Trelokk wrote on 2023-05-29, 21:33:

Especially as a gamer, you are actually better off with the S-YXG50, as it is much closer to emulating its hardware counterpart than the SCVA is.

That statement kind of makes no sense to me. If the S-YXG50 is exactly the same as the hardware, then that's better for games because... why?

realnc wrote on 2023-05-31, 09:34:

Trelokk wrote on 2023-05-29, 21:33:

Especially as a gamer, you are actually better off with the S-YXG50, as it is much closer to emulating its hardware counterpart than the SCVA is.

That statement kind of makes no sense to me. If the S-YXG50 is exactly the same as the hardware, then that's better for games because... why?

The short answer is that Yamaha XG always sounds like Yamaha XG, because it's based on a uniform sound sample set and only the low-end Yamaha soft-synths sound different, due to technical limitations, but those products were phased out very quickly. The same can't be said for Roland GS, as the hardware and software varies in sound output, sound samples, and functionality between the various hardware and software products, due to Roland making changes in those product design areas.

Yes, but Yamaha XG isn't the standard that most composers composed for..

If you want a SC-55, buy one, preferably a mkII model so you get the extra polyphony and audio quality. Otherwise, SCVA emulates the SC-8820, an excellent module that one can game in SC-55/88/88Pro/8820 modes, all of which sound pretty wonderful.

Both the S-YXG50 and the SCVA are extremely close to hardware. Not sure where you get it from that the SCVA is not accurate enough. It's not *perfectly accurate*, but it's 99% there for all practical purposes, which is playing games and enjoying the music.

Sure, if you know them really well, you can pick them apart in A/B tests... However, if I just wake up in the morning then someone switches my hardware to the software emulator without telling me, I could use it happily for days without noticing there is a "problem"...

I've done an extensive test here on 46 DOS games, you can download the volume-matched FLAC audio recordings and hear the difference for yourself!
https://blog.johnnovak.net/2023/03/05/grand-m … -midi-showdown/

To me, the difference is there, but it's very very small, and I've been producing music for 30+ years. I'm sure for a normal person who just wants to play a few games these differences are completely insignificant, especially if they don't have very good audio equipment.

And yes, technically the Yamaha sample set of the S-YXG50 is closer to the MU80 (but the flute sample is waaaaay off; it's painful to listen to that damn flute sample in the S-YX50, e.g. check out the Azrael's Tear recording or the Larry 6 tunes). But ironically, the *aural* difference between the S-YXG50 and the MU80 is much greater than in the case of the Roland modules. The MU80 sounds deeper, richer, fuller, "more 3D", more spacious than the S-YX50, while the aural difference between the SCVA and the SC-55 is much less noticeable.

To me, IMHO, to my ears, etc 😉

Then if you compare them on a small desktop speaker or a $100 headphone, you can't tell them apart.

> Not sure where you get it from that the SCVA is not accurate enough. It's not *perfectly accurate*, but it's 99% there for all practical purposes

Not to mention that falconsoft midi player actually fixes some of the bad sc80 mappings and makes SCVA closer to an actual sc55.

I mean, it literally is an emulation of a different synthesizer that itself has a "compatbility mode" for the SC-55 versus the actual synth.
Although, as you say, SC-55 mode is very close to a SC-55, with some exceptions.

makes SCVA closer to an actual sc55.

I wasn't aware of this, unless you just mean it changes the default map to be SC-55 instead of 8820.

Spikey wrote on 2023-06-21, 12:39:

...
I wasn't aware of this, unless you just mean it changes the default map to be SC-55 instead of 8820.

I think he refers to the instrument definition based CTF feature of FSMP.
In case of invalid program+bank combinations SC-VA stays on the last valid program+bank in any modes (including SC-55 map) .
If you select the SC-55 instrument definition and also enable CTF in FSMP then all invalid program+bank combinations are fallen back to valid ones the same way as in case of CTF capable 1st generation SC-55.

Spikey wrote on 2023-06-21, 12:39:

I mean, it literally is an emulation of a different synthesizer that itself has a "compatbility mode" for the SC-55 versus the actual synth.
Although, as you say, SC-55 mode is very close to a SC-55, with some exceptions.

It is the closest thing to an SC-55. There's no way I can tell which is which in an AB test. They sound identical the majority of the time, and in the few cases they differ, they're still almost identical. Use any other synth (like a soundfont or the Yamaha emulator) and you can immediately tell. The Yamaha doesn't even sound remotely close. And it never tried to be an SC-55 clone. It wanted to be its own thing. The only game I'm aware of that actually targeted the S-YXG50 was Final Fantasy 7 (it even shipped it as a software synth with the game.)

Game music composers in general used some kind of a Sound Canvas. Maybe not always an SC-55 (like an SC88, I believe the Duke Nukem music was composed on that.) But the standard set of GM instruments they had to use for games all sound very similar anyway on all Sound Canvas modules of that era.

With that being said, of course you should just use the synth that sounds best to you. Just because some piece of MIDI was composed with a Sound Canvas doesn't mean it won't sound better to you with a different synth! The reason I always prefer SCVA is because that's how I remember MIDI game music sounding. (I had an SC-55 clone back then.) If you have zero expectations of "how it should sound", there's no reason why you shouldn't be experimenting with different synths.

Just an observation I made yesterday about the SCVA.
SCVA consists of two dll files, one has the GUI and such, another only does the audio.
At every startup the GUI library copies the sound core library "SCCore.dll" of 26 MB to a folder named "PCTGVst" or "PCTGVst64". It changes the filename slightly to "SCCore00.dll". The sound core is started from there. When exiting the SCVA the GUI library deletes the sound core file again, actually it deletes any file with a "dll" extension in that folder.
Starting multiple SCVA instances does not cause multiple sound core files to be copied there.

I tried to see if one can throw a wrench in this process, whilst keeping the SCVA functional. It is quite easy actually:
- Close SCVA
- Copy "SCCore.dll" to the "PCTGVst"/"PCTGVst64" folder, rename it to "SCCore00.dll". Set the file attributes of "SCCore00.dll" to read-only.
- Rename "SCCore.dll" to anything else like "_SCCore.dll"
SCVA GUI now fails to copy and fails to delete the sound core file. Basically everything remains in place. SCVA may actually startup faster this way...

i don't know if anyone has mentioned this before, but i have gotten scva v1.0.3 to register under winxp x64 sp2; however, i never had much luck with winxp x86 sp3. i pretty much wrote off win9x as the registration libraries appear to be compiled with a much later release of visual studio.

realnc wrote on 2023-06-21, 18:29:

It is the closest thing to an SC-55. There's no way I can tell which is which in an AB test. They sound identical the majority of the time, and in the few cases they differ, they're still almost identical. Use any other synth (like a soundfont or the Yamaha emulator) and you can immediately tell. The Yamaha doesn't even sound remotely close. And it never tried to be an SC-55 clone. It wanted to be its own thing. The only game I'm aware of that actually targeted the S-YXG50 was Final Fantasy 7 (it even shipped it as a software synth with the game.)

Game music composers in general used some kind of a Sound Canvas. Maybe not always an SC-55 (like an SC88, I believe the Duke Nukem music was composed on that.) But the standard set of GM instruments they had to use for games all sound very similar anyway on all Sound Canvas modules of that era.

With that being said, of course you should just use the synth that sounds best to you. Just because some piece of MIDI was composed with a Sound Canvas doesn't mean it won't sound better to you with a different synth! The reason I always prefer SCVA is because that's how I remember MIDI game music sounding. (I had an SC-55 clone back then.) If you have zero expectations of "how it should sound", there's no reason why you shouldn't be experimenting with different synths.

^ Like

Excellent post, I agree with just about everything you've said. An easy way to test just how accurate the SCVA is in SC-55 mode is, is to listen to the Warcraft 2 CD audio tracks as they were composed on a real SC-55 and then listen to the same track with the SCVA. They're near identical, certainly not far off enough to be able to tell the difference when playing the game. I haven't yet found an SC-55 soundfont that comes even remotely close to the SCVA.

The Yamaha S-YXG50 is pretty good, but I have found some instruments that sound way off compared to my NEC XR385 (DB60XG clone), the bell in some of the Warcraft 2 tracks sounds terrible, way off pitch. The S-YXG50 does sound really good with Descent, no obvious mismatches there.

And definitely agree with trying different synths, even if the soundtrack was composed with an SC-55. Duke 3D and Doom (and other rock tracks) sound superb on my Media Vision Korg wavetable board (Same chipset as the Korg AG-10). Descent sounds amazing on the Yamaha DB60XG (and even better on the Roland JV-1080, but that's a pro synth, so not really a fair comparison)

If you're unable to get hold of any real Sound Canvas hardware, then the SCVA is definitely a very viable option. Check out PhilsComputerLab's tutorial to make an SCVA/MT-32 (and any other VSTi plug-ins) machine, it works really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRyPjvbDkvg

I downsized a few years ago and sold my SC-55 MK2. Sound Canvas VA (with tweaking) has been, by far, the best software solution in existence, and by a considerable margin. As impressive as soundfonts can be, they can also only do so much due to their limitation, and are not close to VA in any area.

To me, this is a fantastic software solution. Could it be better ? yes, but it is the best alternative to the real thing.