"The Colonel's Bequest" Soundtrack vs. the MT-32

[Macready]

Hello -

This is a nice little forum you have here.  I've found it very informative so far.  Greetings to one and all.

I find myself in the shoes of a number of others who have previously posted: as I have matured, so too has my purchasing power, and the MT-32 that was once a remote dream as a teen playing the Sierra classics is now an easily obtained reality.

In exploring the idea of obtaining a MT-32 for myself, I stumbled upon Canadacow's MT-32 emulator project, and his special DOSBox build which includes it.  I wasted no time in trying it out, especially due to statements I read claiming that it was "98% complete," more or less spot-on acoustically, etc.  Specifically, I demoed it using Sierra's "The Colonel's Bequest," a title with which I am very familiar.  Although Canadacow certainly deserves a good deal of praise for the technical achievement his emulator represents, I wasn't exactly floored by my experience with it.  Many of the instruments sounded phony and "synth-y", the thunder was unsatisfying, the clock chimes were messed up, etc.  I attributed the clock chimes to the 2% he hadn't nailed down yet, but chalked the rest of the shortcomings up to the MT-32 not being all that its proponents claim it to be.

Then I came here.  And one of the first things I did was to download the Ogg Vorbis files of "The Colonel's Bequest" Digital Soundtrack that is available on this site.  That is one high quality, thoroughly satisfying treatment of "The Colonel's Bequest" soundtrack.  I mean, it's just fantastic.  The instruments sound great, the thunder is far more realistic, the spooky wind during the "ride through the bayou" part of the introduction gave me shivers!  Top notch.

By now, you've probably guessed my question.  Is "The Colonel's Bequest" Digital Soundtrack representative of one's experience playing the game using an honest-to-god hardware MT-32, or has it been tweaked to be better, with the reality being closer to what the emulator emits?  I did notice that the soundtrack was said to have "Sound Canvas enhancements" ... exactly what are these enhancements, and how much have they changed that soundtrack from its raw MT-32 base?  I am hoping that those who have heard both the hardware MT-32 and the digital soundtrack will weigh in with their opinions.

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Tom]

Welcome, Macready!  Nice of you to join us.

In regards to The Colonel's Bequest soundtrack, it was created using both the Roland MT-32 Sound Module, and a Roland Sound Canvas SC-8820.  That is, some sounds, like clarinet, pipe organ, and most sound effects, were coming from the MT-32.  Most brass and keyboard sounds were coming from the SC-8820.  And in many instances, the two were playing the same instrument, at the same time; a mix of MT-32 trumpet with SC-8820 trumpet, and so forth.  

The "wind" sound effect was always the MT-32, while the thunder was a combination of MT-32 timpani and SC-8820's "Thunder" patch.  It would be very difficult to call The Colonel's Bequest digital soundtrack a good example of recording the MT-32, because it's it's so intertwined with the SC-8820.  

There's a few samples of straight MT-32 recordings on the "Sierra Lounge" page that may be of interest to you.  And the Miscellaneous MP3/Ogg pages (http://queststudios.com/quest/mp3.html) have other selections recorded from the MT-32, alone.

Of course, I'm going to say that the digital version of the Colonel's Bequest soundtrack is greatly enhanced over what one would hear while playing the game with just a MT-32.   But that doesn't imply that the MT-32 version, on its own, doesn't stand up.  It certainly does!  It's just that the MT-32 has many excellent sounds, as well as some pretty poor sounds.  (Pianos, I feel, are its weakest sound.)

I've not heard this emulator, but I've heard of it.  I've not heard anything very positive, though.  In any event, I know of no 'software' synthesizer that is as good as its hardware counterpart.  I believe there's others here that may be familiar with it and could better address this.

[Macready]

Hi Tom -

Thanks for the prompt response.

Well, I'm afraid I suspected as much.  That soundtrack really did sound just a bit too polished and different from the emulator.  If you are the one responsible for it, please accept my compliments.

I'll give those other recordings that you suggested a listen.  I'll also try to answer my own question.  I have a bid in on a MT-32 at the moment.  If I win the auction, I'll go ahead and pick up the rest of the cabling I need and post back with my results when the whole rig is set up.

Although now I'm sort of wishing I never heard that digital soundtrack...

[Tom]

Don't let that enhanced version of The Colonel's Bequest discourage you.
The MT-32 is still a fine instrument.  Sierra, as well as many other game publishers, used it for a great number of soundtracks -- and it performs admirably.  Over the years, my wife and I have composed dozens and dozens of songs using only the MT-32.  In it's day, it was the top-of-the-heap.  And you can pick one up relatively inexpensively these days.  (I payed over $500 for mine, in 1988.)

But there's been a lot of advancements of the past 20 years that make some of the MT-32's patches obsolete.  And then again, the MT-32 still outshines other, newer synths with some of it's sounds; like Soundtrack.  In general, I prefer the MT-32's pecussion over the Sound Canvas as well, though the selection of percussion sounds isn't as vast.  I think that after you listen to some of the music I mentioned, you'll see that the MT-32 still has a lot of positives and is a good investment.

[MusicallyInspired]

Just like to add that when I was searching for a midi module to use with my Sierra games, I chose the MT-32 over a SC-55 or over because of how great it was regarded here by Tom and others and once I got it I wasn't dissapointed in the least. I don't regret my decision in any way. It truly is a great little black box!

[Alistair]

I think the SC-55 is a underrated module, myself. But there's no doubt the Roland MT-32 is awesome, and a better module than the SC-55.

On the subject of Colonel's Bequest, I'd point out to Macready (aye, laddie?) that Tom's CD sounds a lot like the MT-32 soundtrack in many repects. It's pretty easy to tell where ED instruments are used- strong timbres like the harmonica in the last track, percussion comes from both modules. If you played CB with the MT (or just listen to Tom's MIDI soundtrack- even better!) you wouldn't hear something that sounds radically different from the CD, anyway.

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

But there's no doubt the Roland MT-32 is awesome, and a better module than the SC-55.

I think not Alistair. The SC-55 and MT-32 are totally different animals altogether with different strengths and weaknesses. While the MT-32 is capable of producing customized sounds via L/A, the SC-55 does have superior piano instruments. Besides, as of today a second hand SC-55 still commands a higher price tag over an MT-32 (over two and a half times as much). You get the idea man.  

[Alistair]

Man, there's no way you could (honestly) call the Roland SC-55 better. MusicallyInspired could tell you about how I once used to rant about SC GM (eh Brandon? ) but in all honesty I consider the Roland SC-55 an inferior module. Very limited in many respects, and very few true 'great' patches.

I think it's a bit weak to say the SC-55 is better than the MT-32 just because the MT-32 has poor pianos, certainly. (Although you're right in the sense that the modules are different.)

Price for the modules is based on market forces- demand and supply. Nothing to do with quality- antiques are a good example of that.

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

I never said the SC-55 was the better module.  

It's just not right comparing the two in terms of which is better or inferior. Most of us diehards here own both of them in order to maximize the gaming pleasure since vintage games tend to better support one format over the other.  

[Alistair]

I never said the SC-55 was the better module.  

It's just not right comparing the two in terms of which is better or inferior. Most of us diehards here own both of them in order to maximize the gaming pleasure since vintage games tend to better support one format over the other.

But that's not what you said!
If that was your original point, you could've phrased it better man.

I think it's quite reasonable to compare the two. They are similar in many ways, much more similar than classes of other modules.

And yes, most own both. But from a gaming perspective, you can play all games with the MT-32, but can't use a SC-55 for earlier games, and from a musical perspective, the MT-32 has a lot more use and potential.

- Alistair

[Macready]

Alright you two, let's not come to blows.   :roll:   Besides, this is supposed to be a Tom's soundtrack vs. MT-32 (vs., optionally, the MT-32 emulator) discussion...who brought up the SC-55?  But...so long as you have, it was my understanding that if a Sierra soundtrack was mixed primarily for general MIDI a SC-55 is the hardware of choice.  That includes everything from around QFG3 forward, right?  Or is there some debate about whether the MT-32 still reigns supreme in later Sierra work?

I did listen to a MT-32 mp3 from the site here and I liked what I heard.  I am strongly beginning to suspect that the emulator just isn't at all living up to the claims that it sounds more or less identical.  In any case, I am pleased to report that I won my auction, so with a bit of luck I should be weighing in on that particular issue in a week or so.

I've been busily reassembling my collection of Sierra games in anticipation of the new arrival.  It's been some time since I played them.  Many years ago I deleted a number of games from my HD (all the KQs and LSLs) because I purchased the collector CDs for those series and figured those CDs would give me easy access to the binaries whenever I wanted to play the games.

Well, in reinstalling KQ5 last night, I found that the collector's CD version includes spoken audio in place of the textual descriptions I was expecting.  I hated it!  So I decided to try reinstalling KQ5 and KQ6 from my original Sierra floppies.  Would you believe that all the disks from both games have held up for these 13 to 15 years, and installed just fine?  What a stroke of good luck!  I did have a bit of a problem with the KQ6 disks -- they represent one of very few Sierra distributions where the install is something more than a straight file copy, and I needed to run the installer to reassemble/decompress/whatever the resource, intro and audio files.  It crashed in both XP's own DOS box as well as the actual program DOS box.  I finally ran it OK by using DOSEmu  in Knoppix.  Odd that turning to Linux to resurrect a DOS game for WinXP use was the way of things in the end.  In any event, I've made a promise to those poor floppies that they are now officially retired -- I won't delete those KQ binaries ever again, and I've already backed them up to CD.

Enough blathering for now.  Thanks for the thoughts on the MT-32!

[Tom]

A Sierra soundtrack will perform best on the device it was composed on.  Most, not all, later Sierra soundtracks, which were written for General MIDI, will playback best on a Sound Canvas because they were composed on it.  There are exceptions to this, too, but generally speaking -- music written for a specific MIDI device plays back best on that device.  

The benefits of the MT-32 are that it can emulate General MIDI by means of a patch bank, so that General MIDI soundtracks can play reasonably well on the MT-32 and the Sound Canvas SC-55.  The reverse isn't possible, so as Alistair pointed out, the SC-55 can't play the soundtracks that were written for the MT-32...while the MT-32 can 'fake it', and sometimes do a very good job with soundtracks written for GM.  It varies from song to song.  

Would you believe that all the disks from both games have held up for these 13 to 15 years, and installed just fine?

Got ya' beat!  I've installed Larry 2 & 3, Colonel's Bequest, and Quest For Glory 1 from the original 5.25" floppies!  All my original Save Game files are STILL on 5.25" (360K, mind you) floppies.  Amazing they still work.

Your KQ5 installation and gameplay story is hillarious!    Thanks for sharing it!  I'm still sticking with DOS 6.2 for most Sierra games, as long as I have the extra PC to spare.

[Macready]

Hello -

Got ya' beat! I've installed Larry 2 & 3, Colonel's Bequest, and Quest For Glory 1 from the original 5.25" floppies! All my original Save Game files are STILL on 5.25" (360K, mind you) floppies. Amazing they still work.

Yes, you definitely win!  In fact, I'm just amazed you even have a working 5.25" drive, to say nothing of decades-old floppies.

[Tom]

It's probably still hangin' in there because it's very rarely used.  (I certainly wouldn't save anything new to a 5.25" floppy.)

[HondaSiR]

and from a musical perspective, the MT-32 has a lot more use and potential

When it comes to vintage gaming, I would agree that the MT-32 tends to outshine the SC-55 since Sierra and other gaming companies at the time gave their all in supporting the platform.

But from a musician's viewpoint at the present time, I think the SC-55 has the edge because of its more realistic instrument sampling (the piano comes to mind again since a lot of musicians consider a piano a very important instrument). When given a choice for a poor musician trying to buy his first MIDI module, I think he would definitely consider buying the SC-55 over the MT-32 (hence the reason why as of today the SC-55 is still more expensive than an MT-32).  

Alright you two, let's not come to blows.   :roll:   Besides, this is supposed to be a Tom's soundtrack vs. MT-32 (vs., optionally, the MT-32 emulator) discussion...who brought up the SC-55?

Lolz, don't worry, me and Alistair are just having our own unique way of conversing. While its true that threads have been locked in this forum in the past because of some arguments, we're certainly not in that mood right now.  

If you have the money to spare, try to win an SC-55 (or a compatible device) so you can play the later games that took advantage of it. While its true the MT-32 can fake the sounds of GM, in my opinion it just doesn't cut it (it really sounds awful to my ears).  

[Tom]

a poor musician trying to buy his first MIDI module, I think he would definitely consider buying the SC-55 over the MT-32

You probably won't believe I'm writing this, but I definitely agree with Alistair on this point.    If money were an issue -- or, even if my wife told me 'you can only have one or the other', it would be the MT-32, hands down.  Even though the MT-32's acoustic piano's are poor, they can be helped by combining an electric piano track.  Not great, I know, but an improvement.  The LSL games use a lot of pianos and they're passable; and if the pianos are used as a non-descript accompaniment sound, it'll work okay.

But I look at the UNlimited potential of the MT-32.  I have a binder containing dozens of pages (lists) of patch banks -- thousands of additional sounds that can be loaded into the MT-32's memory.   Tons of great sound effects (like the best "wind" effect I've ever heard), and Mark Seibert's "Clarinet", which I happen to think is superior to either my XG or SC devices.  I just feel the MT-32 is a more versatile device than the SC-55.

My VERY FIRST reaction to the SC-55 (we were able to evaluate one for a couple of weeks when they first came out) was, "Were's my MT-32!!!"  Though the demo songs were quite impressive, overall I felt it sounded a bit 'tinny' -- no depth.  I've since grown to appreciate a lot of it's sounds, and I think it makes a great 'accompaniment' instrument to the MT-32.  That is, mix the two devices, using the best sounds from each.  And the later SC's (like the SC-8820/50) have vastly improved over the original SC-55, but to this day (Dagger Of Amon Ra), you won't hear a SC-8820 clarinet in any songs I work on -- the MT-32's clarinet continues to be my favorite.  I still use MT-32 trumpets, percussion, shakuhachi, French horns, Fantasy, organs...on a regular basis.

[HondaSiR]

You probably won't believe I'm writing this, but I definitely agree with Alistair on this point.    If money were an issue -- or, even if my wife told me 'you can only have one or the other', it would be the MT-32, hands down.

No problem with me there Tom, I respect both your opinions (hey, you make it sound like its a miracle that you and Alistair have gotten to agree on something, hooray!   ).

I'm just basing my judgement on my musical taste and ebay watching. I definitely hate the MT-32's pianos, no matter how they are tweaked by L/A. For me its such an important instrument that I feel Roland has completely neglected when designing the module way back in the 80's. The later released SC-55 more than made up for this setback.

Not many young musicians (if any) today have the capability nor the inclination to learn how to make the MT32 really shine (unlike the days of Mark Seibert and co.). That's probably the reason why the sales of MT-32s as of today are geared towards vintage gaming people. One can always argue that a composer on a tight budget can get an MT32 real cheap but he will definitely move up to a GM or better standard because he would tire quickly of the module's default sounds (and onboard hiss...but that's another story). I'm not claiming the SC-55 as a better alternative, but I do feel it is the preferred choice of musicians on a tight budget. My constant watching over ebay proves it (MT32s go for around $50.00 and below now, the SC-55 still commands $70.00 and up).

Which leads us back to my original point. It just cannot be done...to point out which format or module is better. There are just too many reasons why people buy the hardware, whether it is for gaming goodness or composing. But anyway, I do like the debates so far. Alistair, you owe me one for the miracle.
 :wink:  

[Alistair]

No problem with me there Tom, I respect both your opinions (hey, you make it sound like its a miracle that you and Alistair have gotten to agree on something, hooray!  ).

Ah, we agree on a few things.

I'm just basing my judgement on my musical taste and ebay watching. I definitely hate the MT-32's pianos, no matter how they are tweaked by L/A. For me its such an important instrument that I feel Roland has completely neglected when designing the module way back in the 80's. The later released SC-55 more than made up for this setback.

I think where your argument falls down, Honda, is that the MT-32's pianos make it a worse module. Granted, it makes it worse *in the piano department*, but that's no real achievement. THe Roland SC-55 (and other SC's like the 88) suffer from excess reverb and chorus. I find it unnaturally warm and tinny. So, instruments like Clarinet, Harp, Pizzicato (real instruments) sound unreal. And poor patches in any case
I still like the SC-55- in KQ6 and SQ6 it was used brilliantly. But it has a lot of weaknesses.

I'd also say from your comments that you haven't used a Roland MT-32 very much. It's easy to point out weak points, like piano, strings or guitar- but the Pizz, Clarinet, Flute, drumkit, sitar, synth tracks like soundtrack, fantasy, timpani etc etc are all just so nice sounding. And I'm just talking default timbres at the moment too

I'm not claiming the SC-55 as a better alternative, but I do feel it is the preferred choice of musicians on a tight budget. My constant watching over ebay proves it (MT32s go for around $50.00 and below now, the SC-55 still commands $70.00 and up).

I don't think that's a very accurate statement, either. Most musicians today would, if you said the name 'MT-32', would look at you funny and ask you to repeat what you said again.

The SC-55 goes for more because it's a General MIDI module. It's got warm sounds (which is a bonus in some respects) and has GM and GS for a relatively low price. MT-32 is a outdated format (but then again, so is GM ). Musicians wouldn't have much use for the SC-55 these days IMO. I think it's probably legacy uses that keep it popular.

But anyway, I do like the debates so far. Alistair, you owe me one for the miracle.

<grins> One what?

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

Heh, I've used my MT32 countless times....both in gaming and listening to all of Tom's soundtracks in native MT32 format. Thankfully my unit is still in tiptop shape after all these years. I know what its weaknesses and strengths are even though I don't compose music. I love that little black box and I would never sell it for any reason. Same goes for my SCB-55. I also know its limitations but heck, it beats the hell out of any Audigy, Santa Cruz or lesser known GM devices out there when playing GM/GS files.

Believe it or not, SC-55s are still being used today by musicians. I don't think many people would shell out $70.00 - $150.00 in ebay just to play those games that fully support GM. Those gamers can get by with cheaper cards like the Yamaha YMF boards. GM may be an old format, but it is still recognized and well accepted even today.  

[Macready]

Hello -

Well, the new toy arrived this morning, and I had a few moments of head-scratching during hookup.  I am using an Edirol UM-1X USB MIDI interface cable, and my problems started there.  I did get the driver installed OK (the 1.61 Japanese-sourced version someone posted about elsewhere on this forum), but the connection seemed flakey (every so often Windows would make that noise it makes when a USB device is added/removed, even though I hadn't touched anything).  I finally chalked that up to being the fault of either the USB 2.0 card I recently installed, or the USB hub I recently installed for front-of-the-case USB access.  I moved the UM-1X to one of the USB 1.1 ports on the motherboard and that seemed to solve the connection stablility problems (some of them, anyway -- more on that in a moment).

The next problem was: no sound!  I had switched the Edirol to be the active MIDI device, I knew my copy of DOSBox was working right, but no music...I was drawing a blank.  I had the outputs running through 1/4" mic jack --> RCA converters, and then was using a stereo-RCA --> mini jack cable to hook into the line-in jack of my soundcard.  BUT...I did see "Welcome to the '20s!" flash on the display of the MT-32 when I launched "The Colonel's Bequest," which brought a dopey smile to my face.  I checked the mixer for the sound-card...line-in wasn't muted.  So, I switched to a standard stereo RCA cable and ran it to the "Aux 2" RCA input on the Creative "Live Drive" on the front of my case.  Bingo!  It worked.  Either that first cable was bad, or I hadn't plugged in to the right port on the soundcard.

I am still having an issue with the UM-1X -- it is not unusual for it to simply refuse to work, requiring me to unplug it from the computer and then plug it back in before it starts working again.  For those of you who use an Edirol USB MIDI interface: is this normal?  And for those who don't: I am guessing a gameport cable works perfectly every time.  Is this true?  This UM-1X was an expensive cable, and if this flakiness is what I can expect on a regular basis, it is going to be returned.

OK, enough about hookup.  I am pleased to report that the MT-32 sounds MUCH better than the emulator did.  There really is no comparison.  While it is easy to perceive the similarity between the two methods of playback, it is equally easy to tell which one is better (and I don't think it takes a practiced ear to do so).  To put it simply, the emulator sounds phony and synth-y where the MT-32 sounds nice, and its instruments far more authentic.  The little bits of bugginess I experienced with the emulator (e.g., the goofy clock chimes in CB) are gone also.  And as a side benefit, it seems to me that the copy of DOSBox without MT-32 emulation uses fewer CPU cycles.  So it's a win all around.  For anyone who hopes to get all the benefits of owning a MT-32 simply by using the emulator (a hope I once shared), I regret to inform you that the emulator, in its current state, simply does not measure up to the real deal.

Of course, I am also a little depressed by that.  Although I am happy that my recent purchase was justified, I am also worried about the day when this little black box ceases to function and the emulator is all I have left.  I hope that Canadacow continues to work on the emulator and nails that authentic MT-32 sound sometime in the future.