I hesitated about mentioning the CM-32LN and LAPC-N because they were made for the NEC 9800, although the latter could be made to work somehow with a PC.

As for the necessary ROMs, Munt requires the control ROMs merged into a single file (if MT-32) but not for the CM-32L (which only has one EPROM.) The "tone" ROM is better known as the PCM ROM and that has always been required. There is another ROM on the MT-32 that contains reverb algorithims, but that is evidently not required at this time.

I believe the Blue Ridge modification allows an MT-32 modified for battery backup to properly retain the RAM contents.

Hmm. I wonder if the PCM partials in the MT-32, et al, were taken directly from the D-50. If so, I can't imagine Roland ever freely allowing their use.

Perhaps this has been previously asked, but if Roland were to receive enough petitions for an "official" emulator, would they create it?

Doubtful, as the samples are only 15 bit resolution, yet the hardware appears capable of handling 16 bit (like you'd expect). They may be identical to the D50 samples, but "watered down" to reduce quality, however.

As for an official emulator, sadly I doubt it. Roland has shown almost no interest in reviving their old synths through emulators. Look at how little they've done for hugely popular synths such as the TB-303, of which several clones and emulators now exist (but none from Roland as far as I know).

Edirol is clearly not interested in softsynths anymore. You'd have more luck asking Arturia for a commercial MT-32 emulator 😉

If Roland isn't interested in their old hardware anymore, why don't they just simply make a CD containing all the ROMs for every piece of sound hardware they've ever made available for $5 and let the emulation community write the emulators? They get money for their ROMs, and we get the ROMs we need to use with the emulators. It's a fair deal if you ask me.

CD-ROM? Who says they even have to do that? A simple pay for download would cost them next to nothing raising profit ratios even higher on something they currently make $0 a year on.

Nonetheless. The answer to your question is "because they don't give a rat's rear end and can't be bothered to make even the ever so slightest effort in such a thing."

The problem with old games and hardware is that the companies are not interested in supporting or marketing old products, but their lawyers advise them to hang onto them in case they want to use ideas from them in future products or whatever. Basically, it's easier for them to sit on old stuff than it is for them to let go.