The only time "worse" or "better" matters is when you are talking about DAC quality. For example, comparing Adlib to Ultrasound is apples to oranges.

This is a totally subjective thing generally... some people really love FM music (e.g. Adlib) and would choose it over anything else. Meanwhile, other people played their games with their speakers muted until streamed audio became commonplace.

You should maybe determine set specs to objectively compare different soundcards with. DAC quality is one spec you could compare, but so are other things like amount of voices/channels of polyphony and the maximum bit-width of supported output (AD)PCM sample data.

@SW-SSG

> DAC quality is one spec you could compare, but so are other things like amount of voices/channels of polyphony and the maximum bit-width of supported output (AD)PCM sample data.

Agreed -- complex comparisons are much move objective (and therefore better).

@keenmaster486

> For example, comparing Adlib to Ultrasound is apples to oranges.

Could you elaborate it a bit?

john_2019 wrote:

Here I tried to arrange some sound cards and sound devices from worse (in the top of list) to better ones (in the bottom). Do yo […]
Show full quote

Here I tried to arrange some sound cards and sound devices from worse (in the top of list) to better ones (in the bottom). Do you agree with it? Please correct me.

By the words "worse" and "better" I assume the quality of sound.

• * AdLib series (1988)
  * The Creative Music System / Game Blaster
  * Creative Sound Blaster series (1989)
  * The Gravis UltraSound series (1992)
  * Roland MT-32 (1987) and Roland LAPC-l (1989)
  * Roland Sound Canvas (1991)

These devices are all so different that you can't compare them in this way.
Yes they all produce sound, but in many cases they have uses in places where the others don't apply or produce inferior results.
In the same way, if you asked, whats better, a plane, a boat or a car? Its too vague a question.

Typically one would chose a Roland Sound Canvas over an MT-32 for music, but there are cases where the MT-32 arrangement is subjectively better (ex: Dune 2 and Monkey Island).
The Gravis Ultrasound, if properly supported can sound better then a basic Sound Blaster (Pro), but some FM soundtracks are really well done and are worth choosing over all other variations.

The CMS card IMO is not worth the trouble. Sounds different yes, but to my ears, ADLIB and SoundBlaster FM invariably sound much better.

The Roland devices are MIDI only.
The Gravis Ultrasound is only digital wavetable audio. No midi synth. It can simulate it using patches, but the results can vary wildly in quality.
The SoundBlaster can do both FM and digital, whereas the ADLIB only produces FM (same chip as SoundBlaster).
The CMS only does FM like the Adlib, but using different synthesis. To my ears, while it is stereo, it is more basic sounding than Adlib and less agreeable.

What the Gravis does well is channel mixing in hardware with interpolation. So games that use this feature such as Jazz Jackrabbit, Epic Pinball, DOOM v1.2 or lower, Star Control II will sound better than on any other hardware.
The Roland devices don't do sound effects (typically), and thus are used for music in lieu of FM synthesis with usually great results (Wing Commander series, pretty much any Sierra game and countless others).

Truthfully, you need a SoundBlaster or compatible card to cover your bases. After that, the others are there to add icing to your auditory cake.

Yeah, this is way too subjective.

I really like the MT-32's sound. It's not always particularly realistic, compared to a Sound Canvas, but it just sounds nice. That's not to say I wouldn't pick a Sound Canvas over an MT-32 for a particular soundtrack, though. Totally depends on the composition.

AdLib vs. CMS is another good example. IMO, the CMS sound is limited in what it can do, and can be a bit aggressive, but I feel like it's a (relatively) timeless sound. OTOH, the primitive OPL2 really shows its age to me, even though it's technically more sophisticated. I would still choose the AdLib soundtrack more often than CMS because a given game's composition was probably optimized for the additional polyphony and range of timbres when both are an option. If you compare NES Mega Man 2 with the Genesis / MD Mega Man port, though, I would take the NES version. It sounds right to me, while the more elaborate FM version sounds like a so-so fan remix.

GUS is more capable than any Sound Blaster (at least up until the AWE) but its compatibility with the PC software library is not so great. So if I had to pick one.... SB16 it is.

My list would be:

• * The Creative Music System / Game Blaster
  * AdLib series (1988)
  * Creative Sound Blaster series (1989)
  * Roland MT-32 (1987) and Roland LAPC-l (1989)
  * Roland Sound Canvas (1991)
  * The Gravis UltraSound series (1992)

CMS is very primitive pulse-wave and noise-based synthesis, some people describe the CMS/Game Blaster as "12 PC speakers", which is reasonably accurate.
The rest should be reasonably straightforward...
The GUS is highest on my list because it is the only one with RAM-based wavetable, allowing you to load any instruments you like. This works especially well with tracker software like Fast Tracker II, Scream Tracker 3 and Impulse Tracker. You can basically make it sound however you want, sample your favourite synthesizers or acoustic instruments, and combine them any way you like.

This is like trying to rank a Nissan Leaf and McLaren F1..

OK, thank you all. Sorry for stupid question 😀

john_2019 wrote:

OK, thank you all. Sorry for stupid question 😀

This site can be very unforgiving. 😀

I wonder whether one can compare this to the audiophiles' love for tube amplifiers.
Actually people like the distortions these produce.
This is a totally subjective thing.

What was more disturbing to me was the bad quality of sound, and noise produced by many factors, not only the DAC.

My personal solution to this problem is to not use the sound cards' analog part, instead let a good DAC "analogize" the SPDIF output from either the soundcard, the mobo or even a cheap USB sound stick with SPDIF (like on my W10 machine).
Personally I am very satisfied with the Behringer DEQ 2496, which is cheaper than many soundcards. It uses DSPs from TI and ADCs/DACs from Analog Devices. The latter are so expensive (but good!) that you see them rarely if at all on consumer-grade sound cards.

tpowell.ca wrote:

john_2019 wrote:

OK, thank you all. Sorry for stupid question 😀

This site can be very unforgiving. 😀

It could be I knew what I was doing when I persuaded Snover to add the 'V" seventeen years ago... or just a happy coincidence. 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNjODK0v6ro