VOGONS


First post, by wocko1

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

G'day all

I thought I'd do a thing similar to the sound card from best to worst list but with General MIDI synths. MT-32s running in GM mode don't really count, as it kind of sounds like crap.

So please if you can rate these synths from 1 to 10 with 10 being best and 1 being worst.

  • * Roland SC-55
    * Roland SC-55mkII
    * Roland SC-88
    * Roland SC-88 Pro
    * Yamaha MU-10
    * Yamaha MU-50
    * Yamaha MU-80
    * CL Wave Blaster 1
    * CL Wave Blaster 2
    * Korg NS5R
    * GUS Wavetable
    * M$ GS Wavetable Synth
    * AWE32
    * AWE64
    * CL PCI128/Esoniq Synth
    * Any one which is not listed here, please specify.

Reply 3 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

My personal 10 points go to Roland Sound Canvas (Any Sound Canvas really).

As for other modules it becomes very subjective.

Recently played with my X-Fi and SoundFonts and the results are also very impressive.

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 4 of 44, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My own 10 points goes to the Wave Blaster 1. Now, that being said, (as others have seen me post here at Vogons) I used to drool over the SC-88/SC-88 Pro, but I've never had one... so's I can't comment fairly on them.

Now, the comparison; Not sure about the WB1 vs SC-55x, but:

(refering to GM-*only*) The WB1 will blow away the stock GM samples on a MU-10/MU-50/MU-80... UNLESS, the MIDI file was authored in XG format, and is predominantly rock or pop type stuff (especially the overdrive and distortion guitars, when the MIDi files uses specific XG effects processors). The Yamaha's orchestral samples are pale by comparison (WB1 orchestral stuff: think - EMU Proteus line of MIDI modules... many a big screen movie has been scored with these).

WB1 vs WB2... *NO* comparison. Returned the POCrap WB2 that I had purchased back in the era the EXACT SAME DAY for a refund! GARBAGE!

WB1 vs MSGS Wavetable synth... again, no comparison.

WB1 vs AWE32/AWE64... again, no comparison. UNLESS, one is using a decent SoundFont, as the stock EMU 2 meg sample ROM is pretty sickly (exact same ROM as on the WB2).

WB1 vs GUS... heh, same as the preceding three. Not much experience with them, but I do remember that they sounded fairly respectable; price wise, and for what the norm was for the day (FM synth).

The Korg and the Esoniq I know nothing about.

Anyhow, my 2 cents, and personal ramble.

Rich ¥Weeds¥ Nagel
http://www.richnagel.net

Reply 5 of 44, by shock__

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Gonna attempt at this, even tho I'm not familiar with all of them.

  • * 10 - Roland SC-55 (just perfect, considering most songs are made for this board)
    * 6 - GUS Wavetable (does the job)
    * 8 - M$ GS Wavetable Synth (generally sounds quite good overall, but then again it's just a cut back Sound Canvas anyways)
    * 4 - AWE32 (never liked this, sounds very, very artificial/off)
    * 7 - CL PCI128/Esoniq Synth (recently got a SS classic, it can sound _very_ awesome or just as bad as the AWE32, depending on the song)

Reply 6 of 44, by fillosaurus

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Well, I used a combo of Yamaha SW-20PC (OPL4 GM, 2 Mb ROM) and GUS ACE.
IMHO, the GUS sounds better in games with native support, and even it's controversial (some love it, some hate it) GM emulation sounds good.
Any of these sound better than AWE32/64 (have a SB32 and 2 64's).
And I like the way Yamaha XG sounds even in GM/GS mode, not using all those fancy XG fx.

WTF, GUS was the daddy of them all soundfonts with its patches. You could load any set of patches you liked in the onboard RAM.

Y2K box: AMD Athlon K75 (second generation slot A)@700, ASUS K7M motherboard, 256 MB SDRAM, ATI Radeon 7500+2xVoodoo2 in SLI, SB Live! 5.1, VIA USB 2.0 PCI card, 40 GB Seagate HDD.
WIP: external midi module based on NEC wavetable (Yamaha clone)

Reply 7 of 44, by WBman

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hail to rfnagel! 😀

AWM Summit - 10
'Almost' Kurzweil K2000 engine shipped with legendary orchestral ROM block. Do I need to say anything more? Comparing it to Roland SC - it's just another league. These are the sounds used on prominent TV, studio, film music tracks. Some of its sounds are comparable or better than today's huge gigabytes-sized orchestral sound banks. If you are more demanding musically oriented person and own this, you're lucky. If you want to bring the life to lifeless dull SC-55 performances of orchestral game music and own this, you're lucky too.

Wave Blaster 1 - 10
This is GM 'selection' of best Proteus 1/Proteus 2/Proteus 3 modules sounds + few more new. Again - almost every musician knows the Proteus synths. Magic, inspiring sounds, used on many film/TV sountracks in its time. This is one of the most clear, pure-sounding GM orchestral synth ever. Emotional, natural vibrato, very realistic samples, various characters and moods of instruments. Proteus/WB sounds are so popular, that they have been recreated and are being sold in various modern sampler's formats like NI Kontakt, Reason or EXS-24. Ironically, there's very small (yet very loud) group responsible for some musically totally incompetent pejorative reviews of the WB, and for spreading incorrect informations about WB on Internet. Sad.

Roland SC-55 - 7
It's good, because many game musics were composed with this module, but by far not every. The "all GM game music was created on and for Sound Canvas" claim is nothing more than a myth. This board is very good for pop/jazz/synth genre game soundtracks. However it fails a lot on orchestral-oriented tracks. Many orchestral instruments - especially woodwinds - sound so terrible that they lack any emotions, even if the music composition itself would be great. Most of the acoustic instruments have that unpleasant synthy metallic horrible touch, that almost 'demolishes' musically trained ear. Want to hear any lyrical orchestral mood or naturally sounding acoustic instruments? Forget.

Roland SC-88 - 8
Similar as above, but the worst sounds were 'fixed'. It has allready not so terrible oboe, flute, nylon guitar etc. Many sounds were updated or added. It sounds musically better than SC-55, but may not be as balanced in games, because most of them were created on a SC-55. But unlike SC-55, SC-88 is finally able of decent (even orchestral) sound, if properly arranged. For example Warcraft 2 is a listening pleasure on SC-88 (but not on SC-55).

Roland SC-88 PRO - 8
Again, some changed and updated sounds, hundreds of new patches. But most of them are in additional GS banks, so it's insignificant.

Roland SC-8850 - 4
This is a good synth, with especially nice ethnic and vocal patches. If you would manually reprogram game MIDIs with it's GS sounds, the result possibly may be somewhere about 8. However the basic GM patches are a mess in games. For example listening to SC-8850's performance of Warcraft 2 music tracks is an unpleasant experience. It even sounds out of tune in so many parts, SC-88 is pure beauty in comparison to it. Azreal's tear music sounds dull, flat, un-musical. But I'm talking of blending of basic General MIDI 128 instruments, there are nice sounds in additional GS positions. But only for gaming - rather keep away from it. This module isn't intended for game music playback either.

Wave Blaster 2, Sound Blaster AWE ... - 2
Some time after CL took over the E-mu Systems, a new generation of 'sound card' sounds was created. Cheap, shoddy, unbalanced, vaguely programmed - they had nothing to do with good old Proteus samples included in Wave Blaster 1 and Turtle Beach Multisound cards. It was, cheap, commercial, fast alternative to the FM synthesis. Definitely not suited to musicians or musically more demanding gamers. Some out of mind 'reviews' claimed that it sounds better than original Proteus/WB1, which is crazy (check rfangel post above), but some 'reviewers' just hear this way: reverb (the more excessive the better) - good. No reverb - bad. Sad, but true.

SB AWE.., SB Live!...etc. with 2, 4, 8 MB Soundfonts - 3
Improvement over AWE32 and WB2 - especially the 4MB and 8MB SFs. But still the 'cheap' category.

SB... with E-mu APS 8 MB Soundfont - 4, 28 MB X-Fi Soundfonts - 4
APS 8 MB SF is noticeable (but not drastic) improvement over previous SB 8 MB soundfont. Still the same cheap category, but mostly the balance of the instruments is better, as well as some sounds are a bit better programmed. 28 MB X-Fi SF - a dissapointment in the light of the size of the soundfont. Some instruments consume a lot of space (Piano, Harp), but many aren't improved at all. The balance of the sounds is still unsatisfactory. The big space is used mostly for making some patches true stereo, rather than improving the sound of the individual patches, that would be in fact needed much more. Pity. But still, with these SFs, some almost-decent performances on some game music are possible..

Yamaha MU xxx - 3
Can't expect anything great with basic GM game playback. But these are sound modules with potential and many interesting sounds. If the music is optimized for the Yamaha synth, it can sound very nice, although it's still not too suitable for orchestral tracks.

Gravis Ultrasound - 2
There are many versions of the card and sounds - some sound like a joke, in some you can find few surprisingly nice sounds. I still remember how fascinated I was when I heard very very nice flute from (can't remember which version of) GUS soundcard sometimes around 1993. This card was the first 'sampler' card, so it deserves respect.

M$ GS Wavetable - 2

MIDI Blaster - 1
Terrible. Some traditional game MIDI is unintendedly transformed into highly unconventional modern atonal sound art.

My 2 cents.

Reply 8 of 44, by madcrow

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I just wanted to note that the crap sounds in things like the AWE32 and the GUS are mainly the fault of bad patches being loaded. Many superior alternate soundfonts/patchsets are available and can turn the bad cards into much stronger performers.

Reply 9 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I was under the impression that under DOS loading patches can be challenging. It works very well from within Windows as long as you can launch the DOS game from within windows.

With DOSBox all the new Creative cards (Live! and later) support SoundFonts and there are a ton available to suit every taste...

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 10 of 44, by madcrow

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I was under the impression that under DOS loading patches can be challenging. It works very well from within Windows as long as you can launch the DOS game from within windows.

I don't know about AWE32/64, but loading patches for GUS under DOS is ridiculously easy.

Reply 11 of 44, by valnar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
WBman wrote:

Wave Blaster 1 - 10
This is GM 'selection' of best Proteus 1/Proteus 2/Proteus 3 modules sounds + few more new. Again - almost every musician knows the Proteus synths. Magic, inspiring sounds, used on many film/TV sountracks in its time. This is one of the most clear, pure-sounding GM orchestral synth ever. Emotional, natural vibrato, very realistic samples, various characters and moods of instruments. Proteus/WB sounds are so popular, that they have been recreated and are being sold in various modern sampler's formats like NI Kontakt, Reason or EXS-24. Ironically, there's very small (yet very loud) group responsible for some musically totally incompetent pejorative reviews of the WB, and for spreading incorrect informations about WB on Internet. Sad.

If that is true, you may want to update the wikipedia article saying that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Wave_Blaster

Reply 12 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
madcrow wrote:

I don't know about AWE32/64, but loading patches for GUS under DOS is ridiculously easy.

Hmm well I gave up couldn't figure it out 🤣. But I also thought "Why am I mucking around with GUS and SoundFonts when I have other GM synths?".

I like to pull the card out and listen to the pinball fantasy games. That sound is very unique to the GUS and sets it apart.

Reply 13 of 44, by megatron-uk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
WBman wrote:

Wave Blaster 1 - 10

I'd have to disagree with you on this one - all the tracks I've heard via this compared to the Roland (SC55mk1/2) or Yamaha (XG50/60) equivalents have sounded really unbalanced - some instruments thin and wooly and others completely overpowering.

Gravis Ultrasound - 2
There are many versions of the card and sounds - some sound like a joke, in some you can find few surprisingly nice sounds. I still remember how fascinated I was when I heard very very nice flute from (can't remember which version of) GUS soundcard sometimes around 1993. This card was the first 'sampler' card, so it deserves respect.

I believe that is incorrect. The patches distributed on floppies with the GUS were all the same. The basic patch set was the same on the various models - though if you had the memory upgrade (GUS Classic came in 256/512/1024k and Max 512/1024k) you could load more distinct instruments. The base installation loaded a different set of patches dependent on the amount of memory installed on the card.
The Propats add-on available from various BBS at the time (and still floating out on the web now) replaces the base patches and in 1024k guise sounds very nice indeed.
Don't forget, either, that the 32 channels could also be used for general purpose pcm playback - not just for music.

My collection database and technical wiki:
https://www.target-earth.net

Reply 14 of 44, by WBman

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

madcrow: I know, I mentioned only the official CL/E-mu soundfonts for the Sound Blaster.

valnar: That's a great idea. I will consult it with some other WB users who also know the WB/Proteus history and we will work some more balanced text out.

megatron-uk: Really? I wonder on basis of which tracks. The problem is that there weren't almost any relevant comparisons except some very strange, mostly pop-y tracks. Of course, if you hear some drums related simple game tracks (like so many tracks from a lot of Sierra games for example), Sound Canvas strongly depending, it will sound best on SC and its imitators. But it's necessary to listen to more universal, high-quality (mostly)orchestral tracks of composition masters like George Alistar Sanger, K. Wheston Phelan, Joe McDermott, Eric Heberling, Clin Bajakin, Peter McConnel, Frank Klepacki.. and such names. In other words to games like Azrael's Tear, Shannara, Arena: The Elder Scrolls, Al-Quadim, Sam&Max, Lands of Lore and such. The more the better. Then you'll hear objectively. Remember that SC and E-mu Proteus/Sound Engine have different wave-sample technology. So, if a SC pop track uses modulation (which is typically strong in order to soften SC stony sounding instruments), it will sound excessive on a synth that has 'sweeteness' of an instrument or vibrato already sampled in it. And this is it, what was often incorrectly called 'unbalance'. For less biased comparison, you can start for example with these two samples:

Especially check the oboe, but also general warmthness
Sam & Max-SC55
Sam & Max-WB1
or
Star Trail-SC88
Star Trail-WB1

And we are comparing it with Roland! Comparison with other wavetable cards like AWE, Sound Galaxy etc. would be crushing. Also check rfnagel post about WB1 vs WB2/AWE etc. He's a guy who really knows the stuff. Also note that old Proteus sounds took heart of many professional musicians and was used on TV/film music in its time (especially the ROM orchestral part which is identical for about 90% of instruments with Wave Blaster/E-mu SoundEngine) and was so popular that it is still being sold in sampler formats.

ad Gravis Ultrasound - maybe I'm incorrect, it has been years since I played with GUS, but what I remeber was that some GUS PnP with some (don't know which) bank sounded different than some another GUS. Maybe it could be 'different' versions due to memory size. Or maybe one was loaded with some 3rd-party bank? I don't remember.

Reply 15 of 44, by megatron-uk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Now, when I hear the Sam & Max comparison I immediately find that the drum and percussion instruments sound very muted and 'fuzzy' on the Wave Blaster - the oboe does sound a little warmer, but the sax (around 1:14) is more natural (again, IMO) on the Sound Canvas, with the WB sounding very artificial in comparison.

The comparisons which, IMO, sound far better on Roland/Yamaha setups are Doom, Duke Nukem 3d and Descent.

Wavetable.nl - Doom soundtrack comparison
http://www.wavetable.nl/?cat=90

Doom - E1M1 - WB1
http://www.wavetable.nl/files/comparison/game … m%20-%20E1M1%20[Creative%20Wave%20Blaster].mp3
Doom - E1M1 - SC55
http://www.wavetable.nl/files/comparison/game … m%20-%20E1M1%20[Roland%20SC-55].mp3
Doom - E1M1 - DB50XG
http://www.wavetable.nl/files/comparison/game … m%20-%20E1M1%20[Yamaha%20DB50XG].mp3

Guitar, drums/percussion are, for me, far and away the best on the SC55, with the Yamaha quite close. The Wave Blaster, with this particular track, sounds rather poor in comparison.

However, music is a very subjective thing, so what sounds 'good' to one person is not necessarily going to sound the same to anyone else! 😀

My collection database and technical wiki:
https://www.target-earth.net

Reply 16 of 44, by WBman

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Yes, pop family instruments like drums, guitars or saxes are the strong point of Roland/Yamaha. They sound definitely stronger and with more punch on Roland/Yamaha in Doom example and similar (But the WB sax strangeness in Sam&Max is due to used modulation, as adding artificial vibrato to an instrument allready having the vibrato in the sample itself is resluting such way). When it comes to the harmonic structure of the tones, it's yet not so convincing. But I understand that for such type of soundtracks the sound strength and punch are the most important factors. However even with 'thin' old-fashioned drums sometimes WB can sound better even in such genre: 😀
Lands-voices SC55
Lands-voices WB1
And in a good and cleverly arranged game compostition, voi-la, even the 'hidden' excellence of WB bass+guitar turns out - the part from 1:14 is IMO an amazingly realistic performance, unmatched by other wt cards:
Lands-guitar WB1

Although soloed or in a very simple mix it tends to sound a bit thin, in more complicated mixes it shows its strenght of very precisely programmed sounds. But I don't want to convince anybody that WB is better for pop/drums genres. No. If you are more into Doom-like, or KQ-like sountracks, Roland or Yamaha is a better choice. But if you are into the orchestra and want to hear that accurately sweet english horn, great oboe, emotional flute, strong trumpet, absolutely clear, balanced, purism string sections and nicely colored solo strings, then the Proteus/Wave Blaster or Kurzweil are the ones miles ahead of the SC-55. Of course also the mallets, besides others, as I think the Star Trail comparison exposed things pretty clearly. And we can add another one:
Azrael`s Tear Roland
Azrael`s Tear WB1
But anyway, as you mentioned, it's all subjective 😀

Reply 17 of 44, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It's subjective I guess, but to me Roland sounds a ton better. I think it sounds inferior even to the Awe32/WB2. My favorite version of the Doom soundtrack is on the MT-32 and SoundBlaster by the way 😁.
It sounds very good on Azrael's Tear though.
It also has to do with how well somebody uses the hardware.

Reply 19 of 44, by megatron-uk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
F2bnp wrote:

It's subjective I guess, but to me Roland sounds a ton better. I think it sounds inferior even to the Awe32/WB2. My favorite version of the Doom soundtrack is on the MT-32 and SoundBlaster by the way 😁.
It sounds very good on Azrael's Tear though.
It also has to do with how well somebody uses the hardware.

Actually, I'd agree with you about the MT32 specific version of the Doom soundtrack; it's really good!

My collection database and technical wiki:
https://www.target-earth.net