Best Roland GS for Games

[Great Hierophant]

When developers composed general midi sound tracks, they almost invariably did so on Roland hardware or intended it to sound best on Roland hardware.  Creative Labs Waveblaster upgrades were crap, Yamaha's XG devices came too little, too late, and the Sound Blaster AWE32 a tricky beast to support.  Roland's excellent reputation and established PC history served them in good stead.  So, by and large game developers made music for Roland midi devices (assuming they weren't going the digitzed route.)  

But which devices?  The idea is that the computer user should be able to hear and appreciate the fine music they were creating.  While developers tended to use many devices in the creation of their midi files, they had to consider what the user would be using.  Now, as the user would be using a PC, naturally the developer should target support to those few Roland devices marketed to PC owners.  These come in three varieties, which I shall review:

The first type is of course those devices based off the SC-55 Midi Module.  Its computer equilavents would be the SCC-1 Sound Card and the CM-300/500.  

The second type is those devices based off the SC-55mkII Midi Module.  The computer equilavents would be SCB-55 and SCP-55.  

The third type is those devices based off the GM-only SC-7 Midi Module, which are the SCB-7 daughterboard the RAP-10AT Sound Card.  

Here are the questions:
What is best to use in a retro PC and why?
The best combination, bar none, for Roland midi would be SCB-55 combined with the Roland MPU-401AT midi interface.  Roland called and sold this combination as the SCM-15AT.  This adds the intelligent midi capability, which a few games use to the more advanced SC-55mkII based daughterboard.  There is no reason to use a SCC-1 if you have this combination.  However, the SCC-1 is much more common than either card, and that is the best second choice.  Third choice would be obtaining a Roland MPU-401 compatible card and breakout box to connect to an external device.  

What is the best device to use today for emulation purposes?

The SCC-1 and RAP-10AT are tied to the ISA bus, slots of which are not generally present in motherboards made in this century.  The SCP-55 is a PCMCIA card, and adapters to PCI aren't hard to come across.  External modules have the advantage of being usable with any midi interface, USB in particular.  The SCB-55 is trickier to use, while some PCI cards do have waveblaster headers they are no longer current.  If you had some electrical engineering skill you could build an external interface to provide power to the card.

[Juho Sippola]

I'm not sure if there was something with the adapter or a real difference between devices but comparision between SC-55 class and SC-55mkII class in some MIDI files that involve resonance/cutoff filters some instruments don't sound alike. In file http://koti.mbnet.fi/tuhos/CLICHE.MID (by Kim Burgaard, composed with SCC-1) the saw wave sounds considerably different with my SCB-55&adapter than with SC-155.

Somebody else with second generation SC-55mkII class device should verify this by recording that piece into a MP3. If that comparision ends into a vastly different result, maybe we can conlude then that it's not completely same if you had SC-55&co. or SC-55mkII&co.

[twistedemotions]

Roland MPU-401AT isn't that just a ISA card?  

DOSbox support intelligent midi emulation

[jbltecnicspro]

I believe the SCB would be the cheapest route to go, as SC-55mkIIs cost more - that said, the SC-55mkII is the most compatible method to go for newest machines.  It all depends on what you want to do with it I suppose.  SC-55mkIIs go for more cash, and I've seen them go as high as $200 - something that I would not pay - SC-88's go for the same price.  If you want to know my thoughts - for gaming, SC-88 takes the cake.  Its balance is exactly the same as a SC-55, and it's compatible with lots of MIDI files out there too, but the cool thing is that the updated ROM has better sounding instruments than the SC-55, notably in the brass section.  Some will criticize (Alistair ) me and say that the SC-88 is overkill for just games, and they would be correct in saying so, but if you're going to cough up nearly $200 for an SC-55, why not spend a few more bucks and get a unit with more sounds, channels, and polyphony?

SC-55 units have less capabilities, music-wise, than the SC-88.  I've hit the polyphony limit on the SC-55 tons of times, and I've hit its musical capabilities also tons of times.  SC-88 allows for more layering of strings, better horns, and it sounds fantastic in games - I've heard WarCraft 2 played on an SC-88, and I'm now sorry that I ever bought the SC-55 - the 88 is really THAT good.

[Great Hierophant]

The greatest advantage of computer devices, as compared to the modules, is price.  If you can find the cards, you can get them at far cheaper prices than the more expensive modules.  For gaming purposes there would be advantage to a module, but for music creation a module is a better idea.  

I'm not sure if there was something with the adapter or a real difference between devices but comparision between SC-55 class and SC-55mkII class in some MIDI files that involve resonance/cutoff filters some instruments don't sound alike. In file http://koti.mbnet.fi/tuhos/CLICHE.MID (by Kim Burgaard, composed with SCC-1) the saw wave sounds considerably different with my SCB-55&adapter than with SC-155.

This seems similar to the issues between the early-style MT-32s and the later-style MT-32s and CM-32L/LAPC-I/CM-64, a revision producing slight variations in the sound.  The completist would probably want an SCC-1 and an SCB-55 + MPU-401/AT.

[twistedemotions]

SCC-1 and an SCB-55 + MPU-401/AT.

But aren't those ISA cards, making them unsuitable for modern PC's using emulation?

[twistedemotions]

SC-55mkIIs go for more cash, and I've seen them go as high as $200 - something that I would not pay - SC-88's go for the same price.  If you want to know my thoughts - for gaming, SC-88 takes the cake.

While the matchup may not be perfect, todays LCD's don't display the many 320x200 exactly like the old monitors either.

$200 isn't that bad in the days where people burn $1000+ for Quad SLI and other setups.

BTW, how does an SC-88 compare to an 88 pro.  Totally different animal?

[Great Hierophant]

But aren't those ISA cards, making them unsuitable for modern PC's using emulation?

You have to be somewhat creative in using them, which really means ensuring they have the proper power supply.  I intend to put them in a retro PC and run a midi cable from my powerhouse PC to the cards in the old PC.

[Alistair]

SC-88 is completely different to the 88Pro. Different bit sound (I think the Pro is 16-but, and the 88 12 or 14 bit, but i forget these trivial things). The 88Pro sounds like the 8820/50, and the 88 more like the 55/55mkII.


By the way, Juho- what do you want recorded? I have the mk II now.


And I swear by it! THe mk II kicks the 55's butt, in ways only a Roland lover would notice, though.

- Alistair

[Juho Sippola]

By the way, Juho- what do you want recorded? I have the mk II now.

The only thing I need recorded is that CLICHE.MID I posted a link before. That'd be enough for me to tell whether SC-55 and SC-55mkII filters are different or there's defect with my equipment.

[jbltecnicspro]

BTW, how does an SC-88 compare to an 88 pro.  Totally different animal?

Totally different animal.  SC-88pro has lots of filters (called "instertion effects") that you can apply to your sequencing.  For example, want a good-sounding distortion guitar?  Easy, select an electric guitar patch "Clean Guitar" or whatever you choose, and appy the "Distortion" or "Auto-Wah" or both to your guitar patch, select the intensity and BAM - you have a realistic, jamin' guitar.  

As you may have guessed SC-88 can't do this, but that doesn't mean it's BAD - if gaming's all you want, then an SC-88 won't disappoint, because I take it that you'll want to listen to MIDI files on the net, and the SC-88's 64-voice polyphony (as opposed to the SC-55's 24) would suit you more.

[Alistair]

Totally different animal. SC-88pro has lots of filters (called "instertion effects") that you can apply to your sequencing. For example, want a good-sounding distortion guitar? Easy, select an electric guitar patch "Clean Guitar" or whatever you choose, and appy the "Distortion" or "Auto-Wah" or both to your guitar patch, select the intensity and BAM - you have a realistic, jamin' guitar.  

As you may have guessed SC-88 can't do this, but that doesn't mean it's BAD - if gaming's all you want, then an SC-88 won't disappoint, because I take it that you'll want to listen to MIDI files on the net, and the SC-88's 64-voice polyphony (as opposed to the SC-55's 24) would suit you more.

Wrong- the SC-88 = the first SC to have insertion effects, the 88Pro just has a lot more.

- Alistair

[jbltecnicspro]

Really?  I remember that the insertion effects were the clear advantage of the SC-88pro?  Does the SC-88 have a distortion effect, or are you referring to its built-in equalization?

[Alistair]

No, I meant what I said.. The SC-88 was the first.

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showimage.aspx?gid=17160&ppid=1122&image=9335673&images=9335673,9335674,9335675&formats=0,0,0&format=0

Hmm. it's very hard to find anything on the web backing this up. I'm sure Tom and I spoke about it on here once years ago. The picture and the bottom bit of the rack I always thoguht was for EFX, though.

- Alistair

[Juho Sippola]

Alistair, please do your RTFM more thorougly. :wink:  

Manuals are available at http://www.rolandus.com/mojo/manuals.aspx and according to SC-88pro's manual the effects are clearly differentiated between system (chorus, reverb, delay and 2-band eq) and insertion effects.

Hell, my SC-155 has even more knobs than SC-88 or SC-88pro but it still doesn't warrant that the insertion effects are there. In fact, they aren't.

[Alistair]

Seriously, I remember an old discussion about it with TOm. But when I looked last night, I couldn't find anything. It was so weird.

- Alistair

[jbltecnicspro]

When I read the SC-88 manual, I didn't see anything about insertion effects...

[twistedemotions]

So when picking between an 88 and an 88 pro for games, is there any signficant difference?  If I want to tinker with additional stuff should I get an 88 pro or will that mess up game compatibility?

[jbltecnicspro]

So when picking between an 88 and an 88 pro for games, is there any signficant difference?  If I want to tinker with additional stuff should I get an 88 pro or will that mess up game compatibility?

It won't mess up game compatability at all.  The Sound Canvas units, in general, have the same balance as one another (at least up to the 88pro).  I'd get an 88pro if you're intent on making some original music of your own.  Don't worry, it's a good purchase.  

[Alistair]

Disagree, if you want to play Sierra games for example, the SC-88 weill sound much closer to what the games were composed for (it has a SC-55 mk II map which should be lovely), as opposed to the 88Pro which is awesome as a music module but has a poor sounding SC-55 mk II comaptibility map.

Then again, the 88Pro's GM tones probably wouldnt be bad- they;d just sound weird for the game sometimes, and different.

- Alistair