Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ssd
From: ssd@sugar.uu.net (Scott Denham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Sonix and Samples
Summary: What I should have said was.....
Message-ID: <2691@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 28 Sep 88 04:37:41 GMT
References: <3877@louie.udel.EDU> <2590@sugar.uu.net> <105@wybbs.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 22

In article <105@wybbs.UUCP>, meyers@wybbs.UUCP (John Meyers) writes:
> In article <2590@sugar.uu.net>, ssd@sugar.uu.net (Scott Denham) writes:
> > 
> > If you put the right extensions on your sampled sound (and it's in IFF,
> > of course) Sonix will accept it. If you then save it, it is saved as 
> 
> ?? Well, I guess MY Sonix 2.0 must be a fluke because once the IFF is
> converted to RFF, I get full use of the RFF features, including all those
> fancy sample manipulations. (Why else convert it to RFF???)
Uh,yeah.... right.  I guess if you save it as RFF and bring it back in
you DO get the same capabilites you get with any other sampled sound.
I guess what I really should have said is that you don't get all of
the goodies you get with SONIX *synthesized* sounds, but of course that
has nothing to do with the original topic, etc.  Compared to some of the
other sound packages you can get for working on IFF sounds, I'd hesitate
to call SONIX's sample manipulatons "fancy". 
> 
> I [heart] SONIX!

I'm pretty fond of it, too!  
 
 Scott Denham