There is no simple answer for this. A lot of it comes down to what the game's soundtrack was composed for and the level of care put into composing for different audio options. Some games even have different sound tracks depending on the audio source used.

In general, I prefer General MIDI and MT-32 composed sound tracks to their FM equivalents, but it does depend on the game. There are also cases like X-COM that support both, but sound better on an MT-32 in my opinion (best on a CM-series module with the extra sound effects).

I also wouldn't lump all Sound Blasters together, since there can be a noticeable difference between 8-bit sound and 16-bit sound in games that properly support the latter.

There are also things like low-pass filters used on older Sound Blaster Pro cards that removes some of the high frequency hiss associated with 8-bit samples in older games. This can make certain sound cards preferred for older games compared to sound cards that lack low pass filtering.

There are different flavors of FM output that can lead to audible differences. For example, FM playback on the Adlib Gold (and Goldlib) sound cards is difference (and imho superior) to playback on other FM/OPL supported sound cards.

Personal preference also plays a big role. There are some games that have arguably superior quality sound tracks composed for certain devices. For example, Deathtrack has an elaborate MT-32 music score. But I actually find Deathtrack's MT-32 music overbearing and prefer playing the game with Adlib sound. Similarly, Star Control's MT-32 support results in instrument sounds being used for sound effects which just sounds weird and bad. So I prefer Adlib for Star Control as well.

You also have cases with poor implementations of certain sound standards. For example, the Gravis Ultrasound support in the Crusader games is stuck on mono playback. 16-bit SoundBlaster support is the superior option for those games. In contrast, the native hardware GUS support in games like Epic Pinball and Jazz Jackrabbit means these games sound and perform better with a GUS than a Sound Blaster.

More often than not, I take things on a case-by-case basis. I'll try different options and stick with whatever I like best.

Yeah I assumed it wasn't that easy. I guess I'm looking for a 'general' set of guidelines.

Is there any guide for the best sound options by game? As anyone made a database like that?

Tempest wrote on 2024-10-17, 13:51:

Is there any guide for the best sound options by game? As anyone made a database like that?

I don't think there's anything like that, but we do have this page on the Vogons wiki.

While primarily aimed at MT-32 games, the "original synth"column tells you which device the music was composed on. In most cases, the game will sound the best on that particular device.

I've never seen a database trying to rank sound options for games.

Discussions of audio/music quality I've come across is either regarding specific audio hardware (such as the above mentioned MT-32 list), or a case-by-case basis for individual games. Part of the challenge is there were a lot of audio options in the 90's. Some games had a dozen or more choices for music and sound, so it would be a non-trivial task to rank everything.

My super simple approach would be:

General MIDI / MT-32 / CD audio > FM synth > PC Speaker / Tandy

If you really want to know what is best, you can't avoid looking into the specific game.

Case in point: Gravis Ultrasound. Games that fully use the card generally sound by far the best on the Ultrasound. But that's not a very long list. Usually game music was composed on a Roland SC-55 and sound effects were aimed at either SBPro 2.0 or SB16.

Corner cases (more common with older games) might differ, but you won't go far wrong if you ensure you have a bug-free MPU-401 MIDI interface (i.e. you don't use a PAS16 or SB16 for MIDI) and something that offers SBPro2 and SB16. If you want that on a single card, you're looking at a C-Media CMI-8330 or an Advance Logic ALS100 (not the more common 100+)- based card. They are fairly common, but tend to be rather low end (other than the excellent MK8330). However it's perfectly doable to do a two-card setup with one card doing <=SBPro2.0 and MPU-401 and the other doing SB16 (i.e. an SB16 or AWE), and one or the other having a real Yamaha OPL3 or 1:1 clone. Either way, add an SC-55 for MIDI, or (much cheaper) get a Waveblaster module such as the Dreamblaster X2 and add that to the SBPro2 card. That card can have Avance Logic, Aztech, C-Media, OPTi or (if the OPL3 is on the SB16) ESS or Crystal chipset.

I have a table that I created for myself that lists the supported sound options for the games I own.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zrt9Q … dit?usp=sharing

It's not complete or finished but it's a start. I made it for exactly this reason!
I'd slightly change your categories as well from earlyist to latest.

1) Adlib
This is OPL, CQM and other OPL clones

2) SoundBlaster
Including SB, SB Pro, SB16

3) Midi
Roland, Yamaha, etc (I include AWE here just for simplicity)

Typically I'd say higher the number better the device but like everyone said it depends on the game as well as the device.
eg if your using an MT32 for your Gerneral Midi device, fair chance it's not going to sound as good as selecting SoundBlaster.
BUT does that soundblaster have a OPL or CQM chip?

The you have special case devices like GUS, Covox Speech Thing, etc. but I don't own any of these devices so don't have to worry about it myself

MT-32 sounds great on Sierra games, but I have seen many other companies throw in the option seemingly without bothering testing it, as it is obvious from the choice of instruments and balance of their volumes. Take Stunts for example. Its MT-32 music is torment. Also, gotta love those games which don't allow MT32+SB effects (e.g. IIRC Prehistorik).

So yeah, a bit of special cases here and there between classic FM+SB vs MT32.

Hi. Do these games use SB MIDI for MT-32, maybe? If so, that would explain why no sound effects are being played.
The Sound Blaster's microcontroller can't do both same time.

Not sure what you mean SB MIDI. Like UART MIDI instead of intelligent mode? For both examples I mentioned I don't think it mattered. I personally listen via a dedicated MPU-IPC-T which supports intelligent mode. But there are YouTube videos playing those games on MUNT, and it sounds as crappy as the real thing 😅

Some games try to do some sfx via the MT32, but that often comes out inferior to digital samples.

Some other games do purely Adlib sfx, these benefit from MT32/CM32L (e.g. Might & Magic 3 and Nova 9).

SB cards have a special Creative specific MIDI output method that isn't MPU401 compatible and when that is in use, the card cannot do PCM playback or recording anymore.

wbahnassi wrote on 2024-10-18, 06:55:

MT-32 sounds great on Sierra games, but I have seen many other companies throw in the option seemingly without bothering testing it, as it is obvious from the choice of instruments and balance of their volumes. Take Stunts for example. Its MT-32 music is torment. Also, gotta love those games which don't allow MT32+SB effects (e.g. IIRC Prehistorik).

So yeah, a bit of special cases here and there between classic FM+SB vs MT32.

Even this needs clarification. MT-32 *does* sound great on Sierra games up to about 1992, but for most games after (almost all of which were composed for SC-55), the MT-32 support is low to non-existent. Later games like QFG4, SQ6, GK1, KQ7, LSL6 and so on are all recommended NOT to use MT-32 sound but to use GM instead, and the MT-32 sound in these games ranges from "passable" to "heinous". Conversely, SQ4, Laura Bow 2, QFG1VGA, PQ1VGA should all be played with Roland MT-32 for best sound, even though there is a GM driver that shipped with the game.

Somewhere here on VOGONS I made an elaborate document for Sierra games about this, I can repost it if anyone wants it.

IIRC Space Quest 3 is one of Sierra's showcase game for the MT-32. (In general, the SQ series is the only one from Sierra I've ever played.) I will try Doom with it one of these days. Getting a bit bored of the SC-55 and all those soundfonts which try to imitate it.

It depends a lot on personal preference and on what the game was originally intended for.

For me personally, I tend to love the SC55 on everything, except the games that were made with the MT32 which don't sound right with anything else (there are some big ones). The SC55 just blows me away every time I use it, I really enjoy it. It's like revisiting my youth, but in luxury. Having said that, I grew up with Sound Blaster and ESS, so I have huge nostalgia for those, but I end up using the SC55 most of the time just because it's sound is so good and so cool. I wouldn't use it for the games that only sound right on the MT32 though, which includes some of my favorite games. Outside of those games though, I find the MT32 to just not be as good as the SC55, which is like the gold standard for me personally.

If I wanted something different than the SC55, I'd probably go with one of the midi modules that are actually different like a Yamaha, or I'd move up to the SC88 or beyond. I even bought a Yamaha for that exact purpose, for when I want to change things up, but I love the SC55 so much that I've never felt the need. Still the other midi modules are very cool if you want something different and are tired of the SC55.

I don't think there's an actual answer to that question, but I can list the sound choices I have personally heard and my experience with them.

1. PC Speaker. I would argue that if any choice is objectively inferior to others, it is the PC speaker - and the reason isn't that it sounds particularly terrible, but that it's completely software based and takes a lot of computational power. It is usually the only option for older 80s games, and older, slower 80s computers, and to have any power at all to run the game itself on, say, a PC XT, the developers couldn't even fully utilize the potential of the PC speaker like some later games did - The Secret of Monkey Island being a prime example. And when CPUs got fast, we got superior sound choices.
2. Creative Music System/Gameblaster, and other cards based on Philips SAA1099 chip and clones. This is not FM synthesis - it's more like a very advanced and hardware-defined version of the PC speaker, in the sense that it still uses square waves, and I think it has a lot of charm and is one of the reasons I think the PC speaker is inferior - whatever the PC speaker can do, CMS can do better.
3. FM synth - AdLib, other OPL2/OPL3 based cards and clones. FM Synth uses sine waves for synthesis, so the sound is not as rich as CMS, but it is also less like a very small and very angry angle grinder and more like actual musical instruments. OPL2/OPL3 cards are straightforward, and as for clones, we have the wonderful ESFM, which might be superior to the original Yamaha OPL chips, and then we have Crystal CX4235, which is the Yoko Ono of FM synthesis.
4. Creative AWE cards. Wavetable on the cheap. Not objectively better than FM synth, but not worse either. Results... may wary, depending on the game.
5. Gravis Ultrasound. If I remember correctly, GUS isn't really a synthesizer but more of a ROMpler - it plays sounds from a sound bank, instead of synthesizing them. Don't have a bad thing to say about it.
6. Ensoniq Soundscape. Functionally close to GUS, sounds very different.
7. Roland MT (Multi-Timbre) series. True synthesizers that use LA-synthesis, and they sound like magic.
8. Roland SC (Sound Canvas) series. Wavetable synthesizers (if in FM synthesis the source of the sound is a sine wave, and in Gameblaster is a square wave, with Roland SC it is an actual recording of the instrument). This might be controversial - to me personally Roland MT sounds better, but Roland SC is more widely supported.
9. Yamaha XG series. Competes with Roland SC, it's quite nice, but I'd argue it's a step or two below Roland.
10. GM. GM or General MIDI doesn't define how the game sounds, but rather introduces a set of standards a game must support to work with any sound system that supports GM. Creative AWE, Yamaha XG, Roland SC often support GM. Another nice side of GM is on later, faster computers you can use software-defined synthesizers and sound banks, so the sky is the limit. My own first experience with MIDI was with the Microsoft GS Wavetable Synthesizer, which is software based and is about as flavorful as a bread sandwich. People around me would say "this sounds as bad as MIDI", and they meant the Microsoft GS Wavetable Synthesizer.
11. CD audio. Essentially allows the developer to record the audio the way it's meant to be heard. Isn't too hard on the CPU. Seemed like a good idea back in the day, to save processing power and storage. These days it's more of a nuisance when games do that - I hate swapping in CDs just to play a game and storage is no longer an issue, but I'm yet to find a way to get Quake to play music without a CD on Windows 98, and no, I'm not about to install Daemon Tools and keep juggling disk images on a Pentium II.

songoffall wrote on 2025-02-09, 11:59:

I don't think there's an actual answer to that question, but I can list the sound choices I have personally heard and my experience with them.

1. PC Speaker. I would argue that if any choice is objectively inferior to others, it is the PC speaker - and the reason isn't that it sounds particularly terrible, but that it's completely software based and takes a lot of computational power. It is usually the only option for older 80s games, and older, slower 80s computers, and to have any power at all to run the game itself on, say, a PC XT, the developers couldn't even fully utilize the potential of the PC speaker like some later games did - The Secret of Monkey Island being a prime example. And when CPUs got fast, we got superior sound choices.

There are a few Windows 3.x games from the 90s which do use PC Speaker.
What comes to mind right now is the "other" WinTrek from BFM software which uses it for sound effects (Win Battle is related to it).
Then there's Jiji and the mysterious forest, a little JRPG series, which uses it for background music, wheras a sound card/speaker.drv is used for sampled sound effects.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/93150/win-trek/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEMm0mT5DRU

https://www.mobygames.com/game/113021/jiji-an … rest-chapter-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8gPlANYCg

songoffall wrote on 2025-02-09, 11:59:

I can list the sound choices I have personally heard and my experience with them.

That's a good general guideline, but there are some exceptions. For example, the music in Tyrian was designed for FM synth, and it sounds best on OPL2/OPL3 hardware. While Tyrian also supports AWE32 and General MIDI, it's easy to notice that the songs are missing some instruments on those devices compared to FM synth.

Similarly, there are a few DOS games that were specifically designed to take advantage of AWE32 cards. Eradicator and Magic Carpet 2 are two such examples.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-02-09, 13:04:

songoffall wrote on 2025-02-09, 11:59:

I can list the sound choices I have personally heard and my experience with them.

That's a good general guideline, but there are some exceptions. For example, the music in Tyrian was designed for FM synth, and it sounds best on OPL2/OPL3 hardware. While Tyrian also supports AWE32 and General MIDI, it's easy to notice that the songs are missing some instruments on those devices compared to FM synth.

Similarly, there are a few DOS games that were specifically designed to take advantage of AWE32 cards. Eradicator and Magic Carpet 2 are two such examples.

Yup. Which means there is no "worst to best".

Jo22 wrote on 2025-02-09, 12:46:

There are a few Windows 3.x games from the 90s which do use PC Speaker. What comes to mind right now is the "other" WinTrek from […]
Show full quote

songoffall wrote on 2025-02-09, 11:59:

I don't think there's an actual answer to that question, but I can list the sound choices I have personally heard and my experience with them.

1. PC Speaker. I would argue that if any choice is objectively inferior to others, it is the PC speaker - and the reason isn't that it sounds particularly terrible, but that it's completely software based and takes a lot of computational power. It is usually the only option for older 80s games, and older, slower 80s computers, and to have any power at all to run the game itself on, say, a PC XT, the developers couldn't even fully utilize the potential of the PC speaker like some later games did - The Secret of Monkey Island being a prime example. And when CPUs got fast, we got superior sound choices.

There are a few Windows 3.x games from the 90s which do use PC Speaker.
What comes to mind right now is the "other" WinTrek from BFM software which uses it for sound effects (Win Battle is related to it).
Then there's Jiji and the mysterious forest, a little JRPG series, which uses it for background music, wheras a sound card/speaker.drv is used for sampled sound effects.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/93150/win-trek/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEMm0mT5DRU

https://www.mobygames.com/game/113021/jiji-an … rest-chapter-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8gPlANYCg

Haven't played any of those games 😀) guess it's time to check them out.

songoffall wrote on 2025-02-09, 13:49:

Haven't played any of those games 😀) guess it's time to check them out.

Have fun! ^^

Btw, "RF music" could be considered some sort of spiritual predecessor to the PC Speaker.
It works by using loops/instructions/values of certain lenght (processed by CPU), which are then audible in an AM radio.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSO2ofz4gD4