dr_st wrote:

Real OPL3 is a huge deal to some, but mostly because they feel that they want it to be a huge deal. Otherwise it's a pretty minor thing.

Hey, speak for yourself. CQM sounds too much like a kazoo (or vuvuzela) for my ears.

OPL2 (Adlib) and OPL3 sound is an essential part of DOS gaming.
In my opinion if one bothered to assemble a retro PC for DOS gaming, having a correct sound for the period is important.
Sound Card and CRT Monitors have the most noticeable impact on the experience because they were the the medium through which we experienced the games back then, and the developers used to create the games.
Even how the filtering of the sound card sounds matters.

It's actually not a minor thing if one seeks an authentic recreation of the experience.
One can play the game in DOSBox with LCD but it is obviously not the same experience as playing the game on a real retro PC.

What you're describing is a pure retro experience. That's fine. I know some people want to retro game with everything matching for the correct period. I'm generally more interested in whether it sounds good, looks good, and plays good (regardless of what I'm using). For that reason, I'm generally fine with OPL clones and SB compatible cards, as long as they don't sound like garbage. To my ears, though, CQM is too unpleasant.

James-F wrote:

I was obviously joking because I thought you were.
The AWE64 is very good for what it does.

Of course it would be nice to have it all in one card, but we already know there is no such thing.

Of course I was partially joking, but as they say - every joke is really partially a joke, and the rest is true. 🤣

As you said - we know that there is not a single card for all scenarios, but there are good options for almost all scenarios. The AWE64 is one such option. The AWE32 as well (except it covers different scenarios).

gdjacobs wrote:

Hey, speak for yourself. CQM sounds too much like a kazoo (or vuvuzela) for my ears.

I am speaking for myself, but also in general. You can never be truly objective when it comes to personal experiences, but given enough sampling points, you can come close.

I am not deaf. I have heard enough comparisons of OPL3 vs CQM to know that I do prefer the former, I also know that there is no feeling of "wow!" when you hear the difference. It is not night and day, as some would have you believe. If it had been as bad, CQM would simply not exist in the first place, because it would not pass any quality control.

Again, as often done in such discussions, you exaggerate (kazoo/vuvuzela). It is fine to purposely exaggerate to get a point across, but in the end one should not take these exaggerations too literally. It is possible that you (and some other people) have ears so sensitive that listening to CQM synthesis causes you physical discomfort, but I find that difficult to believe. If it really sounded to you like the difference between a normal instrument and a vuvuzela, then the cacophony of everyday sounds (many of which are unpleasant), that you are exposed to constantly in the normal routine of your lives, would probably have driven you mad by now.

Most likely your hearing is keen enough to be able to easily tell the difference, and you have trained yourself to notice that difference and focus on it / emphasize it, and every time you hear it again, the established confirmation bias drives it further apart, so you really think the difference is huge. That's my amateurish analysis.

Granted, maybe I am just 100% wrong here, and the difference is huge to you and some others. Perhaps you are just very sensitive to one very particular element, which is exactly what differentiates CQM from other FM syntheses.

But you know what? It still only affects a small minority of users (see my previous point - if everybody felt this way - the chip would never get to the market). To most people the difference would probably amount to "meh", or "Oh, OK". Averaging it out it still is "a pretty minor thing".

James-F wrote:

In my opinion if one bothered to assemble a retro PC for DOS gaming, having a correct sound for the period is important.

Ideally it is true, but it is not always feasible. Not everyone has the money, the physical space, and the desire to maintain period-correct hardware for every period. Most of us have to compromise and cut corners. Hence the popularity of Super Socket 7 builds, for example, which may not be ideal for any particular era, but cover a broad range of games pretty well.

dr_st wrote:

I am speaking for myself, but also in general. You can never be truly objective when it comes to personal experiences, but given […]
Show full quote

gdjacobs wrote:

Hey, speak for yourself. CQM sounds too much like a kazoo (or vuvuzela) for my ears.

I am speaking for myself, but also in general. You can never be truly objective when it comes to personal experiences, but given enough sampling points, you can come close.

I am not deaf. I have heard enough comparisons of OPL3 vs CQM to know that I do prefer the former, I also know that there is no feeling of "wow!" when you hear the difference. It is not night and day, as some would have you believe. If it had been as bad, CQM would simply not exist in the first place, because it would not pass any quality control.

Again, as often done in such discussions, you exaggerate (kazoo/vuvuzela). It is fine to purposely exaggerate to get a point across, but in the end one should not take these exaggerations too literally. It is possible that you (and some other people) have ears so sensitive that listening to CQM synthesis causes you physical discomfort, but I find that difficult to believe. If it really sounded to you like the difference between a normal instrument and a vuvuzela, then the cacophony of everyday sounds (many of which are unpleasant), that you are exposed to constantly in the normal routine of your lives, would probably have driven you mad by now.

I agree, my word choice was at least partly driven a bit by hyperbole. It's not a night and day difference, but I do notice a bit of sibilance in CQM which I find unpleasant. It's definitely 100% subjective, so I recommend people do a lot of reading and listening to see what they like.

dr_st wrote:

Granted, maybe I am just 100% wrong here, and the difference is huge to you and some others. Perhaps you are just very sensitive to one very particular element, which is exactly what differentiates CQM from other FM syntheses.

But you know what? It still only affects a small minority of users (see my previous point - if everybody felt this way - the chip would never get to the market). To most people the difference would probably amount to "meh", or "Oh, OK". Averaging it out it still is "a pretty minor thing".

You're right, everyone's experience (and priorities) are different. For myself, I'm definitely not a purist on this. I just find CQM (and the CS clone on my 4232 card) doesn't sound good to me. ESFM, on the other hand, is fine to my ears.

That's essentially my point, and the most important function of these retro sound threads. People can share their subjective opinions (and audio recordings) with other users, so everyone can listen, learn, and arrive at a retro setup that makes them happy.

gdjacobs wrote:

You're right, everyone's experience (and priorities) are different.

Agreed.

As for the CT2950, I wouldn't go for this one first.

James-F wrote:

Excellent choice.
Now read this thread: Yamaha YMF71x SB Pro Mixer Bug Issue Fix

I installed the audican32 but I have two Problems:

1. glx is dissortet when playing MOD-Files. I tested the mixersettings but it stays. I alway here some "crackeling sound" as if it is overrides.
2. xtc-play sounds strange while playing music and going to the "files-selection", if I do so, the sound is changing like changing the stereo
channels. (Can't describe it better)

But it's a great card indeed.

Have you tried Skale tracker if you are in Win98, or Fast Tracker II if you are in MS-Dos 6.22?

no, but I tried iplay122 and that sound ok to me.

James-F wrote:

Excellent choice.
Now read this thread: Yamaha YMF71x SB Pro Mixer Bug Issue Fix

what about old demos that require a loaded sb-tsr/driver in order to work.
These Demos do not work, because no real sb-card can be found.

gdjacobs wrote:

I agree, my word choice was at least partly driven a bit by hyperbole. It's not a night and day difference, but I do notice a bit of sibilance in CQM which I find unpleasant. It's definitely 100% subjective, so I recommend people do a lot of reading and listening to see what they like.

Just listen to this... AWE64 makes ones ear bleed in DynaBlaster. So AWE-full.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bzzas … VGM?usp=sharing

Oh uh, be careful brostenen, many people will not accept anything ISA besides an AWE64 Gold.

I'm not in awe with the AWE myself, too many features missing for a complete DOS experience.
For older DOS games OPL3 is a must, for newer games a wavetable header is convenient if you don't want to plug an external synth like the SC-55 via midi cables; both are missing in the AWE64.
But the AWE64 has built in sound bank which don't sound good to me.
In my eye, It's basically a quality Windows ISA card for PCM (digital) sounds primarily, but for windows a newer PCI is more feature rich and quieter too the any AWE64.

Hehe... Well... That's mainly because those people don't see that cards are geared towards different type of game-support.
AWE64 cards are awesomme on their own turf, so is SB-Pro cards. If I want to play Dynablaster, it is not on AWE64.
If I want to play Doom2 and Descent, and only cards avaliable are AWE64 and Sound Blaster Pro 2. Then I will go for the AWE64.
Shure the MT32 and SC55, makes Descent sound even better than on the AWE64 and AWE64-Gold.
Yet here is the thing about pricing, wich I fully understand, that people cant just afford Roland modules. They are not cheap.

Choose the right tool for the job I say. Yet sometimes things like money, makes you settle for an AWE64 Value/standard.

James-F wrote:

Oh uh, be careful brostenen, many people will not accept anything ISA besides an AWE64 Gold.

Well, this particular one really does sound awful. There is some unhealthy boost to that fake percussion or whatever that thing is. It's not like it sounds good in the Jazz16 version, it's just that there it's harmless enough to be ignored. So far this is probably the best example to the poor performance of CQM I've heard.

Yeah.... Dyna is one of my all time favorit games.
So to me a real opl chip is something that are a must have, on 286 to 486 (possible pentium1).

So now you know the exact reason why I So often advocate the real deal. It's not about some religious fanboy stuff or era correctness. It's because I want to play Dyna without being annoyed by bad music.

dr.zeissler wrote:

James-F wrote:

Excellent choice.
Now read this thread: Yamaha YMF71x SB Pro Mixer Bug Issue Fix

what about old demos that require a loaded sb-tsr/driver in order to work.
These Demos do not work, because no real sb-card can be found.

I am talking about https://files.scene.org/view/demos/groups/ult … /demos/vega.zip for example.
What about programs that require "cd-voice.drv" in order to play sound if using an audician32.

Thx
Doc

James-F wrote:

2910 is non-PnP, 2950 is full-PnP. Plug and Play = setting Address, IRQ, and DMA via software. Non-PNP = settings via jumpers. […]
Show full quote

2910 is non-PnP, 2950 is full-PnP.
Plug and Play = setting Address, IRQ, and DMA via software.
Non-PNP = settings via jumpers.

No difference in sound quality.
Both have the hanging note bug.
Both have clicking DMA bug.
The CT2910 has an YMF289 OPL3 so it is slightly preferable.

The CT29xx series is one of the least desirable SB16.
CT2230, CT2290, CT2770 are the ones to look for, at least they remove two of the three main problems.

As a personal suggestion, I would go straight for the Audician 32 Plus with the YMF71x chip, plenty on ebay.

I am trying to restore my IBM PS/1 that came with a CT2950 from the factory , original config.
Which is the correct driver for this card ?

http://vogonsdrivers.com/index.php?catid=7