XG conversion review as compared to SCGM and MT32

[HondaSiR]

I'm creating a new thread regarding the XG, MT32 and GM comparison that I made earlier since the old thread was closed down by Tom for...ummm...shall we say an unfortunate circumstance? Anyway, here's a copy of my review, comments are most welcome.

"Wow, I am amazed at the Yamaha soft-synth...It actually sounds better than my YMF-744 sound card! Pretty low background noise, nifty control panel, and very nice sounding instruments. Very nice! The Roland software program that I had was pretty crappy in comparison.

Now...my review about the PQ2 revolver theme. I listened to three versions, the MT32, Sound canvas GM, and Ari's new XG rendition. Here's my verdict.

The MT32 had the best drums. Very crisp, clear and solid. But the other instruments sounded very synthy. The Sound Canvas GM has better sounding instruments but they still sound synthy to me. Perhaps if GS was used, it would possibly sound better.

The XG had the best overall balance though, very natural sounding, not a synthy sounding instrument in sight! And the live ambience is just right for the scene in the game. It came as a bit of a shock really, that a software based synthesizer would actually sound better to my ears over the Sound Canvas (I used my SCB-55). I am amazed."

A little while ago, I tried the XG softsynth on the GK1 title theme. While the  instruments sounded ok, the effects was terrible. The explosion sound on the Sound Canvas song was replaced by a soft whooshing sound on the XG. Whats up with this? Overall, I preferred the Sound Canvas track over the XG for this song.

[Tom]

XG's Softsynth works really good for some songs, but it can be a bit squirely for others.  I like GK's "Dixieland Drug Store" for the softsynth, but most others from GK, especially those with sound effects, well...  Overall, though, it's a nice little utility to have.  It surely doesn't replace having the real hardware, but if you don't have the real hardware....

I found my SW60XG card in the garbage today (how could I be so careless), and am going to install it in my wife's PC tomorrow -- maybe do a couple conversions; I really just want to hear some of these old converts I did -- see how they stack up against ED.

[HondaSiR]

It's a good thing you found your SW60XG before throwing out the trash, Tom. And also a good thing your wife's computer still has ISA slots. I'm going to await your conversions, together with Ari's. It's a lot of fun comparing the three mediums (Sound Canvas, XG and MT32). It certainly makes a boring afternoon or evening a treat to just sit in front of the computer and listen to the music.

[Alistair]

It certainly makes a boring afternoon

I read this in isolation and wondered for a while where you were going with this.

On GK, someone once recorded the QuestStudios GK1GM complete soundtrack MIDI with the SYXG50 softsynth. Some tracks were really good; alternatively most tracks were really poor. I suppose you actually have to alter General MIDI files to be 'eXtended General MIDI' files. I'll learn someday.

But it would be nice if someone could record the Revolver for me, even if it's a temporary upload. And there is barely any PQ2 music on this site (though we've discussed that many, many moons ago) so another digital file would be nice.
Personally, I love the theme (one of my favourites) and would basically like a proper XG comparison for my MT-32 recording.

- Alistair

[Ari]

All right. Since you asked so nicely, I uploaded a recording of pq2xg7.
Here ya go...

I'm thinking of doing a PQ2 Title Theme XG version. Should make for an interesting project...

[Alistair]

Cheers for the OGG.

And I think that's a bloody great idea, Ari. PQ2 title would make another good MT-32/GS/XG comparison. Though, I don't know how good XG's sax, koto and the like is. Or how the clean guitar and drums would emulate the MT-32. Would be cool to hear, though.

- Alistair

[Alistair]

Had a listen to the 'Revolver'.. didn't like the translation to XG very much for this one. I think it'd work far, far better in GS, though the GM version by Tom is even much better, even in VSC.. I'm almost rethinking XG.

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

As Tom has said, the XG can be squirelly...sometimes you love it, sometimes you hate it. I must admit though, given my limited exposure to the format, I still prefer Sound Canvas GS. But there's still the SW1000XG out there...man I'd kill for the chance to hear it perform at full capacity.

[Alistair]

I second that. When I get enough money I'll get a MU128 or something like that.. but that'll be a while away. Maybe we can get DrJ into it (recording XG), or pester Ari to upgrade

Or more obviously, get Mr Lewandowski to record some XG tracks.

- Alistair

[Ari]

I won't upgrade, since I don't, and won't have the money for it for some time, so it's a little pointless.
Tom doesn't have any more advanced XG equipment than me, so I don't know what good it would do to ask him to record XG instead.

XG isn't for everyone. especially people who've grown accustomed to the Roland sound. I'm not at all sure you'd like the MU-128 or SW1000XG any better.

I happen to like the SW60XG's sound. Mainly the drums and the various synth instruments. It's a matter of taste.

[Tom]

I certainly can't do any better than Ari has done with XG and I'm very pleased with his results.  The percussion of the MU series is better than the SW60XG, but other than that, I didn't hear any real differences.  And the SW60XG percussion is significatly better then the SC-55's, but neither as good as the MT-32's (imho).   So are some of the horns.  So much of this depends on how the instruments are originally sequenced.  One need only listen to the Roland and Yamaha demo songs to determine the differneces.  

As I've said from the beginning, you simply can't take a MT-32 French horn track, change the output to Roland ED, and that's it.   Nor can you do that between any other sound device.  You compose an instruments' track based on its characteristics, and each device has different characteristics.  So you may end up changing velocities, volume levels, even octaves, quite often.

I don't know, Ari...I've grown accustomed to Roland sounds, but I still think XG does some stuff better than the MT-32 and the SC-55.  I just think some people are accustomed to different synthetic instruments and really can't tell how something should sound.  So much of what we hear today is synthetic, or synthetic and real mixed together.

[Alistair]

I have no doubt Ari's done very well with his translations. Not every MT-32 music file will convert; try translating a 'Sorcerian' file and I'm sure I could be up all night converting one track.
I'll get some MU device one day. Be nice to have those instruments. But since I've been broke for ages (had to stop working so many hours when Uni restarted), who knows how long that'll be..

SW60XG drums better than the 55 ain't saying much, since those drums are my least favourite out of any. How do they compare to ED percussion?

Well, you could set the Horn to ED if you were using the MT-32 GS tone.
But of course, I realise that.. some tracks convert smoothly, some don't. Some require a lot of effort.
Is there an easy way to convert all of the notes in a track to one octave lower, like you do with WB MT-32 guitars when converting for ED, for example?

For me, it's not about being 'accustomed' to certain sounds. I just want my digitally-recorded output to have the highest quality. And that does mean having some Yamaha tracks in there. That's how music is mixed in the real world.. how I gotta do it.

I love your last point, Tom. Always makes me smile when people say they're listening to 'live' recordings or a 'band' who uses 'real instruments'. Synth is here to stay.

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

The percussion of the MU series is better than the SW60XG, but other than that, I didn't hear any real differences.

From what track did you compare the differences Tom? I'd like to make the comparison too between the MU series and the SW60XG, assuming that the tracks are in digital format.  

I also agree that the SW60XG/DB50XG has better percussion tracks than the SC-55...certainly eclipsing that of the MT-32.

Always makes me smile when people say they're listening to 'live' recordings or a 'band' who uses 'real instruments'. Synth is here to stay.

Yeah...synth is here to stay...although I don't like synthy things too much, specially women who alter themselves to "enhance" their assets...stuff like that...but that's really another story. When it comes to MIDI instruments, natural sounding stuff is my bag.

[Alistair]

I also agree that the SW60XG/DB50XG has better percussion tracks than the SC-55...certainly eclipsing that of the MT-32.

Tom's actually said (various times in various threads, including here) that he feels the MT-32's drums are superior..
From what I've heard of Yamaha drums, I must agree.

specially women who alter themselves to "enhance" their assets...stuff like that...but that's really another story.

I gotta ask. How did we get into this from Yamaha XG discussion? Maybe silicon is in a sound card, as well.. but that's really the only way I can link the two.

When it comes to MIDI instruments, natural sounding stuff is my bag.

That'd be why I take such an interest in this discussion. I want the best instruments. I'm never going to be able to play every basic instrument; let alone steel drums, an agogo, etc.

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

I gotta ask. How did we get into this from Yamaha XG discussion? Maybe silicon is in a sound card, as well.. but that's really the only way I can link the two.

I think silicon is banned in most parts of the world as far as bust enlargement is concerned (or other body parts enlargement). I've read somewhere that plastic surgeons prefer a saline solution now, as research shows that they are safer in the long run. Hey!! How did we get into this topic? We're really REALLY way off now... :lol:

Seriously, I was just trying to make a point earlier. In the world we live now, almost anything can be synthesized. The MT-32 itself is now a software program! Who knows, maybe in the not too distant future, even the SC-8850 will come as a free download. I won't mind as long as the instruments remain natural and warm to my ears, and not synthetic.

[Alistair]

You clown.

Seriously, I was just trying to make a point earlier. In the world we live now, almost anything can be synthesized. The MT-32 itself is now a software program!

I contend this.. you give me a link with 'mt32.exe' and I'll apologise. For now, though, it ain't a program.

Who knows, maybe in the not too distant future, even the SC-8850 will come as a free download.

Couldn't be that hard to do; it's only got 32 MB of samples or something. Someone'd have to sacrifice their ED module, which might be harder to achieve.

I won't mind as long as the instruments remain natural and warm to my ears, and not synthetic.

That's why I like the Roland Sound Canvas. Vary natural and warm. I found the MT-32 to be much less so. But nevertheless more realistic in some instruments (given that there's over 5000 MT-32 instruments around the place, you'd hope so).

- Alistair

[shad0wfax]

Hi,

I've been following this interesting discussion, although I hadn't put any message into it until now. I've had a DB50XG and some Roland synths (a MT-32, of course, in the CM-32L's "flavour", a XP-10 which I sold last year and now a RD-170 and a XV-2020), so I know a bit how those machines sound like.

I'm convinced that Yamaha and Roland (as most other brands) have their highs and lows, and the most important point is that the music is really made for that certain machine. The standards themselves (GM, GS, XG) only work as a poor substitute of the original. Let me explain with an example: a friend of mine has got a Korg NS5R, which is certainly an excellent module, better than Yamaha's DB50XG and Roland's XP-10. It's also GM, GS and XG compatible. But when listening to XG midi files, most of them sounded better on my DB50XG. Also some GS midi files sounded better in the XP-10 than in the NS5R. But when listening to midi files written for the NS5R, the module show its real potential. The same could be said of most synths, and despite the fact that midi sequences are written following a standard (for instance, GS), they are always arranged to sound good in a certain setup. Even in my XV-2020, certain GM files sound crappy.

When making "translations" (MT-32 to GM, GS to XG, etc.), it's not as simple as to adapt bank and program change midi messages. A good translation needs a hard remake of the composition. Although the instruments would be the same, the music composed in (and for) a Roland usually doesn't sound as good in a Yamaha, and vice versa. That's the reason, as well, why MT-32 tunes sound crappy in almost all "compatible" gear, even if the music uses the oiriginal MT-32's presets.

My own conclusion, after some years as an amateur musician, is that music standards are not the panacea they claim to be, and it's better to listen the music in the instrument for it was composed. That's why I still keep the MT-32 (CM-32L), although my XV-2020 is light years ahead. I also would buy an MU (only a MU-90 or superior) if I found one cheap, but for listening to XG midi files I'm happy using the softsynth.

[HondaSiR]

I contend this.. you give me a link with 'mt32.exe' and I'll apologise. For now, though, it ain't a program.

It's still in software form, Alistair...courtesy of a certain cow from Canada (Canadacow). And don't use ain't....it ain't good grammar.  :smt110

[Alistair]

I'm quite aware, Honda.. but it still doesn't do what it says it does.
And I'm quite aware of my grammar 'mistake', I use it Mafia-style. Maybe 'it ain't no program' would've been better.

- Alistair