Not really.

sepultribe wrote:

is there a point in having a mt-32 rev.1 for dos gaming instead of the old one?

thanks for your time

ps:i tried searching but couldn't find any info

The difference between rev. 0 and rev. 1 is the rev. 1 doesn't get the Exec. Checksum Error/Exec. Buffer Overflow messages whereas the rev. 0 gets those errors sinc the speed/delay of the sysex is way too fast, depending upon which computer you're running on.

On a 386 or 486 PC, there are no issues pertaining to the Exec. Checksum Error/Exec. Buffer Overflow messages since those systems have turbo buttons to slow down the system to work with the rev. 0 MT-32. On an Intel Pentium+ PC, the computer must run either the slowdown program or turn off both the L1 and L2 cache (L1 - CPU, L2 - Board) to run as a 386 PC, or leave L1 on and turn off L2 to run as a 486 computer.

The Newer version of the Roland MT-32 has a faster CPU and more memory than the MT-32 rev. 0 (Old version).

Sorry to necro, but to answer this:

The main reasons would be a slightly less noisy output and addition of CM-32L sound effects, at the expense of some vibrato accuracy in extreme examples (Space Quest 3 in one track, HOC in airplane stamp SFX).

I've been using it over a rev 0 for about 7 years now.

Of course MUNT may be considered to provide benefits over both now!

interesting, I always thought that rev1 was the same as rev0 in terms of samples... so it has the extra sfx bank as well... how does it perform with stuff that need lapc-i/cm32-l ?

I use a Roland MT-32 Rev.0 with a real PC166 Mhz computer and since I use SoftMPU v1.9 with the /DELAYSYSEX switch and I've not encounter bufferoverflow anymore.
For General MIDI Games I use a Roland M-GS64 (same as SC-88 but rack mount).

bjwil1991 wrote:

The Newer version of the Roland MT-32 has...more memory than the MT-32 rev. 0 (Old version).

Huh?

Spikey wrote:

The main reasons would be a slightly less noisy output and addition of CM-32L sound effects, at the expense of some vibrato accuracy in extreme examples (Space Quest 3 in one track, HOC in airplane stamp SFX).

I think you have the newer MT-32 confused with the CM-500? Unless the unit I sent you was somehow unique, no production-model MT-32 contains the CM-32L sound effects.

Cloudschatze wrote:

bjwil1991 wrote:

The Newer version of the Roland MT-32 has...more memory than the MT-32 rev. 0 (Old version).

Huh?

It has, because of the ROM PLAY functionality.

Sure, but assuming that's what was meant, it was very poorly stated.

I'm confused... Are we talking about the MT-32 old with the rev1 PCB (with serial numbers 851400 - 950499) or the MT-32 new with added headphone jack (serial numbers 950500 and up)?

carlostex wrote:

I'm confused... Are we talking about the MT-32 old with the rev1 PCB (with serial numbers 851400 - 950499) or the MT-32 new with added headphone jack (serial numbers 950500 and up)?

We are talking about "the MT-32 new with added headphone jack (serial numbers 950500 and up". That has extra ROM for ROM PLAY (built-in songs). "More memory" need not always mean "more RAM", ROM is memory too.

Great Hierophant wrote:

"More memory" need not always mean "more RAM", ROM is memory too.

When comparing two computers having differing BIOS ROM sizes, but the same amount of RAM, would anyone ever describe one as having "more memory" than the other?

I think you have the newer MT-32 confused with the CM-500? Unless the unit I sent you was somehow unique, no production-model MT-32 contains the CM-32L sound effects.

Cloud: Maybe I'm totally off base? I thought the MT-32 rev 1 was the same as the CM-32L, exactly. I could've sworn it produces the Laughing effect in Larry 5..

Now I'll have to research and report back!

Great Hierophant wrote:

We are talking about "the MT-32 new with added headphone jack (serial numbers 950500 and up". That has extra ROM for ROM PLAY (built-in songs). "More memory" need not always mean "more RAM", ROM is memory too.

My confusion stemmed from the fact that people mention rev0 and rev1. IIRC MT-32(without headphone jack) had 2 PCB revisions, hence i mentioned the serial numbers.

ROM is memory too, but it's for the built in songs. Therefore in my opinion has no relevance for any playback functionality. We discussing "more memory" is going around semantics.

Cloudschatze wrote:

When comparing two computers having differing BIOS ROM sizes, but the same amount of RAM, would anyone ever describe one as having "more memory" than the other?

Precisely.

Well, obviously I'm wrong, just compared my MT-32 and MUNT. Why in the world would I think that?

Is it perhaps accurate to say that the MT-32 rev 1 and the CM-32L have the same cleaner output, and as such the same 'sound'? (Minus the CM SFX in the MT-32 rev 1 obviously!)

There are other subtle differences regarding what information you will see on the LCD display and how the volume dial reacts. But the main differences are really buffer overflow and noise.

Hate to bump an old thread but I'm not finding any specific answers as people tend to just compare the MT-32 (Old) to the MT-32 (New).

My MT-32 is the "Old" version but has the Revision 01 PCB. What is the difference when it comes to Dos gaming between revision 00 and 01 when it comes to the "Old" version of the MT-32? To confirm, I'm not talking about Revision 01 from the "New" MT-32. As stated above, the old MT-32 also came with 2 different revision PCB's.

From Wiki "The PGA LA32 chip is later replaced with a 100-pin QFP type"

Not sure if this change had any effect?

none.

BloodyCactus wrote:

none.

Then why do I keep reading on various threads that revision 00 is the pcb to go for? Or are people getting confused as were unaware that the "Old" MT-32 also came in 2 revisions? Was the rom version changed between 00 and 01 for the old MT-32?

borgie83 wrote:

BloodyCactus wrote:

none.

Then why do I keep reading on various threads that revision 00 is the pcb to go for? Or are people getting confused as were unaware that the "Old" MT-32 also came in 2 revisions? Was the rom version changed between 00 and 01 for the old MT-32?

Obviously they are talking about the difference between "old" and "new" not the meaningless distinction between different "old" revisions. I doubt many are even aware of the latter.