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