VOGONS


Reply 20 of 44, by megatron-uk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Does anyone use the Korg NS5R mentioned in the original post (or the Yamaha XG internally expanded NX5R variant?) for gaming purposes? I've heard some examples and it seems a little different to all the kit we've been talking about here, but definitely 'good' different.

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

Reply 21 of 44, by 5u3

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
megatron-uk wrote:
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!

Are you guys talking about a real MT-32 version of the DOOM soundtrack, or just running the GM soundtrack on a MT-32 with a GM patch set?
I've tried the latter, and it's really something. 😀

Reply 22 of 44, by megatron-uk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I've not tried it myself, but E1M1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUTcN-RlfpU I'm not sure how it's configured... but it's surprisingly good!

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

Reply 23 of 44, by 5u3

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yeah, that sounds very similar on my LAPC-I.

I like this a lot, even if it sounds a bit strange with some of the other tracks.
However, my favourite combo for DOOM is FM with EMU8K effects for the music and GUS for digital sound.

Reply 24 of 44, by ratfink

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Been interesting to hear some of the samples and read this debate. Partly because I've been wondering whether to shell out for an SC-55, whether and SC-88 or 8850 would be better, do they actually sound any better to an SCB-7 or SCP-55 in games I might play, etc.

When I got my SCP-55 and SCB-7 I must confess I was a bit disappointed as I'd never heard MIDI through them before and expected them to be near-perfect renditions of instruments, which they didn't seem to be. Often sound synthetic.

The GUS on the other hand I think is great, because it has a liveliness and freshness to its sounds even though it sounds a bit rough in places.

imho the recordings earlier in this thread on the waveblaster show some instruments to be rendered much better than roland does - I'm not enough of a musician to tell what they are but the orchestral sounds seem a lot more real on the waveblaster, but the roland kind of glossed over this with an overall most exciting/strident sound.

The Yamaha XG seems a bit over the top with the drums on some game tracks, but music written with it in mind can be pretty amazing.

Must confess I think the Doom soundtrack is awful so I find it hard to compare the recordings on different equipment - a tinny old SB clone is probably just as good for that as far as I'm concerned. And indeed would have some other-worldly quality that would be quite immersive.

Measured in terms of how blown-away I was when I heard the sound cards in action for the first time, I'd say:

1. Yamaha [despite the sometimes over-emphasized drums]
2. GUS
3. Roland

Still a little surprised by this ordering.

The point about how the game was meant to sound is really interesting, but is there another issue: though musicians may have written them on an SC-55, would they have been testing them on an SB clone [or whatever was most popular at the time]? Meh I guess not, that would be like saying Quake was meant to be played in 320x200. Come to think of it, I think it looks good that way...

Reply 25 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
ratfink wrote:

would they have been testing them on an SB clone [or whatever was most popular at the time]?

SC-55 is the way to go if you want authentic sound because that's what game musicians used.

If you are looking for "something extra" well you can nuts with the multitude of General MIDI modules and SoundFonts.

The challenge is that some tracks / games might sound better on a particular module but then you try another track / game and it falls apart.

Back in the days people usually got non Roland General MIDI modules mostly because of the lower price. A Sound Canvas wasn't cheap back in the day.

Regarding your list (blown away when I first heard it) without a doubt my number one would have to be the Sound Blaster.

It was my very first Soundcard and the difference between PC speaker and FM Music was nothing short of amazing. Everything that followed was more a incremental upgrade rather a revolution.

Reply 26 of 44, by ratfink

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Regarding your list (blown away when I first heard it) without a doubt my number one would have to be the Sound Blaster.

Hehe you're right, I had forgotten the impact my first sound card card had on me, an Aztech mmpro16 or something. Still got it somewhere, in a safe place 🤣.

Reply 27 of 44, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
ratfink wrote:

Partly because I've been wondering whether to shell out for an SC-55, whether and SC-88 or 8850 would be better, do they actually sound any better to an SCB-7 or SCP-55 in games I might play, etc.

I really know very little about SC-55 vs SC-88/Prao, but what I do know is that the 88 has a much larger sample ROM than the SC-55. If you want more realistic sounding instruments (on a MIDI module that would still be SC-55 compliant), the SC-88 Pro would be the way to go 😀

ratfink wrote:

The point about how the game was meant to sound is really interesting, but is there another issue: though musicians may have written them on an SC-55, would they have been testing them on an SB clone [or whatever was most popular at the time]?

Something that I've never thought to mention in all of these MIDI comparison threads (refering to the SC-55, or any other MIDI module for that matter): Although a popular phrase is that "well, they originally composed it on an SC-55", the fact of the matter is that the musicians composed the music using General MIDI guidelines.

While one would need an SC-55 to hear *exactly* what the musician was hearing when composing the music, the same could be said, say, for my own stuff <grin>. You'll need decent SoundFont compatable MIDI hardware, and my custom SoundFont to hear *exactly* what *I* hear <grin>.

What does all of this mean? Absolutely nothing. I compose my MIDI music based upon the General MIDI guidelines, meaning that my MIDIs should sound at the very least "fair" on any GM compliant MIDI hardware. The more realistic sounding the instruments, the better (IOW, a trumpet sounds like a trumpet, a piano sounds like a piano, etc...).

Anyhow, *that* is what the original musicians target/goal was... composing for most any semi-decent General MIDI compatable hardware or MIDI module. And, back in the day, the more pricier stuff would have included an SC-55/SC-88/Wave Blaster/MU50/etc... even though the same General MIDI compatable MIDI files could be enjoyed with nothing but a Sound Blaster's FM synth 😀

Nevertheless, the original musicians would always wish that you had some sort of decent General MIDI compatable hardware, so's you could enjoy their tunes to their fullest.

Hehe, off-topic ramble/side-note: GAWD! I remember back in the day when *I* first discoverd the magic of MP3 files and an MP3 encoder... FINALLY people could "hear what I hear" 🤣! (this back in the day of FM synth and *everyone* with miserable dialup connections <grin>) 😀

Last edited by rfnagel on 2011-01-18, 07:06. Edited 2 times in total.

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

Reply 28 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
rfnagel wrote:

While one would need an SC-55 to hear *exactly* what the musician was hearing when composing the music

That's exactly what I want!

Reply 29 of 44, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:
rfnagel wrote:

While one would need an SC-55 to hear *exactly* what the musician was hearing when composing the music

That's exactly what I want!

BUT, is that what the *original musician* _wanted_ 🤣? Sorry, just being a PITA and argumentative here 🤣!

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

Reply 30 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
rfnagel wrote:

BUT, is that what the *original musician* _wanted_ 🤣? Sorry, just being a PITA and argumentative here 🤣!

Well how would you feel if I played your Yamaha tunes on a simple FM midi chip 🤣 And then say "man your music sucks" 😳 There is a reason you provide mp3 recordings.

My experience would be totally different, wouldn't it?

I believe that the original musicians wanted a lot more but had to work within the limitations of the technology at the time.

I'm sure they would have loved to have CD level quality and almost unlimited storage (which didn't take long before it was available) and not having to worry about the 20+ soundcards on the market.

Reply 31 of 44, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Well how would you feel if I played your Yamaha tunes on a simple FM midi chip 🤣 And then say "man your music sucks"

Actually, the Yamaha is in it's own class, a totally different animal; MIDI files that are authored using the XG guidelines have their own Yamaha specific stuff... which really can't be compared to what most MIDI hardware is, General MIDI compatable.

Heh, in any case though, my Yamaha tunes sound fairly respectable through my SBLive and custom SoundFont though (and would also sound respectable on, say, an SC-88/Pro)... but that's another topic/story altogether 😀

What I'm refering to is General MIDI guidelines (which is what most, if not all, game musicians followed when composing game music... short of non-GM hardware such as an MT-32). IMHO, any GM MIDI musician simply wants one to have decent MIDI hardware to play back his music. The more realistic sounding the instruments, the better 😀

That's all I'm saying: The Roland SC-55 is not necessarily the "defacto" standard for playing old game MIDIs, it simply was what most game musicians used in their studio. Now, if one wishes to hear any given game MIDI *exactly* as if they were sitting next to the game musician, then that's the way to go.

My point is simply that any MIDI module/hardware that includes quality (or rather, I should say, extremely "realistic") sounding instruments, is just fine... which is what most game musicians were wanting in the first place (on the users PC). Unfortunately, back in the day the norm was FM synth though.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I believe that the original musicians wanted a lot more but had to work within the limitations of the technology at the time.

This is part of my point: they *all* composed using GM guidelines... in general, any GM MIDI will sound *exactly* the same reguardless of playback hardware. Except (and that's a BIG "except" <grin>), the quality/realism/overall sound of the instruments will sound *completely* different.

Basically, in a nutshell, they were all authored as; 15 melodic MIDI channels, 1 percussion MIDI channel, 32-note polyphony, 128 melodic presets, and between 1 and 4 drum kits. Any given melodic preset number will be (supossedly) the same reguardless of MIDI hardware (e.g. GM melodic preset 57 is a Trombone). Hence, the musician simply wishes one to have MIDI hardware with the most realistic sounding intruments (which of course, is open to interpretation).

(edit) I guess what I'm trying to say is (re: interpretation), I myself (as well as most GM musicians) simply want the absolute most realistic sounding instruments when playing back MIDI files. I want to be able to compose and playback, say, a big orchestral piece, and the director the New York Philharmonic says "Hey! Where did you hire the orchestra?!" <grin> 😀 Actually, years ago one in Miami did just that, so's I was happy/content 🤣!

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

Reply 32 of 44, by WBman

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I second that. Firstly, there are so many games provable not composed exclusively on the SC-55, for example Betrayal at Krondor, Settlers 2, Star Trail, Lemmings 3D, Warcraft 2 a who knows how many more. The composers usually use combination of various different synths. The idea of all prominent MIDI game composers sitting in the studio and composing game music with the SC-55 alone is rather funny. It's not how it is. Some probably did, but I'm convinced that far fewer than is generally assumed.

The second myth is that "Music always sounds best on the synth that the auhtor used." Many various synth-based game OSTs in the history were later played by a real orchestra. You really think that it sounded worse than the Roland synth original then? I doubt. Even if the "balance" of realtive volumes, Roland related details etc. were broken or discarded. It just sounded tons better with an orchestra, despite of breaking of so-called Sound Cavnas balance. It sounds better, because the sounds sound tons better, and the first 'balace' becomes a minor issue. And the similar principle works also with other synths that sound, of course, not as good as a real orchestra, but still much better than Roland. When a good composition, which was by the way composed on a SC-55, is playing back on a vastly better synth - for example Kurzweil K2500 with orchestral card - it again sounds vastly better than the original. Many sounds will finally revive and become close to what the composer really intended. And again, even though the original SC balance detail is lost. Composers' imagination isn't limited with Roland SC-55, and that's why their music so many times sounds better on other synths.

Reply 33 of 44, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
WBman wrote:

The second myth is that "Music always sounds best on the synth that the auhtor used."

I believe we established many pages and threads ago that "best" is very subjective.

Secret of Monkey Island 2 SE arguably has a better quality soundtrack but it's not authentic in the sense of what we remember hearing when we played the game as a kid.

So please don't mistake "best" for "authentic"!

The composers usually use combination of various different synths. The idea of all prominent MIDI game composers sitting in the studio and composing game music with the SC-55 alone is rather funny. It's not how it is. Some probably did, but I'm convinced that far fewer than is generally assumed.

Unless someone ask the composer we will never know. Anything else is speculation, even me assuming that most games have been composed on a Sound Canvas. Doesn't change that I believe my assumption is the correct one of course 🤣

All I know is that back in the days when I was a kid the Roland Sound Canvas was marketed as THE General Midi synth to have. From my childhood I'm referring to round ups in PC magazines, recommendation from friends and PC stores and frequent mentioning in Sound Setup menus.

I know you love your Waveblaster but the PC magazines didn't feel good about, for whatever reason that may be. Back in these days a lot of people only had these magazines as source of knowledge and Roland was the de facto standard for MIDI, to a large degree because of the MT-32 history. People would just refer to Roland. Wow did you hear this game with Roland? So since the late 80s Roland was what you wanted to have if you wanted the very best Music for DOS games.

I feel t same about Soundblaster cards. There are people here that test every clone card they can find and spend tons of time on listening and comparing. Well I just stick with my Creative Cards thank you very much, for good and for worse 🤣

Reply 34 of 44, by wocko1

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Well back when I was a kid, all the games we had on the old 386/486 and P90, we only had crappy old Adlib music and we never even heard of a SC-55 or an MT-32. Sound cards we had were an old SB2.0, SB16, ESS 688 and a ESS 1868.

It wasn't until my brother got a SB PCI 128 was when I discovered wavetable synthesis and knowing how the games sounded so much better, then working as a young computer techie, I managed to score an AWE32 and whacked it in my first computer. I tried to get SQ3 running on General MIDI, but it never sounded right, so I had to stick with Adlib.
Then I checked out a video of an MT-32 being used on the older games, and for such an old synth, it sounded fantastic!

But then I built my DOSbox, and bought a real MT-32 (old), a CM-32L, a DB60XG with a homemade WB2MIDI adaptor and of course an SC-55mkII. Mau1wurf1977 was so correct about the MT-32/CM-32L/SC-55(mkI or mkII) being the most *authentic* synth for the majority of games, but then some games sounded great on other non-Roland synths like the WB1 and the AWE32, or even other Roland synths like the SC-88 (not running in SC-55 mode).

And you're right about non-Creative cards, a lot of DOS games were an ARSE to get going on SB clones, look at the pathetic Media Vision Thunderboard which my bro had in his first computer. It got turfed and had an 8-bit SB2.0 whacked in it because it was too unreliable with games.

Reply 36 of 44, by MMaximus

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Roland JV series synths are good modules for music production but not so good for General Midi and games, as they were not really intended to do this. GM was what the Sound Canvas line was for.

Hard Disk Sounds

Reply 37 of 44, by autoexecdotbat

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

while I didn't have any external gm modules (unless you count my keyboards), I did listen to upc831's videos and from them, the akai sg01v sounded superb. that would be followed by the casio csm1 and gz50. I wasn't able to find a bad gm module. cm500, which is just a heavily upgraded mt32 with sc55/88 features, is also good.

to win the game you must defeat coppa!
http://chng.it/DNc2L8LvLJ

Reply 38 of 44, by Danfun64

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
valnar wrote:
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

I've made some minor improvements to that article, although said improvements could pretty much be called "polishing a turd". That section needs to be rewritten by someone who can discuss the strengths and faults of both the WB and the WB2.

edit: Oh my...I can't believe I didn't see how old this thread is 😮 .

Reply 39 of 44, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

In that Wiki article:

"Some people[who?] believe that, despite using a smaller 2MB instrument ROM (vs 4MB of the original Waveblaster), the Waveblaster II delivered better renditions in most MIDI-scored games, likely due to what they feel is better sample refinement and balancing between instruments."

Hehe, definitely NOT by me <grin>. One of my previous posts in another message thread here at VOGONS:

rfnagel wrote:
The first edition of the WaveBlaster was GREAT, while "WaveBlaster II" was PURE CRAP! […]
Show full quote

The first edition of the WaveBlaster was GREAT, while "WaveBlaster II" was PURE CRAP!

I remember buying a WB2 when it first hit the market years ago, as the EMU8K chip on that daughterboard ALSO provided reverb and chorus effects. I was drooling on my way home thinking about it; as, although the WB1 sounded GREAT, it was "dry" as a bone... no reverb or chorus.

After installing the WB2 and giving it a whirl, I thought something must be wrong with my ears; as the WB2 - even with the reverb and chorus - sounded like pure CRAP$HOT compared to my WB1. I then quickly discovered that the WB2 only had 2 meg of ROM samples (verses the 4 megs of ROM samples on the WB1) <aarrgghh>!

I repackaged the WB2 up, and got my money refunded the exact same day!

The WB2 is a completely different animal... it shares NOTHING in common with the WB1; short of the name "Wave Blaster", and being a daughterboard.

While I'm not the one for rewriting the Wiki article, I CAN say that the WB2 supported reverb and chorus (definitely a strength) which the WB1 didn't have, but the WB1's samples sounded a LOT better.

This due to the fact that the WB1 used Proteus samples, while the WB2 used (I think) an expanded version of the sample ROM included on the original AWE32.

The AWE32 was fairly weak/lame sounding (even with it's reverb and chorus), but of course one could use custom soundfonts with it for some really nice/quality sound 😀

P.S. The WB2 and AWE32 used the same EMU-8000 for it's effects processing (reverb, chorus, and such), which the WB1 didn't have.

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