SC-55st just get

[shad0wfax]

At last, after several years and many different synths owned, I've just get a Sound Canvas (a SC-55st, you know, the one with no LCD screen and lesser connections) from eBay. As it came with no manual, I've got many doubts, such as:

1) Is it, as I think, a "clone" of the SC-55mkII, or a clone of the original SC-55? (you know, I'd like to know if it's 24 or 28-note polyphonical, and how many sounds and effects are on it).

2) Is somewhere where I could get the manual, in order to know the sysex stuff and the like? I think that the manual of a "standard" SC-55 would do.

Some comments about it: a) it sounds definitively better than VSC, the sound is crisper and cleaner, although the VST version of VSC still does a good job; b) The sound is "suspiciously" simmilar to the sound of a Roland XP-10 I had a couple of years ago, and in fact the specs are very close (the XP-10 has 28-note poly, 338 presets, 10 drum kits and 8 types of reverb and chorus -each-). Perhaps the XP-10 is a keyboard version of a SC, just as the JV-30 and JV-35 synths.

[Ari]

I found this casually searching the web.
The SC-55ST is, essentially a MK-II only without the LED display, and whatever else you mentioned. It's got 354 preset sounds and 28 note polyphony.

[shad0wfax]

Thanks a lot. Now I know that it's a MK-II and I only need the user's manual to get into...

[shad0wfax]

Given that it seems impossible to get a SC-55mkII (or compatible) user's manual, despite I've been searching quite extensively on the web, I would be grateful if someone could tell me some things such as what are the new sounds added in the mkII version (and the bank numbers) and what are exactly the different effects and drum kits available. I've got the original GS patch list, but I still don't know what are the real specs of my SC-55ST.

[Tom]

I'll scan my SCB-15 Sound List this afternoon, make a PDF, and upload it.  It contains all 354 tones, plus 9 drum sets.

[Tom]

HERE'S A PDF of the SCB-55's tone map, including the drum kits.  Includes all 354 sounds and the 9 drum kits.  I didn't have time to 'clean up' the scans, but it's easy to read and will print out fine.

[shad0wfax]

Thanks a lot, Tom! I've noticed some differences between your list and the original GS settings. Regarding other issues such as the reverb and chorus effects, I've just realized that Cubase has some kind of "GS mode" built-in where I can set and alter all those settings.

Thanks again.

[shad0wfax]

Well, now that I (at last!) have got a Sound Canvas, I've been able to verify what I was suspecting for a long time: that the CM-32P/CM-64 has better sound quality than the SC-55.

As you know, the SC-55 (at least the mkII model) has a CM-32P bank (number 126), with the 64 presets of the CM-32P. Well, I've taken one of my CM-64 songs and I've played through the CM-32P bank of the SC-55, and the difference in quality is very noticeable. CM-32P/CM-64 sounds are richer and more natural than SC-55's, letting alone the fact that EVERY patch in the CM-32P is different, while in the SC-55's "compatible" mode most of them seem to be exactly the SAME sound (for example, a lot of pianos, slap basses and organs).

Yes, a sound canvas can sound quite well and is much more flexible than the CM-32P, but now I'm sure that I'll keep my CM-64

[Zemus]

Well, you wrote the CM-32P songs with the samples of that synth in mind. Isn't it a bit unfair to the SC-55 that you expect it to perform just as well even though its samplebank is completely different?

[Tom]

It's pretty tough to judge a song written for one device when played on another device.  The KQ4 soundtrack, which uses no patch bank, can use the SC's MT-32 bank (#127) and come off sounding much better than trying to match the sounds to equivelant SC GM sounds.  That doesn't make it sound "better", it simply makes it sound closer to the origianl MT-32 score.  You can find very good qualities among all the Roland synths, and a lot of negatives.  MT-32 piano = bad.  SC-55 piano = good.  MT-32 Soundtrack patch = good.  SC-55 Soundtrack patch = bad.

When I compose for my own benefit, or compose music for AGDI, I use the best of each for that purpose.  Each device may have qualities the other lacks.  The L/A synths have a big plus in that their sound library is virtually unlimited, but it's generally noisier than SC.  And the biggest factor in using any synth, even the Sound Blaster's synth, is using the instruments in a way that brings out their best qualities.  I've heard some Sound Blaster Emu demos that sound excellent -- because the musicians know what sounds work well with a particular style of playing.

[Alistair]

That's why mixing the MT-32 and Sound Canvases (and possibly other devices also) works so well- the original MT-32 (or SC-55) composers were limited to 128 instruments they used. For the MT-32 composers who worked with SysEx extensively, it was much less of a limitation- they chose the instruments they'd compose with! But for early MT-32 scores and SC-55 scores you had 128 instruments you had to select from. Mixing by people like Tom and myself means you can improve on the old sounds by throwing in new ones, while taking a wide selection from those original sounds (the MT-32 mainly has good patches!).

- Alistair

[shad0wfax]

Yeah, of course you are right when all of you point out that the sound quality of a synth must be judged according to compositions specifically written for it. I never tried to say the contrary, although I apologize because I'm afraid that my words could be interpreted in that way.

Nevertheless, I think it can be said that the sound quality of the CM-32P (or the PCM part of the CM-64) is better when comparing to the SC-55 (although it DOESN'T mean that the SC-55 sounds bad at all!). Why do I think that? Well, there are some points to look at:

a) First, the SC-55 (at least some models) has a CM-32P soundbank, and it must be supposed (if not, what could be its raison d'être?) that it tries to sound like a CM-32P. Well, when comparing each CM-32P preset "face-to-face" in the CM-64 and the SC-55, with no doubt most of the CM-64 presets sound better (i.e., they have better quality samples which make it sound more natural).

b) Even ignoring the CM-32P bank of the SC-55, it's obvious that both devices share some instruments (for instance, both have pianos, basses, choirs, etc.). When comparing, for example, a CM-32P muted guitar and a SC-55 muted guitar, or a CM-32P slap bass and a SC-55 slap bass, or a CM-32P brass and SC-55 brass, the CM-32P simply sounds better. And this is especially noticeable when using expansion PCM cards. Those cards not only sound better than a SC-55, but in fact they are so good that they can compete with nowadays' pro synths.

After all, it's all quite all obvious when you realize that the CM-32P is a cut-down version of a U-110, which was a professional product at that time, while the sound canvas was targeted to a quite lower-end market (or not so high-end market).

I'm open to record some music phrases using my CM-64 and my SC-55 with the same (or equivalent) patches to try to show the differences.

A last word: in any case I agree that the sound canvas is a great synth, just as the MT-32 and many other Roland gear. In fact, by now Roland is my favourite brand (some time before it was Korg), and virtually all my gear is Roland. I especially appreciate my XV-2020 and my RD-170.

[Tom]

After all, it's all quite all obvious when you realize that the CM-32P is a cut-down version of a U-110, which was a professional product at that time, while the sound canvas was targeted to a quite lower-end market (or not so high-end market).

Ummm...what exactly do you base that on?  I remember when the SC came out and Roland's hype about it; it was definitely promoted for professional musicians, just like the MT-32 was when Roland first introduced that.  Neither of these two devices where created for "gaming" -- that just happened.

[Alistair]

Well, it didn't just happen; Ken Williams had extensive discussions at least in a deal wth Roland for the MT-32 and LAPC-I, and I think they had a hand in the SC-55 as well, thoguh that is more ambiguous.

But yes. I wonder about the CM's tones being better for organs and other patches..
And how could a synth like a U-110 be better than a Sound Canvas?

- Alistair

[shad0wfax]

I don't know anything about Roland's "official position" when marketing the sound canvas, but it's simply a supposition considering the situation at that time.

When the U series of synths was released (late 80s), it was the top-notch Roland gear at that time. When, in early 90's, the JV series was released (JV-30 and JV-80), the JV-80 was clearly superior both in terms of specs and sound quality. In other words, the sound canvas (based on the JV-30), was not Roland's best gear. It's like now, more or less: the top series is Fantom/XV synths, while the RS series, although being good synths, are not as good neither in terms of specs nor in sound quality.

Just since the release of the first SC, Roland seems to have two different lines: the "top line" (JV-80, JV-90, XP-50, XP-80, XV-88, fantom, etc.) and a quite "economic" line (sound canvas, JV-30, JV-35, XP-10, RS-5, etc.).

Regarding Alistair's question: In fact, the chip technology used in the U-series is not as flexible as the one which can be found in the SC (I've read that somewhere in the internet; for example, there's no filter in the u-series). But it can be considered a "better synth" in other ways: it has more polyphony than the SC, it has better samples, and it's expandable. It has been a standard Roland's policy to make expandable only the high-end line of synths (high-end JV series, XP series -not the XP-10-, XV series, etc.).

[Tom]

I remember playing around with the JV series keyboard synths -- was really impressed with the JV-80.  It's been a while, so I don't remember all the nuances each had to offer.  But I clearly recall how synthetic the brass sounded on the JV series in comparison to the MT-32, and how good the guitars sounded in comparison to the MT-32.  We didn't have an SC-55 to compare with until later.  But I admit, it wasn't a fair comparison because we demo'd the JV's in a music store with their internal speakers -- we brought a SC-55 home with us to demo and hooked it up to our amp and speakers, which of course, makes a huge difference.    When we originally demo'd the SC-55, I was very pleased with its acoustic guitar sounding so much like one of my own, real acoustic guitars....which I was unable to compare when we played with the JV-80.  Didn't the JV series contain a sequencer;  combining controller, synth, and sequencer -- which would definitely make it more expensive than a simple synth, like the SC-55.

But today, when I listen to the SC-55 compared to the SC-8820, there IS no comparison.  The sound has improved dramatically over the years.  

The CM-500 contains the CM-32P sounds as well, but I really don't find any quality differences that would make me want to use those sounds over the other brass, basses, pianos, etc. you could find in a seperate patch bank.  Maybe I should play around with them a bit and see...

[Zemus]

The CM-32P sounds on the CM-500 are emulated using the SC-55's samples though. So it would work about the same way as using bank 126 on the SC-55 mk2.

[Tom]

Yep, you're right.  Just found that out.

"The L/A sound source is the MT-32 or CM-32L that follows the LA format in carrying out it's sound source functions.  The GS sound source will emulate a CM-64 PCM sound module."  

Now I'm intrigued.  I would like to hear the difference between a GS simulated 'acoustic piano, acoustic guitar, strings, and choir' and the real thing.  Any chance I could get a digital recording comparing these?  It's easy to hear the difference between the GS "MT-32 bank" and the real thing with some instruments, but others are excellent emulations.  The SC's "SynBrass1" (MT-32 bank), for example, has all of the characteristics of the MT-32's, and sounds just as good.  There's several others, too, but there's also a lot that don't emulate as well.

[Zemus]

I have a composition Shad0wfax (I believe) made and that I also recorded on the CM-500 in CM-64 simulation mode. It uses CM-32P sound except for one (the lead...can't remember which instrument) which is from the MT-32. Also, the drums, are by the MT-32 since the CM-32P didn't have a drumset.

CM-64
CM-500 in CM-64 mode

The CM-32P emulation on the CM-500 uses the first 64 instrument numbers for the CM-32P's built-in sounds. The rest are emulations of the instruments from the addon cards. Shad0wfax mentioned to me that the order of those last 64 instruments on the CM-500 is a bit different than to that of a CM-32P.

[shad0wfax]

Zemus is right, although to be completely exact, the CM-32P has only 64 presets, and if you select a program change from 65 to 128, it produces no sound. If you insert some PCM card, its presets can be accessed from number 65 and so on (the number of patches depends on the actual card inserted).

The CM-64 emulation of the CM-500 has 128 presets instead of 64 for the PCM part, and patches 65-128 have some of the patches you can find in some PCM cards, although the order is different, and that's why some instruments can be wrong if the tune was composed for the CM-64 plus some PCM card.

I could record some phrases using actual CM-64 sounds and "CM-32P emulation -bank 126-" sounds to show the differences (pianos, brass, basses, etc.)