|
Maxime
|
 |
« on: October 26, 2006, 05:59:00 AM » |
|
Hi friends, I appreciate the sounds that can be delivered from my MT-32 or my Korg X5DR, but as I always wanted to own one of those famous Roland Sound Canvas modules (or any other of their expanders from the 90's), I would like to hear your opinion about them... Among the ones I have noticed: - the U-110 and U-220: they appear to carry some of the best D-50 sounds (Calliope, Soundtrack, Fantasia...) while being more polyvalent, but I don't know if the U-220 carries the same sounds than the U-110 + some extra ones, or if they don't offer the same patches... the only drawback being that they are not GM-compatible (1989)... - the SC-55 and SC-88 (Pro): the most popular ones... but unfortunately, I don't like the sounds provided with the Microsoft software synth, and, as far as I know, the SC-55 carries the same sounds (but with much better quality, I hope). So, I'd rather go for the SC-88 (Pro?), but the problem is that I don't really know which sounds it offers... does it come with the same sounds from the SC-55 + some extra ones, or does it come with different sounds from the SC-55? - the JV-1080 and JV-2080: they seem to be quite popular and powerful, GM-compatible, but I don't know if they sound like the Sound Canvas series, or if they have their own sounds... I've downloaded some sound samples from these synths at SynthMania, and I like the sounds... I have also listened to the MP3 files available on the MIDI comparison page of Quest Studios, and the renderings seem to be quite similar... I could also look for a new, modern module (with USB connection, the Roland SC-8820 or SC-8850 for example) but I don't see any advantage in buying a new module... I have the impression that the newer stuff lacks the "original" feeling of older synths, that they now all try to deliver sounds sampled from real instruments with no further synth arrangement, as they now have enough memory to store hugh real instrument samples without having to cut them off and complete them with some synth filters (like the synths used to do ten or fifteen years ago, when they only had a few MBs of ROM to store sample data)... So, I'd prefer to stick with used modules to get them at a nice price... and as I have a huge preference for Roland sounds (even if having a Yamaha module would give me different sound "colors"), I thought that you'd be able to give me some nice advice, just like you did before!  Maxime |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Juho Sippola
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2006, 07:17:20 AM » |
|
I have U-110, SC-155 and JV-1010 so I believe that I'm qualified to say something in this thread.  * U-110/U-220 are old equipment. They don't really have much editing capabilities. U-220 has reverb, some more editing parameters and some added sounds from SN-U110-08 and SN-U110-09 cards versus U-110. The sounds sound like they are from... early ROMpler. In other words, they might not sound extremely realistic but they have some roughness you can't get with SC or JV. Expansion facilities are limited to the SN-U110 ROM cards which are pretty limited in the number of extra sounds provided per card. I have cards 01, 07, 08 and 10 myself. I'm keeping my U-110 to provide the rough sounds when needed. These modules go dirt cheap so you are not going to lose much money if you don't like one. * The SC hardware module sounds are of much better quality than Microsoft GS. Same waveforms are used but you'll hear the difference. SC modules tend to be pretty expensive considering their still limited editing facilities, especially versus JV. Also, after listening SC stuff for years I find the sounds dull when compared to other gear. However, if I had to select JUST one piece of equipment to do everything from game music and MIDI file listening to composing, a latter SC would be my choice. I'm not aware of newer SC modules' tonal pallette but I guess there are plenty of new waveforms vs. SC-55. SC's can't be expanded. * The JV-series. If you are into making your own music, this is DEFINITELY your weapon of choice. Editability is worlds apart from U/SC-series with fully tweakable TVF/TVA/LFO/MFX stuff. Presets are good but often heard. GM is IMO unbalanced, I prefer SC over JV's GM anytime. Beware of JV-1010, though. The editors available are the ****ty SoundDiver, quirky ChangeIt! and probably some payware stuff I don't know from. If I got a chance, I'd probably switch my JV-1010 to JV-2080 to get better usability, two additional separate stereo output pairs and three MFX instead of one. Expandability via SR-JV80-series cards is a good thing: Nineteen different cards are available second-hand and they have nice amount of new waveforms and patches. When compared to their capabilities, the pricing of JV modules appears to be modest when compared with SC's. Supposedly you should listen more to the JV stuff... I believe they'll be an appropiate choice in most cases. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Maxime
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2006, 08:01:15 AM » |
|
This is the kind of answer I like The U-110/U-220 are quite cheap nowadays (around 100 €/$100 from what I've read on many ads) but the fact that they're not GM-compatible is a drawback for me. I compose my own music, so I can go without that, as I render the sounds from my synths as WAVE files to make my own sound banks. But, as I always export my tracks in MIDI format to test them with some various synths (or to find patches which better suit the melody), and if the module is not GM-compatible, apart from grabbing some famous sounds in higher quality that the ones I have (like the few D-50 patches they provide), it'd not help me much... I wanted an MT-32 because I knew that it was able to reproduce some particular game MIDIs like no other synth, so I can easily excuse it for not being GM-compatible... but, if the U series are not GM compatible, what do they offer? Only a fraction of those (great) D-50 sounds I love, some other great original sounds, and that's all... and if they are not really expandable/editable unless I manage to get expensive expansion cards, I'm afraid to feel really limited by them too quickly... My feelings towards the SC series are quite complex, as it'd give me a really polyvalent and standard-sounding module. But, as I've said, I'm afraid to be quickly bored by these "standard" sounds of the SC-55, which I've heard from the MS-synth (even if they would sound much better on a real Sound Canvas). It would make a cool GM module, if I find it at a correct price (I have the impression that the SC-55 are quite expensive nowadays), but I wonder if I would really use it to sample new waveforms... and if the editing capabilities are limited, I'd be obliged to stick with these standard sounds I could be bored with after some months... That's why I'd rather go for a SC-88, which appear to have more sounds I appreciate. The problem is that I don't know if it can really reproduce GM MIDIs just like the SC-55 (I thought that the SC-88 had a "SC-55 compatibility mode), and I don't really know how does it sound in SC-88 GM mode... I lack some demo MIDI recordings, listening to only one MIDI rendered with it would not give me a complete idea of its capabilities... As a result, I'm quite interested by the JV-x080, which sounds much more polyvalent according to you. It appears that it can be found at the same price ranges than the SC-88 Pro (around 350 or 400 $/€), so I hesitate (even if the SC-88 "non-Pro" seems to be quite much cheaper). And the balance is usually a matter of taste. My own GM SoundFont bank is quite unbalanced, my Korg X5DR sometimes sounds unbalanced too, so I think that I could easily appreciate the JV GM capabilities If I give you one or two MIDI files, do you have some time to record them as MP3 or OGG files with your SC-155 and, especially, with your JV-1010, so I can have a better idea of their capabilities with MIDI files/sounds I appreciate? That would be very nice |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 08:15:30 AM by Maxime »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2006, 08:41:28 AM » |
|
I could also look for a new, modern module (with USB connection, the Roland SC-8820 or SC-8850 for example) but I don't see any advantage in buying a new module... I have the impression that the newer stuff lacks the "original" feeling of older synths, that they now all try to deliver sounds sampled from real instruments with no further synth arrangement, as they now have enough memory to store hugh real instrument samples without having to cut them off and complete them with some synth filters (like the synths used to do ten or fifteen years ago, when they only had a few MBs of ROM to store sample data)... Maxime, I don't think this comment is correct. (As I see it) The SC-55 and SC-88 are very similar. The SC-88Pro and 8820/50 are very similar. But, the SC-55 and 8820/50 aren't THAT different. And the 8850 only has like 16 MB sample ROM or something tiny, for 1600+ instrument patches. So, I'd definitely recommend a 8820 or 50 over a SC-55, SC-88, or 88Pro. Especially the 88Pro, which is almost the same as the 8820/50, is usually as about as expensive and has a much more annoying interface than the 8850. Assuming, that is, that you want it for making music and not as a gamer. - Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Juho Sippola
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2006, 08:47:36 AM » |
|
You can post the MIDI files here. Given enough time, I could do the recordings. My equipment currently resides in two different places and right now I'm in neither of them. However, I'm concerned whether GM file does any justice for JV synth, IMO GM isn't the strongest point in JV. The price niveau at German eBay for JV-modules has appeared to be following lately: JV-1010: around 160€ JV-1080: around 220€ JV-2080: around 300€ For SC-modules I'm not completely aware of the current price level since I haven't been tracking them. However, I don't believe that you could get SC-88 cheaper than JV-1010 there. SC-88pro/SC-880/SC-8850 certainly aren't cheap either. http://www.mossgrabers.de/Software/ChangeIt.html - you might want to download the ChangeIt! to check the things that are user editable in JV series' patches. Download the product manuals from Roland US website as well. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 08:48:12 AM by Juho Sippola »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cloudschatze
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2006, 12:52:36 PM » |
|
If composition is your intent, I suggest skipping the JV series, and saving a bit more for the XV-5080. Architecture-wise, just as the JV-2080 replaces the JV-1080, the XV-5080 replaces both (and then some).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
glendower
Senior Member
 Offline
Posts: 212
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2006, 01:29:32 PM » |
|
Just for fun, I loaded up some SC and GM tracks on my SCB-55 and with the MS SC SW device. With simple GM music from the 7th guest the SC-55 was definitely better, but they sounded similar. On the Allstars track they REALLY start to separate. There is no reverbe and I'm not even sure that they sound like they use the same waveforms at all. I mean, listen to the applause... is that supposed to be clapping, sandpaper, air being bled from a tire, or waves coming in at high tide? Hard to tell. But there is SUCH a difference. WIht the absence track, the software synth doesn't even know what to do. I don't think that you could know that they were trying to play the same piece. The MS Softsynth is very poor. No processing at all, apparently. I wish I had webspace to post some recordings to |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Maxime
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2006, 02:42:32 PM » |
|
Maxime, I don't think this comment is correct.
(As I see it) The SC-55 and SC-88 are very similar. The SC-88Pro and 8820/50 are very similar. But, the SC-55 and 8820/50 aren't THAT different. And the 8850 only has like 16 MB sample ROM or something tiny, for 1600+ instrument patches.
So, I'd definitely recommend a 8820 or 50 over a SC-55, SC-88, or 88Pro. Especially the 88Pro, which is almost the same as the 8820/50, is usually as about as expensive and has a much more annoying interface than the 8850.
Assuming, that is, that you want it for making music and not as a gamer.
- Alistair
Mmmh... effectively, the 8820 seems to be quite cheap, but it looks like it offers less knobs/buttons than the SC-55 or SC-88... I don't know if it could be considered as a drawback for editing purposes... One thing that could convince me to get a more recent module would be the availability of a decent free patch editor... I don't know if there is any editing software provided with the 8820. The 8850 seems to be quite nice as well... I'd maybe go for one of these USB modules if I could be sure that they include the same sounds than their ancestors... and if USB connection does not suffer from latency and/or buggy drivers problems. And they also seem to be quite rare in the used items market, even if they are more recent! I have the impression that these modules did not gain a lot of popularity... If composition is your intent, I suggest skipping the JV series, and saving a bit more for the XV-5080. Architecture-wise, just as the JV-2080 replaces the JV-1080, the XV-5080 replaces both (and then some).
Well, the XV-5080 is already much more expensive than the JV-2080, even used (around $750/750 € at eBay!) But it seems to be a great polyvalent module, and, according to what I've read from several sources, it really includes the same sounds than the JV series... The XV-3080 seems to be around the same price range than the 2080... I'm going to look for further information about it... to know if it's better than the JV-2080, and what are the differences between it and the XV-5080... Just for fun, I loaded up some SC and GM tracks on my SCB-55 and with the MS SC SW device. With simple GM music from the 7th guest the SC-55 was definitely better, but they sounded similar. On the Allstars track they REALLY start to separate. There is no reverbe and I'm not even sure that they sound like they use the same waveforms at all. I mean, listen to the applause... is that supposed to be clapping, sandpaper, air being bled from a tire, or waves coming in at high tide? Hard to tell. But there is SUCH a difference. WIht the absence track, the software synth doesn't even know what to do. I don't think that you could know that they were trying to play the same piece. The MS Softsynth is very poor. No processing at all, apparently. I wish I had webspace to post some recordings to I hate the sound quality of the MS synth (22 KHz, very short samples to fit in a 2/3 MB DLS file!) but I've heard some recordings of MIDI files with the SC-55, and they sound quite much better, not only because of the effects! But, as I've said, I'd be afraid to pay for a module which offers sounds I've heard so much (even if they are standard sounds that I usually like). I'd rather go for a more complete Sound Canvas module if I was sure that this module (for example) could be able to reproduce GM files just like the SC-55, through its SC-55 mode, or if it uses different samples for that purpose. Just like the Korg X5DR is a Korg 05R/W with more sounds, I need to know if the SC-88 (for example) is "simply" a SC-55 with more sounds and features, or not. ------------------ Thanks for all your answers, anyway... I'm sure that with any of these synths, I would be able to appreciate some "new" sounds. The problem is to know which one is better in terms of price/capabilities... And prices are difficult to estimate. I usually find prices on AudioFanzine, a French website about music, which calculates the average "used" price of a module according to the prices asked by the sellers in their classified ads... so they can be right (if many people are selling their module) or completely wrong (if no classified ad has been posted for a long period of time). Here are the prices I've found on these websites: - Roland U-110/U-220: about 90-100 € - Roland SC-55: between 80 and 150 € - Roland SC-88: usually around 200 € - Roland SC-88 Pro: I've seen one for sale at 320 € - Roland SC-8820: 100 € ($320 on eBay) - Roland SC-8850: 200 € (but, on eBay, it would rather be $450!) - Roland JV-1080: 200 € (I'm not sure about this one) - Roland JV-2080: usually between 350 € and 500 € without cards - Roland XV-3080: $400 on eBay - Roland XV-5080: $750 and more on eBay! My price range would be between 100 and 300-350 euros, I think. But I need to find more MP3 demos Juho, if you have some time, you can (for example) download my latest MIDI track from my website, Arabian Feelings ( http://www.arachnosoft.com/main/download.php?id=arabian-midi) and record it with your JV, and if possible, with your Sound Canvas. Or you can download that Van Halen's Jump MIDI I'm always using as an example here: http://maxime.abbey.free.fr/x5dr/jump.mid. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 5,618
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2006, 04:12:57 PM » |
|
Well, if you're into knobs and front panel accessibility, the 8850 has all of that. After having been using both the 8820 and 8850 for about the past year, I'm still partial to the overall sound quality of the 8820 and continue to use it as my primary synth. The GS editor that came with both synths works with either one. The 8850 has more features (like double the polyphony of the 8820), but here again...I've never come close to maxing out the 8820's 64-voice polyphony. They're both USB, Serial, and MIDI interface compatible, though the 8820 can draw it's power from the USB connection, whereas the 8850 still needs an external power supply. I've found no advantage in quality with the 8850's dozen or so '4-voice' instrument sounds over the 8820's 2-voice counterparts. In fact, I like many of the the 2-voice sounds better; even the touted acoustic piano.
If you can get an 8820 for LESS than an 88Pro, definitely go for it. You'll get basically the same quality with both, but hundreds of more sounds with the 8820. Again, you won't get all the knobs with the 8820, but you can do it all through software. I can't imagine why anyone would pay more for an 88Pro than the 8820...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 04:16:22 PM by Tom »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BlueMax
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2006, 05:48:19 PM » |
|
Agreed.... the 8820 would be a great snag... The SC-88 just can't be beat! The SC-55 is such a noticable step down! (some purists might disagree - I guess they just like synthy-sounding horns and woodwinds.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
AAAAAAAAUUGHH!!!! - Charlie Brown
|
|
|
|
Maxime
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2006, 05:31:21 AM » |
|
Well, if you're into knobs and front panel accessibility, the 8850 has all of that. After having been using both the 8820 and 8850 for about the past year, I'm still partial to the overall sound quality of the 8820 and continue to use it as my primary synth. The GS editor that came with both synths works with either one. The 8850 has more features (like double the polyphony of the 8820), but here again...I've never come close to maxing out the 8820's 64-voice polyphony. They're both USB, Serial, and MIDI interface compatible, though the 8820 can draw it's power from the USB connection, whereas the 8850 still needs an external power supply. I've found no advantage in quality with the 8850's dozen or so '4-voice' instrument sounds over the 8820's 2-voice counterparts. In fact, I like many of the the 2-voice sounds better; even the touted acoustic piano.
If you can get an 8820 for LESS than an 88Pro, definitely go for it. You'll get basically the same quality with both, but hundreds of more sounds with the 8820. Again, you won't get all the knobs with the 8820, but you can do it all through software. I can't imagine why anyone would pay more for an 88Pro than the 8820...
Okay, I took note If you say that it comes with a software editor, I can easily go without front-panel knobs And you're several to say that it offers the same sounds than a SC-88, but at a greater price. I read an excellent review of these units here: http://www.hardware-one.com/reviews.asp?aid=194&page=1The reviewer almost have the same opinions than both of you. I listened to the MP3 demos, including a recording of a Sting's "Every Breath You Take" MIDI file, not bad at all Well, my own SoundFont bank produces much better sound, but it's a 128MB bank for 128 instruments + 10 drumkits! Compared to these SCs and their 1600+ sounds and 63 drumkits, it seems logical! But the sound remains quite good for a module with only 16MB of ROM... This unit sounds great despite the lack of front-panel controls...! But it seems to be VERY difficult to find... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 27, 2006, 06:51:54 AM by Maxime »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 5,618
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2006, 12:01:46 PM » |
|
Can we hear some samples of your Soundfont? I've never heard a SoundBlaster SoundFont that I liked all that much, no matter how many megabytes it was. I've also never found the relationship between SoundFont size and sound quality to be an accurate measure of realism.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Maxime
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2006, 02:46:38 PM » |
|
Of course, you only had to ask I've uploaded some recordings here: http://maxime.abbey.free.fr/soundfont/- The Secret of Monkey Island - Introduction (General MIDI Version) - Michael Jackson - Beat It (Dual drum kit: TR-808/909 and Standard) - Van Halen - Jump - The Legend of Kyrandia - Track 18 - The GS All-Stars, Live! (the MIDI file you've used on your MIDI comparison page). All recordings have been done dry (no reverb), straight from the soundcard and only with my SoundFont, no particular settings whatsoever, except for the MJ recording which uses two drumkits (I've loaded the TR-808 drumkit from my bank in an additional MSB). Of course, my SF has some bugs (especially about balance) I have to correct before planning to release it, but I'm pretty satisfied with it now, it plays the thousands of MIDI files I have with better quality than any other synth I tried (but it's mainly because the sounds I put into it are sounds which suit my tastes). I compose my own music in MIDI, OGG, MP3 and ImpulseTracker (IT) formats under ModPlug Tracker mainly by using samples from my SF. You can find them on my website if you want to listen to them as well |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NewRisingSUn
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 634
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2006, 06:41:19 PM » |
|
Just one quick comment: The "Rim Shot" sample has a very roomy reverb to it, noticable in the Monkey Island recording. Since you said you turned off the reverb, that means the reverb is part of the recorded sample itself. Better replace it with a reverbless sample, because otherwise during normal operation (that is, with reverb turned on), you'll get two reverbs --- the one in the sample, and then on top of that the reverb that the sound engine generates, which makes for a very odd combination.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 5,618
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2006, 10:26:15 PM » |
|
Why no reverb? For a Soundfont, it's probably one of the better ones I've heard. But it sounds so lifeless playing pieces that were designed to have reverb in them that I can't get a good feel unless I play the MIDI through another synth with no reverb. I'll have to give that a go with the MI and Allstars MIDI's when I get home. Hearing it at work with a poor sound system, and the lack of reverb to boot, I would have to presently say I'm very happy with my Roland and Yamaha synths.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 27, 2006, 10:27:13 PM by Tom »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jbltecnicspro
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 626
|
|
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2006, 10:30:15 PM » |
|
I'd suggest a used XV-2020 or an XV-5050. Both are pretty similar, but the 5050 has a screen, and COSM effects, plus it has better sound quality (so I've read). There's one other module that sticks out in my mind as a good Roland module too, and that's SD-80. It has a very good GM section from what I've read, and has two banks (256 sounds) of completely custom instruments that aren't apart of GM. In other words, you can double it as a listening device and a composition tool as well. I don't know the price of one, as they are pretty rare on Ebay.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BlueMax
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2006, 06:14:47 AM » |
|
I'd suggest a used XV-2020 or an XV-5050. Both are pretty similar, but the 5050 has a screen, and COSM effects, plus it has better sound quality (so I've read). There's one other module that sticks out in my mind as a good Roland module too, and that's SD-80. It has a very good GM section from what I've read, and has two banks (256 sounds) of completely custom instruments that aren't apart of GM. In other words, you can double it as a listening device and a composition tool as well. I don't know the price of one, as they are pretty rare on Ebay.
I'm not a fan of the SD-80, SD-90, etc. Had one for a while (I should have sold it on eBay for profit... probably still can!) Even the lowly SC-88 did General MIDI much better! If you want a module for composing and don't care so much about GM compliance, go elsewhere... even some softsynths are better! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
AAAAAAAAUUGHH!!!! - Charlie Brown
|
|
|
|
Maxime
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2006, 12:33:53 PM » |
|
Just one quick comment: The "Rim Shot" sample has a very roomy reverb to it, noticable in the Monkey Island recording. Since you said you turned off the reverb, that means the reverb is part of the recorded sample itself. Better replace it with a reverbless sample, because otherwise during normal operation (that is, with reverb turned on), you'll get two reverbs --- the one in the sample, and then on top of that the reverb that the sound engine generates, which makes for a very odd combination.
You're absolutely right. As far as I know, with SoundFont, you can set a reverb level: - on a single instrument/layer/sample on your SoundFont - using a MIDI command (don't remember which one) - using the Sound Blaster's EAX effects The reverb you hear on the Rim Shot sample should be normally at the same reverb level than the other drums (as this sample came with the other samples from the same bank). However, it may be a bug, the Rim Shot may have a stronger reverb level than the other percussion samples (while it shouldn't), I'll check that out. What I can say is that I like very strong drums, and the first time I heard this rim shot, I told to myself "I've now found what I wanted as my standard drum kit" (as well as the whole bank, which hasn't changed much since). Why no reverb? For a Soundfont, it's probably one of the better ones I've heard. But it sounds so lifeless playing pieces that were designed to have reverb in them that I can't get a good feel unless I play the MIDI through another synth with no reverb. I'll have to give that a go with the MI and Allstars MIDI's when I get home. Hearing it at work with a poor sound system, and the lack of reverb to boot, I would have to presently say I'm very happy with my Roland and Yamaha synths.
Because I thought that many people here would prefer dry recordings But I also prefer listening to MIDIs with reverb set between 50% and 100%. It gives them much more depth without really sounding altered. I've re-recorded the MP3s using my usual reverb settings, 90%. You'll find the reverb versions at the same URL than above.> jbltechnicspro, BlueMax: I'll checkout these models as well, thanks |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 29, 2006, 07:04:12 AM by Maxime »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2006, 07:34:12 AM » |
|
Maxime, Listening to the Kyrandia one now, Timbermist Woods, and it's OK, but some of the sounds are so weird. You also haven't converted the bass to GM, which sounds weird (GM basses don't bend that way). The fantasia, panpipes, shak all sound very odd. Of course, my SF has some bugs (especially about balance) I have to correct before planning to release it, but I'm pretty satisfied with it now, it plays the thousands of MIDI files I have with better quality than any other synth I tried (but it's mainly because the sounds I put into it are sounds which suit my tastes). I would say without hesitation that a Roland Sound Canvas SC-55 or higher is better than that soundfont. - Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Maxime
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2006, 09:31:42 AM » |
|
You also haven't converted the bass to GM, which sounds weird (GM basses don't bend that way).
The bass is actually a GM patch, but the converter used to translate MT-32 MIDIs into GM does not translate the pitch bends from MT-32 to GM, and keeps MT-32 pitch bends. With GM, a full pitch bend transposes one note up or down, while the MT-32 would transpose one octave up or down (IIRC). That's why the bass does not sound like it sounds on a MT-32. The fantasia, panpipes, shak all sound very odd.
Fantasia and Shakuhachi use sounds from the Roland D-50 and Roland U-20, which use stronger sounds than the MT-32. The Pan Flute patch is mainly from the famous Korg M1 "Pan Mallet" patch. Maybe you don't like these sounds, eh? Personally, they are the best synth sounds I ever heard "for their respective MIDI program". Kyrandia MIDIs were designed to be reproduced through a MT-32, which offers softer patches than the other Roland synths from the 80s. As a result, the MIDIs, when rendered with stronger sounds, sound different than the originals. It's normal... But I think I've not chosen the right Kyrandia MIDI, mainly because of this bass... I could also record another Kyrandia MIDI... I would say without hesitation that a Roland Sound Canvas SC-55 or higher is better than that soundfont.
- Alistair
I don't remember if you have a SC-55? If so, maybe could you record this MIDI file using your synth, so I can have a concrete opinion about a real Sound Canvas (and not about the MS synth...) with a MIDI file I like better than the ones I've heard? The main issue with my SF is balance/volume. That's why you prefer listening to MIDIs using a MIDI synth which offers a more neutral rendering. But, personally, I prefer to have a bank which offers hard sounds, rather than a bank which sounds too "flat" to my ears. That's why I asked for advice here. I'm sure that a Sound Canvas would suit my tastes, but I'm afraid to find that most sounds are too flat or inexpressive for my tastes on a SC-55. I have the impression that the SC-88 series offer harder sounds (just like the D-50, for example, offers harder Shakuhachi/Fantasia/Atmosphere/... patches than a MT-32), but, without having the two synths near me, I have some pain to get a real opinion about that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
