1996 would likely be a Sound Canvas module, like the SC55. The MIDI files have no information in them beyond the raw MIDI track data, so nobody can help you identify what had been used for the recordings or the original composition. I can tell you that they sound wonderful - like you describe the recordings - when played back through the Hyper Canvas VST.

Just tested the first MIDI file with a few different Sound Canvases (SC-55, SC-55 Mk2, SC-88) and it doesn't sound the same.

The bell sound in the AIFF recording has a higher frequency sound to it, whereas the Sound Canvas samples are duller in comparison.

It's quite possible they didn't use a single sound module when doing the Mac recordings. They could have recorded individual instruments from multiple sources, as well as doing custom mixing and mastering.

zefie's BeatnikX Player with the Beatnik Standard bank from SoundMusicSys sounds pretty close.

when you load a midi file into a daw you could select an own instrument for each midi channel...

the composer seems to be still around, you could try to contact him and ask if he remembers what gear he used.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-08-24, 23:33:

Just tested the first MIDI file with a few different Sound Canvases (SC-55, SC-55 Mk2, SC-88) and it doesn't sound the same.

The bell sound in the AIFF recording has a higher frequency sound to it, whereas the Sound Canvas samples are duller in comparison.

It's quite possible they didn't use a single sound module when doing the Mac recordings. They could have recorded individual instruments from multiple sources, as well as doing custom mixing and mastering.

Thanks for testing these, I don't have access to an SC-anything (except the Windows softsynth). Also tried Yamaha's S-YXG50 and it too doesn't sound right.

I feared it could be studio pro gear or multiple modules, but hoped it wasn't, ah well. It is of course also possible that the Windows MIDI files are not actually the same as the Mac render sources - further tweaks etc made but not saved on the CD.

auron wrote on 2023-08-25, 01:33:

the composer seems to be still around, you could try to contact him and ask if he remembers what gear he used.

I think this is the best next step, I'll see if I can get ahold on Twitter or something.

Might be the jv1080. That's just a guess based on the time period.

This is kind of interesting. Some tracks sound very SC-55 and some less so. Track 5 sounds like a SC-55, got that obvious SC piano and fretless up front.

When I open the MIDI for 5, it shows a drum change to Standard 2. This means it's at least a SC-88 (I think the highest out in that time period anyway).

I'm thinking it's a SC-88, since it overall sounds "SC-55 but not quite".

Will test on the JV-1080 this weekend.

Nope, not from the JV-1080 either. A couple of the instruments sound similar, but there are definitely enough small differences that it's not from the JV-1080.

Ask the musician ... https://twitter.com/GotGrog

Update, I asked the musician, here is the response:

Holy cow that is a blast from the past!! Good detective work finding me 😁 I wish I could tell you that I totally remember what I used but I don’t remember fully. I own a JV-1080 and used that on a ton of stuff so most likely it would be that. Actually still have that same 1080!

https://twitter.com/GotGrog/status/1707486796828057813

Heh. So it could be a JV-1080. I didn't realise until now that it used patch changes of either 0 or 1 for the drum kit, which seems to be what the MIDI files use. It's slightly odd that the soundtrack would be composed for that device though (most users won't have this device!). Guess someone can load the 1080 up, although they did and said it wasn't similar.. I'll have to check it out myself once I get my studio up and running.

The JV-1080 has a ton of settings you can change so even if it sounds a little off when plugged into a factory reset 1080, the composer could have made it sound quite different by changing all sorts of stuff on the JV-1080. That was actually one of the selling points of the 1080. The 1080 was likely used because it was very common among professional musicians in the 90s. Its considered the most commonly used synth of all time.