Bytebeat gives mixist points instead of chipist points
BotB Academy Bug Reports and Feature Requests
Level 16 Mixist
post #82693 :: 2017.04.17 4:35am
This be a problem puke. One day I wanna be a chipist!11!1!!!
Level 21 Chipist
post #82698 :: 2017.04.17 7:32am :: edit 2017.04.17 3:26pm
If I'm willing to guess why, it's probably because bytebeat is not a chip.
Here are some formats you could learn if you wanna be a chipist:
nsf and deviants
VIC 20
Genesis/Mega Drive

There are much more, and perhaps you already know at least one of these formats already. You'll get to explore these formats and more when Summer Chip comes around!
Level 22 Chipist
post #82699 :: 2017.04.17 7:33am
  goluigi, raphaelgoulart, pedipanol, Jangler and m9m liēkd this
pandatracker is a chipist format
Level 17 Chipist
post #82704 :: 2017.04.17 7:55am
It's true that bytebeat isn't a chip, but it's an interesting distinction. Bytebeat produces its sound via executed code, so one might say that it is chiptune, with your CPU being the chip. Thoughts?
Level 27 Chipist
post #82708 :: 2017.04.17 9:08am :: edit 2017.04.17 9:12am
  MiDoRi, HertzDevil, RazerBlue6 and DalekSam liēkd this
if you can canonically render a format (i.e. without software emulation of sound hardware) by recording "stereo mix" or whatnot on a computer (edit: or exporting directly to a PCM audio file), it should not be a chipist format. a sound chip is not even involved in that process.

but the categories have always been kind of arbitrary. 8k-48k modules are chipist, but 64k modules are mixist.
Level 17 Chipist
post #82709 :: 2017.04.17 9:10am
  MiDoRi, Doxic, Dimeback, Savestate, Jangler and RazerBlue6 liēkd this
That is interesting, Jangler. Also wildchip is chipist, even though fakebit etc. qualifies for that format. The world of BotB is a queer one!
Level 22 Chipist
Imho bytebeat should give Codist points.
Level 23 Chipist
post #82741 :: 2017.04.17 7:08pm
Jangler: That distinction sounds even more ambiguous/arbitrary IMO.

PERSONAL OPINION: If modxxk gets to be chipist then so should bytebeat (or at least bytebeat1k). Sounds like the distinction is as arbitrary as what falls under wildchip/"""fakebit""" anyway :)

Or since it's code, codist :P (but technically some traditional chipist formats like NSF or SPC are code too so who cares lol)
Level 13 Mixist
post #82743 :: 2017.04.17 7:41pm :: edit 2017.04.17 7:42pm
  MiDoRi, goluigi, A-zu-ra, puke7 and Jangler liēkd this
"Bytebeat produces its sound via executed code, so one might say that it is chiptune" all DAWs work? they execute code and then sound is made?

Level 17 Chipist
post #82744 :: 2017.04.17 8:28pm
I admit that my understanding of audio chips is a little shaky, but I believe that they have some really fundamental way of generating a waveform from scratch, and then maybe manipulating it to produce the sounds you hear. (True? False? Help pls) DAWs, on the other hand, take something that already exists — waveforms and samples and all that — and modify it. Bytebeat seems to me more like the former than the latter, since it basically ends up being encoded instructions to produce a waveform from scratch.
Level 12 Chipist
post #82746 :: 2017.04.17 9:19pm
  RazerBlue6 liēkd this
and fix modules to be mixist.

Level 27 Chipist
post #82749 :: 2017.04.17 10:28pm
  MiDoRi liēkd this
FIRST OF ALL, i don't really care what kind of points bytebeat gives. now that that's out of the way:

the only fundamental thing about a sound chip is that it converts digital information to a specific type of analog signal. different chips have vastly different capabilities; the distinction of "modern" sound cards is that they can convert any, say, 48 kHz 24-bit PCM (read: any digital audio recording) that you throw at it to an analog signal, and as much of that as your computer has memory for. the possibilities are infinite.

the important thing, from my perspective, is that the digital information that you give modern sound cards—as opposed to the chips that we normally associate with "chipmusic"— is already a direct representation of an analog waveform, accurate to within its given bit depth (and sample rate, if below the nyquist rate for human hearing). under (unrealistically) ideal conditions, if you played a WAV file (using a digital-audio converter, or DAC) and recorded the output into another WAV file (using an analog-digital converter, or ADC) , you would end up with exactly the same information you started with.

by contrast, for the chips associated with chipmusic, the digital information given to the chip is usually a series of writes to its various registers at various times. sometimes a degree of PCM is also supported, but then hardware mixing is used (see: the paula chip from the amiga computer). the point is, some type of software interfaces with the sound chip, but the sound chip does the work of generating the resulting audio signal.

does that make sense? i might have rambled a bit.

so if we were determining format class by the metric i just implied, then i think bytebeat is pretty solidly in the mixist camp since you can generate arbitrary junk; it's just harder than if you were using a DAW or some other software. BUT like i and others have said, the format classes are not determined this way so who cares whatever.

maybe irrlicht could offer a different perspective since he's written various 1-bit music drivers, which are sort of their own type of animal.
Level 14 Pixelist
post #82750 :: 2017.04.17 10:33pm
  MiDoRi, sethdonut, sleeparrow, raphaelgoulart, RazerBlue6, Quirby64, BubblegumOctopus, shinichi, andres and Modus Ponens liēkd this
  Razerek hæitd this
All of you guys are clueless. Bytebeat should give criticist points.
Level 17 Chipist
post #82751 :: 2017.04.17 11:54pm
Everyone's a criticist
Level 16 Mixist
post #82752 :: 2017.04.18 12:04am
  RazerBlue6 liēkd this
Sure. Wtf is this thread anyway
Level 24 Mixist
post #82761 :: 2017.04.18 8:26am :: edit 2017.04.18 5:48pm
  Savestate, Jangler and shinichi liēkd this
BotB's criteria is pretty clearly "does it sound chippy?" (see: Wildchip and modxk), and while that's quite subjective, discussing which side of the line bytebeat falls on is like a southbound Canadian asking "have I crossed the U.S. border yet?" once they reach Texas.
Level 12 Mixist
post #82795 :: 2017.04.18 7:15pm
  Jangler hæitd this
I'd say any chip that outputs music is a DAC, and any old DAC produces chiptunes.
Level 28 Chipist
post #82797 :: 2017.04.18 7:47pm :: edit 2017.04.18 7:47pm
bytebeat isn't emulating a chip of any kind
it isn't chip music

22:41 <jangler> easy concept: no chip = no chipmusic

yes there are many formats that don't follow this rule but that's not what the initial discussion here is about

but that being said, the point payout types for formats haven't been touched in forever and might benefit from reevaluation
Level 17 Chipist
post #82798 :: 2017.04.18 8:34pm
  Savestate, Jangler and Blaze Weednix liēkd this
Yeah, Savestate's right, it does seem kinda weird that you get 14 points for participating in a game jam
Level 29 Mixist
post #82799 :: 2017.04.18 9:20pm
  MisaelK and Jangler liēkd this
@MisaelK bytebeat can be produced w/o a DAC and still be authentic
Level 24 Mixist
post #82800 :: 2017.04.18 9:41pm
  MiDoRi, goluigi, Ktcmoop, Modus Ponens, funute and Jangler liēkd this
If we're broadening the discussion a bit, my non-cheeky two cents on that matter is we really want to stick to "no chip = not Chipist", then we do need to re-evaluate where certain formats lie and push some things across the line to Mixist territory (which means modxk and wildchip become Mixist, eep!), XOR we go the "quacks like a duck" route and make bytebeat Chipist. The least-cool thing to do is be inconsistent.


We take irrlicht's magic Door #3 and make bytebeat Codist. I mean, you're literally writing code. :P
Level 27 Chipist
post #82802 :: 2017.04.18 10:05pm
i agree with xaser and i'm inclined toward the options that conflict with my stated ideology
Level 23 Grafxicist
post #82803 :: 2017.04.19 12:47am
  MiDoRi and Xaser liēkd this
Option 4: Bytebeatist points
Level 27 Hostist
post #82815 :: 2017.04.19 10:35am
  pigdevil2010, shinichi, Melon, Modus Ponens and Jangler liēkd this
Imho, the inception of bytebeat was simply an algorithm against t and an algorithm by itself is not code. n00bs who write code inside their algorithms or write code to generate an algorithm to produce prettier and safe music are cheating the experience of experimentation and exploration. Just imho again. I'm sure I've stated all this before in some way or another. So bytebeat should be mathist points except no one cares about the art of maths and wants to be a big cheater pants! WIAIIAWIAIWIAW?!?!? Q___Q
Level 24 Mixist
post #82819 :: 2017.04.19 11:25am
  shinichi, MiDoRi, goluigi, puke7 and Blaze Weednix liēkd this
If instances of "x is technically not y" were a drug, this thread alone would get me sent to the hospital from an overdose.
Level 14 Chipist
post #82845 :: 2017.04.20 10:53am
  MiDoRi hæitd this
  johnfn, Karmic and SketchMan3 liēkd this
Chips and Fake bit are only machinations of the human mind.

The only real music is gee-tars.
Level 16 Mixist
post #83073 :: 2017.04.25 1:24am
I could port my stuff to maths

But really.

Mine basically is pure maths only for the for loop and the #defines which is essentially copy and paste for readability and smallness
Level 19 Pixelist
post #83085 :: 2017.04.25 11:39am :: edit 2017.04.25 11:42am
Underrated post

If anything, i'm leaned towards opinion that bytebeat should earn you codist pts.
Level 16 Mixist
post #83107 :: 2017.04.26 3:28am
Codist points sound pretty good actually ;)
Level 22 Chipist
post #83193 :: 2017.04.29 7:00am
  Quirby64 and Jimmyoshi liēkd this
I agree with puke.

And the only suitable solution in that case, clearly, is to make bytebeat give t-ist points.
Level 23 Chipist
post #83204 :: 2017.04.29 10:25am :: edit 2017.04.29 10:25am
  pigdevil2010, Modus Ponens and Jimmyoshi liēkd this
Or the best type of point a botbr could ever get,
Level 18 Chipist
post #83208 :: 2017.04.29 12:05pm
  MiDoRi and Quirby64 liēkd this
Algorhythmist points
Level 22 Chipist
post #83212 :: 2017.04.29 12:59pm
  MiDoRi, pigdevil2010, shinichi, Baron Knoxburry, Quirby64, Modus Ponens and Jimmyoshi liēkd this
@puke7: Yes and no. The starting point was this Experimental music from very short C programs
thing. Then viznut created ibniz, with the main objective being to prevent people from blowing up their computers with dodgy C code. Point being, while the "algorithm against t" was a commong occurance right from the start, it was never a definite rule. On the other hand I agree that the main idea should be writing "pure" algorithms and not "building a tracker into the thing". But then again, if you can build a tracker into the thing, then that's quite an achievement in itself, and the fact that it's possible even in 1K says something as well. Either way, I don't mind, just sayin'.

On a side note, if people dig the idea of "small executable music", then let's maybe think about introducing a new format where ppl can use 4klang
and Oidos
and other good shit like that
and then we can finally take over the demoscene mwahahahaaaa.

LOGIN or REGISTER to add your own comments!