Sound Canvas and Games

[Great Hierophant]

Most games that supported General Midi synthesis were composed for Roland General Midi, which should sound best with a Roland RAP-10 or SC-7.  If the game supported the Roland Sound Canvas standard, then it should sound best with a synthesizer with the equilavent capabilities of the SC-55.  This includes the CM-300, SC-155, SCC-1 and CM-500.  There may be some games that have extra support for synthesizers with the equilavent capabilities of the SC-55mkII.  This includes the SCB-55, SCP-55,  SC-55ST and the SCC-1B (partially.)  

Did any games that composed midi for Roland General Midi Sound Canvas supporrt the capabilities of Sound Canvases more advanced than the SC-55/55mkII?  Do any take advantage of the capabilities of the SC-88, SC-88Pro or more advanced synthesizers?

[Alistair]

Sierra- no. But overseas game cultures like the Japanese (where Roland comes from I guess) have used the SC-88 at least. Others know more than me though

- Alistair

[Zemus]

You mean gone beyond the GM standard? Well, Privateer and Warcraft 2 used the orchestra drum set instead of the regular one (from the GS standard). They both had only a GM option in their setup programs, which is kind of weird...
Ultima 8 has separate GM and Sound Canvas options when you choose MIDI devices, but I haven't been able to hear any difference when playing. I can't remember any other non-Japanese games that have used anything but the MT-32 or GM.

[robertmo]

He grouped games into four categories:

1. General Midi - Roland RAP-10, SC-7
2. Sound Canvas -  SC-55, CM-300, SC-155, SCC-1, CM-500
3. SC-55mkII, SCB-55, SCP-55, SC-55ST, SCC-1B
4. SC-88, SC-88Pro and more advanced synthesizers

I only know games from categories 1. and 2.

[Kaminari]

Final Fantasy 7 must be one of those few games that are XG compatible.

[Great Hierophant]

The only advantages a midi module based on the SC-55mkII synthesizer offers over a midi module based on the SC-55 synthesizer are 37 extra GS sounds and 4 extra voices of polyphony.  

When a game of the mid-90s had a GS option, it probably assumed that the user had a SCC-1 sound card inside their system, which was the cheapest and most convenient way to hook up a true Roland GS synthesizer to a PC.  Many game authors probably kept to the 128 General Midi sounds to ensure the widest compatibility.  Others either has a GS specific option for the extra sounds or just used them anwyays.  When Roland added the extra sounds to the SCC-1B, some game authors may not have realized this and used the extra sounds, not knowing that these sounds could not be heard in the inferior SCC-1 cards.

[shad0wfax]

As far as I know, when a game stated that was "GS compatible", that means SC-55 mkI (and simmilar gear) compatibility. I know of no PC game in America or Europe that supports "higher" GS compatibility. It's true, though, that in Japan there's a stronger tradition in MIDI music for games, and there are japanese games (not only for PC, but for other systems such as Nec PC98, X68000 and so on) that support other formats, such as CM-64, SC-88, yamaha XG, or yamaha CBX, for example. Don't know much about that and I haven't been able to test those games, anyway

[Great Hierophant]

I may have found a game that proves to be the exception to the general rule.  The midi files for a particular game I am fond of are in a simple midi format and can be played in any program that plays midi files.  Before I got my CM-500, I used a sound font based on the SCC-1, or so the author claimed.  Later, when I received my CM-500 I played the midi files from the game I mentioned above with the module as the midi output device instead of the sound font.  Most midi files sounded better with the true GS sound device compared to the sound font (which was pretty good too.)  One midi file, however, seemed to loose a few sounds when played on the module compared to when I played it on the sound font.  

Now, as we know the SCC-1 came in two varieties.  The original SCC-1 had 317 sounds (including the MT-32 sounds) and the later SCC-1B revision had 354 sounds (but not the extra four voices of polyphony.)  If the author took his sounds from the SCC-1B, then that would explain why I would not hear those sounds on a CM-500 which only has the 317 sounds of the early SCC-1s.  

The only way to be truly sure is to play the midi file with a SCC-1B (knowing that you have the later revision), record it and compare it to a recording of the same file with a SC-55 or module with the same midi synthesis capabilities (listed above.)  Unfortunately, Quest Studios does not allow attachments otherwise I would attach the file for experimentation.

[robertmo]

Just install a Roland Virtual Sound Canvas.

It allows you to set it into 3 modes:
SC-55      (354 sounds + 10 drum sets)
SC-88      (546 sounds + 15 drum sets)
SC-88Pro (902 sounds + 26 drum sets)

and compare it with your CM-500

[Juho Sippola]

Roland VSC sounds like **** when compared to my SC-155, SCD-15 or SCC-1. The synthesis itself seems to work adequately but the instruments sound like someone has axed samples from the end and lowered sampling rate too generously. The SC-55 sample bank is claimed to be 2 megabytes while in the "real thing" it is something between 3 and 4 megabytes. It'll sound fine if you haven't ever heard the sound of real SC but...

BTW: Kim Burgaard MIDIs (some of them really show the utmost capabilities of the card) appear to sound different with SCC-1/SC-155 (317 instr.) versus SCD-15 (354 instr.). IMO they sound better and have no glitches with SCC-1/SC-155 while SCD-15 doesn't seem to playback everything as it should.

[Great Hierophant]

In DirectMusic Microsoft licensed the Sound Canvas sound set from Roland for software midi synthesis.  The .dls file is 3.3MB, which would correspond to the rumored RAM size of the SC based modules.  But my CM-500 sounds far better to Microsoft's GS Wavetable Software Synthesizer.

[Alistair]

I actually like Roland's VSC. It's quite listenable to. It also seems to have the Roland SC-88 Pro and 8850 quality as opposed to the 55/88's excess reverb.

Still prefer the real modules obviously
- Alistair

[Great Hierophant]

If a game was composed for General Midi, then the actual advantage to using a Roland GM/GS module or sound card is not so great.  However, some games actually use GS capabilities without advertising them and others claim GS support while only using GM capabilities.  

Japanese game composers very much liked the SC-88 and SC-88Pro.  But I don't think that you or I need one for Game music unless you are into importing Japanese PC games of the mid-to-late 90's vintage that still require the use of a midi device instead of digitized or CD sound.  I saw no need at all if you wish to keep to domestic PC/Windows game releases.  

The latest collected thought seems to be that perhaps the greatest weakness of the SC-55, the SC-55mkII and all the sound devices based off those modules is the lack of polyphony.  In 1993 28 voice polyphony was reasonable but too little by 1996, when most devices could boast 64 hardware voices.  Still, I gather most musicians that composed midi for PC games still kept to their SC-55s and SC-55mkIIs.  In this case, the SC-88's (not the pro) 64-voice polyphony may be the best solution to the problem.

[Tom]

Although it's relatively easy to max out the original SC-55 and MT-32's polyphony (keeping in mind that the MT-32 should really claim, "24 partial polyphony in practical use"), I've never maxed out my SC-8820's 64-note polyphony.  I've done a couple of 30+ track arrangements, too, but the SC-8820 seems to handle the load just fine.  

Let's not forget that neither the MT-32 or the SC-55 were designed for computer game soundtracks.  These are musical instruments that were created for musicians, and were later utilized by game publishers as well.  Sound Blaster --- now that was a MIDI device designed from the start, for computer games.  Roland finally got into the act as well, with GM cards like the RAP 10.  And I think they first dabbled with the idea with the LAPC-I, though I'm not sure of that.  Depends who you believe.  But the MT-32 and SC-55 were not created or designed for PC gaming...that's an extra benefit that game publishers took advantage of.

I don't think I've ever maxed out my Yamaha SW60XG, either...which I believe is only 32-note polyphony...but I've not done a lot of extensive multi-track recording with it, and conversions to XG were always from MT-32 material.

How are you able to tell a game is really using GS when it states, GM?

[Great Hierophant]

I have no idea, unless you are able to analyze the midi and determine that the song is using GS commands, instruments or parameters.  But in this thread Zemus noted that:

Privateer and Warcraft 2 used the orchestra drum set instead of the regular one (from the GS standard). They both had only a GM option in their setup programs, which is kind of weird...

I think that in most cases, maximum polyphony is the most important distinguishing factor between Roland GS choices.  It is unlikely that many games took advantage of the SC-55mkIIs extra 37 sounds and highly unlikely they optimized for the 18-bit DAC.  The polyphony is the key, and even the mkII comes up short at times when modules with more voices would not.  There is only one module that can boast of all these features and still truly sound like an SC-55 and that is the SC-88.

[Ari]

There's another one:
The Dream64 daughterboard. While it does not include the MT-32 bank, it's samples are almost identical to the SC-55's (maybe even slightly better) AND it has 64 note polyphony. you could say it's sort of an "SCB-50" with 64 note polyphony instead of just 28.

I can record a few samples to compare with the SC-55.

[Laust]

For what it's worth, the Dream64 wavetable card uses Roland's samples, but not Roland's GS engine (relying instead on one from "Dream", the French company who developed the card).

[shad0wfax]

There's just one thing a bit weird for me: why is "purity" in SC55-like sound so important? There are plenty of other synths and modules (such as SC-88pro, SC-8820, SC-8850, and the new SD-series from Edirol) that also have sc-55 GS compatibility and they do have a lot better specs. Perhaps they don't sound  exactly as a SC-55, but they sound just very close in GS mode, and on the other hand you've got more polyphony, more and better patches, better DACs... Sincerely, if I had to choose between a SC-55 (or simmilar: SC-50, SC-55mkII, etc.) and another module with much better specs but that didn't sound exactly as a SC-55 (but pretty close), I'd choose the latter with no doubt.

Maybe I'm thinking more as a musician than as a game player here, but even as a game player I don't see the slightly sonical differences in the GS map so important, considering that you'd get at least 64-voice polyphony instead of 24 or 28.

[Alistair]

Maybe I'm thinking more as a musician than as a game player here, but even as a game player I don't see the slightly sonical differences in the GS map so important, considering that you'd get at least 64-voice polyphony instead of 24 or 28.

As a 'musician' (I'm not, but I'm putting that hat on as opposed to just a gamer) using the SC-55 bank on the 8850 sounds radically different than the actual thing. You can call it 'purity', but it's all a bit of a nonsense. Sure, the 8850 has better specs. I vastly prefer it to my SC-55! However, the SC-55 can be very good at some sounds and emulating some. I rerecorded my new version of the LSL5 theme tonight, and the brass I used to counter the main MT-32 synth lead was actually the 55 brass, because of its' sharpness and warmth. I seem to remember when I mixed it back in May that the 8850's 55-map brass was much more boring. SUre, the 55 is too warm. But it's the characteristics of the module that make it good or bad It's no fun to use 8850 55 tones when the 55 does better.

.. That said, there ARE moments in CD's where I'll be using 8850 55 bank sounds. The choir in Gabriel Knight 1's 'Africa' is an example, as is the Halo Pad in QFG4's 'Dr. Cranium's Hallway'. They're just better sounds.

Anyways, hope I made sense somewhere there.

- Alistair

[Great Hierophant]

The problem is that Roland Sound Canvases tend to drift away over time from the unit's foundation, the SC-55.  I would say by the time of the SC-88Pro, circa 1996, the sound samples and GS engine had changed so much that you are no longer hearing the same music.  It will sound close, but it won't sound true and may not have changed for the better.  Unlike regular music, which can produce infinite variations on a series of notes, PC game music is supposed to play back only certain devices.  If the game only supports a Sound Blaster 16 or below, you won't have the problem of figuring out what the composer intended the music to sound like.  Support for an MT-32 or compatibles was not really a problem because the support was only for that one distinctive module and anything that could boast 100% compatibility with it.  

When a game supports "general midi", it can get rather frustrating to tell what the optimal device is to produce the game's sound (if no device or module is recommended.)  With general midi you had an idea what the music would sound like but little if any way to determine what the composer used to compose the music.  You don't have much of an idea what he thought the sound should sound like.  Moreover, while the midi will work on modules with better instruments than a Roland SC-55, the midi may use GS effects not found in the other module.