pouët.net

I need a tracker that will run on WinXP and which allows me to save to XM format (and track according to the XM format with all effects that are supported by XM)

Dunno really if Fast-Tracker II will run here, but aren't there any "Windows friendly" trackers out there?

Can Milkytracker handle the job?

Any thoughts?

FT2 should run in DOSBox.

FT2 works quite well in dosbox, but Milkytracker should mostly do the job quite well, and it supports higher resolutions.

higher res for teh win - nothing like an entire 64row 16 channel pattern visible :D

I like a simple installation. If I can get away with only installing 1 program (bye bye Dosbox/FT2, hello Milkytracker), I will.
Thanks for the replies - that was DAMN fast! \o/

If you can live with some compatibility issues then go for it.

MilkyTracker or Renoise (if you're feeling adventurous)

I can't run FT2 in DOSBox without horrible latency. Help me. :(

I'm sure google knows.

Influence Device: install linux!

Increase the CPU cycles in dosbox with CTRL+F12, hope it helps :)

While Renoise is a great tracker, it's a total nono for xm's.

Yep. Renoise can't be really compared to other trackers, because it doesn't support any standard tracker formats.

I don't know what's best, but at least I can recommend to stay away from skale and modplug tracker.

Skale does sometimes broken xm's that work only in scale and modplug tracker shares the same problem, because it allows you to save .xm, even if your mod uses unsupported stuff.

MILKYTRACKER! It's all been said, of course, but yes - Skale is broken (even worse than Modplug, actually) and, much as I love it, Renoise is simply intended for futuristic purposes of its own rather than xm composing.

Milky(latest)/FT2 differences are negligible if extant - if someone can illustrate a known, repeatable compatibility issue, exemplified by supposedly identical xms having been saved out of Milky and FT2 then both replayed in each and compared, then I'd love to hear about it. I'm not just being confrontational - I would like to hear about it, and so would the developer!

tomaes - do you have some specific issue in mind?

Well, at some point I downloaded a MT version and at least 50% of my own xms fucked up in one way or the other. I don't know if those problems have been fixed in the most recent version though.

My biggest issue with MT is when I output to xm. Sometimes it sounds really low and garbled. This usually happens when I create a custom sample in the sample editor.

I love it anyway though and appreciate all the hardwork that went into it.
Thank you TiTan. :)

Rubicante - to be honest, you must be doing something quite, quite wrong. Perhaps you could link to some screenshots of the samples you create, or upload the garbled xms? Just for your own testing purposes, if you create a chippy square-wave sample, say 32 samples long, forward looped, with an approximately 50% pulse width, like this:
__
__/

...then do some melody with it and save to xm, how does it sound?

Cockfluff - it fucked up my diagram of a square wave. Anyway, we all know what a square wave looks like:)

Rubicante, could clipping be the issue here? I've noticed in one of my old wip XMs that a certain (Ft2-engineered) sample causes something like what you describe. The sample resembles very low volume noise, it's just that the values don't alternate around the zero line but rather close the negative maximum. While the sample is rather low volume because of the small differences of values, when layered it raises the overall volume of the mix to a point where it starts to heavily clip, garble and seemingly lower the volume. This happens with Mixervol at 67% and Amplify x2 which I've found fitting for most modules.

syphus: did what you said and it actually sounded pretty good.

raina: possibly...I will test this on and old xm. You can download it here

raina: yes I believe your right. Im tinkering right now for a fix.

XMs? Don't make XMs, make HVLs!

Make love, not XM's! :D

make music and stfu.