!

I'm not more than yet another developer interested in the specification of MO3 files. Currently I'm working at SoundTracker project (see http://www.soundtracker.org) and the subject of my great interest is to add the MO3 support to this tracker. But, though I can read MO3 files by using UNMO3 (but only under Linux, it's not really good for the cross-platform application), the writing to MO3 files is more problematic. The only way to do it is starting MO3 encoder in Wine! You see, it's not an existential way.

I  comprehend you that writing specs is not a pleasurable work, especially if you don't have enough free time. But there is another way, the splendiferous way -- to open the code of MO3 encoder and decoder. You already release them free, why don't you want to do one more step to freedom -- to make them Open Source? Besides a great benefit for software developers, it will be a benefit for you: the bugfixes and developement will be carried out more times faster. Don't stay beyond the Open Source Era!

Hakan

  • Posts: 26
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #1 on: 2 Sep '02 - 12:59 »
Woah! MO3 support in a Tracker would rule!
But it would need IT support or at least NNA's for me to use it.

Ralesk

  • Posts: 654
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #2 on: 2 Sep '02 - 16:30 »
I agree with Hakan.  I'd like to see a multiplatform tracker, that supports both IT and XM perfectly or near-perfectly.  And if it can do MO3, even better!

metamorph0sis

  • Posts: 3
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #3 on: 3 Sep '02 - 12:43 »
Quote

Woah! MO3 support in a Tracker would rule!
But it would need IT support or at least NNA's for me to use it.


Hi!
If you're seeking for multiplatform tracker with IT support, you can see http://www.reduz.com.ar/cheesetracker/ -- it's even more than just IT! But I prefer SoundTracker because of its extremely high sound quality (it uses the rendering engine from Cubic Player). The ST ability to handle IT functions now is on the discussion, and probably will appear after some time. But my opinion is to use not NNA, but NNS -- new note _SCRIPT_. For future discussions you may subscribe to the soundtracker-discuss mailing list (see at the ST site).

With best regards,
-+=Metamorph0sis=+-

Ian @ un4seen

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 20389
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #4 on: 3 Sep '02 - 12:54 »
The next MO3 encoder release will come in a "command-line" flavour too. That could be used in conjunction with MOS (MO3 settings) files, to effectively have fully functional built-in MO3 encoding in a tracker.

The only problem from a Linux perspective, is that it requires BASS.DLL (which is not available on Linux) to perform the encoder calibration. But calibration is only required for MP3 encoders, not OGG encoders, and OGG would seem more "Linux" anyway :)

If you'ld like to try integrating the command-line encoder with your tracker, let me know, and we can give it a go :)

metamorph0sis

  • Posts: 3
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #5 on: 6 Sep '02 - 09:13 »
Yeah, command-line MO3 encoder would be a cool stuff ;). Expecially if it will be able to work as a filter (to take its input from STDIN, as well as decoder ability to direct output to STDOUT will be very appreciated). But alas this doesn't solve a problem of MO3 support in SoundTacker entirely, because ST is a multiplatform application (I know people using it at Irix, Solaris, FreeBsd and Linux/PPC platforms), but decoder exists and encoder will be exist only for Linux/Intel platform (right?). And there is another obstacle: I cannot include MO3 decoder/encoder directly in ST project because it's released under CPL license. That means the software to be distributed together with its source code. So I can only write a code for MO3 encoder/decoder support, and inform users where they can download the encoder and decoder.

Ian, if you would open the code of MO3 encoder/decoder or write the MO3 format spec, you'll in this way provide a full support of your beatiful format for many platforms :) If you are afraid of someone to make a quick buck from using your code in his proprietary program, you may open sources under CPL license, and nobody can use them in his closed-source program without your agreement.

Wouldn't you want MO3 format to be supported by Agnula? (see http://www.agnula.org)

Hakan

  • Posts: 26
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #6 on: 6 Sep '02 - 13:11 »

Quote

Expecially if it will be able to work as a filter (to take its input from STDIN, as well as decoder ability to direct output to STDOUT will be very appreciated).

Oh yeah! That would be great!

Kosm

  • Posts: 5
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #7 on: 6 Sep '02 - 13:42 »
I bet releasing source code or format specs would make mo3 format support pop up to also other tracker software which is currently under development. I would very much like to see mo3 to become next fileformat standard in tracking scene.

Ian @ un4seen

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 20389
Re: MO3: what about one more step to freedom?
« Reply #8 on: 6 Sep '02 - 17:16 »
I do hope to document the MO3 format specs eventually, but there's quite a lot to the format. It's not just the internal file structures, there's also the lossless codecs and overall compression system. Both encoding and decoding processes would need describing, so it'd be a pretty big job to do it all in useful detail.

Quote
Yeah, command-line MO3 encoder would be a cool stuff ;). Expecially if it will be able to work as a filter (to take its input from STDIN, as well as decoder ability to direct output to STDOUT will be very appreciated).

Yep, good idea.

Anyway, let me know if you would like to try using the command-line encoder in your tracker. I can send it before release, and we can check that it's all working as it should be :)