This far on my research of this very cryptic module format i realized that Open ModPlugTracker opens 669 files way different that Composer 669 does.

Further explanation of these bugs can be found on a lyceum article i wrote here:
http://battleofthebits.com/lyceum/View/Composer+669/#Important%20notes%20about%20the%20playback%20of%20the%20Composer%20669%20modules

It comes with images comparing the same module open and shows how different the audio quality is with mp3 examples on both trackers.

I do light this out because if 669 format is ever a thing on BotB it actually should not actually be S3XMODIT, and its very dedicated tracker, Composer 669 may be the only on where playback those module files.

EDIT: i deleted the article i wrote about the openmpt playback there since it does not apply, as said in this thread by two main developers of openmpt, manx and Saga Musix: https://bugs.openmpt.org/view.php?id=814

you should message Saga_Musix on esper or join #modulez and ask him about it, he is the main developer for openmpt.

imo use the issue tracker

edit: but please be specific about what exactly is loaded incorrectly

Issue Tracker is my favorite tracker anyway

The bug reports and features thread should be used for BotB related bugs / features! Next time, make sure to post something like this in the forums

neat, golgi! that would definitely be useful, i just did wrote a bug report there, Jangler; you can see it here: https://bugs.openmpt.org/view.php?id=814 and my bad Savestate, wont happen from now = 3

vilxdryad, glad you worked your way up to bring this up to the official channels and let us know of the state of things.

this far i have got a nice talk with Saga Musix, a main developer of OpenMPT which stated that he will fix a bug regarding the effect command in OpenMPT's r6502 release, he said:

r6502 introduces fixes to portamento and vibrato commands in 669 files, so they sound more or less identical to what Composer 669 does. Note that these fixes can only be made use of in libopenmpt, not OpenMPT itself. libopenmpt does not need to convert 669 modules to S3M internally, so it can play them back as intended.

he also added that the revision 6502 update will appear here: https://buildbot.openmpt.org/builds/auto/libopenmpt-winold/ when released

he also said that OpenMPT wont ever sound as near as Composer 669 because as he stated here:

Like many trackers of the time, Composer 669 uses full stereo separation, i.e. a channel can be either played fully left or fully right. This is extremely unpleasant to the ears, especially with headphones, hence OpenMPT uses a more narrow panning scheme. Most module players do the same (and rightfully so).

and as in other parts of the thread, he prefers to improve the sound to be nicier, because he says:

People will of course still listen to existing 669 modules, but noone with a sane mind still uses Composer 669 to actually write music. As such, I think it is acceptable to listen to it in high fidelty with OpenMPT

so for those like me who seeks for maximum accuracy of what the actual composer intended his 669 module to sound like, must rely only on Composer 669 to playback 669 files, please read: https://bugs.openmpt.org/view.php?id=814 for the context of these quotes so you can interpret all this quotes in their correct way.

In the other hand, there also exists another tracker called Unis 669 which outputs, say, tweaked 669 modules; adding things like new effects such as F0's super fast tempo, gN balance fine slide to left or right and hN slot re-trigger. it also can import samples with a frequency up to 44 KHz rather than the Composer 669's 22 KHz module output.

so, there does exists a common 669 file that is created on Composer 669, and there is also a called extended 669 format that is exclusive of Unis 669. Here is a little text explaining how both common Composer 669 and extended Unis 669 module outputs does work:

ftp://ftp.amigascne.org/mirrors/ftp.modland.com/pub/documents/format_documentation/Composer%20669%2C%20Unis%20669%20(.669).txt

This said, extended 669 modules created in Unis 669 may not sound as near the same at all on Composer 669.

Note that Unis 669 usage is mouse based, so its way nicer to use rather than the command based Composer 669, i may write a lyceum article about Unis 669 characteristics in the future.

i'm glad you have become the soul bastion of 669 in this horrid world we live in

As a man, i kept my word and i made a documentation of the 669 format after an extensive research which you can find here:

- 669 Format

i also made a full article about the improved extended version of the 669 format:

- Extended 669 Format

and updated the Composer 669 tracker article i made time ago adding new information about the format:

- Composer 669

and i made an article for the main tracker of the Extended 669 Format, Unis 669 too:

- Unis 669

I hope this helps on that new chiptuner generations pays respect to they elders, as now this may be the only site on the whole internet that has all the information about this format in one place; is the minimal i can do for the ones who made composing on trackers nowadays a reality =' D

Composer 669 ? I still use composer 667 and had never heard of 669 until I joined BotB a couple of days ago.

That's exciting! I use 667 because I needed support for sound blaster pro v1.0 with dual opl2 chip. However i've encountered two major bugs in 667.

Do you know if composer 669 supports stereo adlib, meaninf dual opl2 as opposed to opl3, I can't seem to find confirmation of this in the article?

Thanks for your efforts on this. I very enjoy these obscure wares.

Composer 667 was a software developed by the same guy than Composer 669 and he ceased further development after he released his Composer 669.

And sadly though they are no way similar; as Composer 667 is a tracker that only uses sound cards with Ad Lib support since only relies on Ad Lib's instruments while Composer 669 is a tracker that only supports sampled instruments = c

So they both may not be possible to be compared as their format and limitations are completely different

Thanks you, Mistor Moniter! =' D i am so glad to find out that some people still enjoy using old cryptic wares too; their charm keeps unique and they still works neat! =' )

Edit: I just wrote an article of the 667 Format and updated my previous Composer 667 Article too which you can see here:
http://battleofthebits.com/lyceum/View/667%20Format

and for the Composer 667 one, there:
http://battleofthebits.com/lyceum/View/Composer+667/

As there i could not found a module repository for the 667 Format i would love that anyone could share their work, so i can add it to the article too = D, i also did linked a sample module i made for usage understanding purposes. =' 3

Ah well I will stick to composer 667 then. Would be nice to try 669 for digital some day.

You are going to piss your pants.... it's so happens this summer I have been composing very very very nice track in composer 667 specifically to explore the sound of SB pro V1 (dual opl2). Song is actually finished recently!! It'S a pitty there isn't a Major battle going on that would allow for Adlib phreaks to participate.

I will shut myself up now since this thread is about 669. I'll be back in touch with you concerning my problems with 667 tracker.

that sounds sweet!~ looking forward to hear it = D also feel free to edit the lyceum article to promote your track; as there are very few 667 demos around your track most likely may get lots of listeners =' 3