LAPC-I Rev 0.5?

[Shadow Lord]

O.k., having looked at the LAPC-I and reading about it I thought there were only two revisions of the board:

Rev 00: Original, no config for IRQs, Plug-In Bios (rev 1.00), Unshielded OPAMP

ReV 01: Has jumpers for IRQs, BIOS is soldered in but is rev 1.02, OPAMP is shielded, and has a different capacitor at C66

I had been confused regarding the OPAMP being shielded until now! Apparently the shielding is just a simple piece of metal around the chip. Nothing special. However, it seems there maybe a revision 0.5 board as well:

Rev 0.5: Nio config for IRQs, Plug-In Bios (rev 1.00), SHIELDED OPAMP

My confusion arose in that both my rev "00" board and 01 board had the shielded OPAMP even though everything else on my 00 matched.

May I suggest adding this bit to the wikipedia article? Assuming of course others agree with my assessment. I can post pictures of all three boards (although, it may take me a few days to do so...)

[Cloudschatze]

Since Roland's own service notes don't refer to "versions" or "revisions" of the LAPC, any such labeling might be considered fictitious, and probably shouldn't go into the Wikipedia article.

[Shadow Lord]

However, there are different versions of the card which differ from each other in HW. Roland probably does not refer to it for marketing issues. As such this information needs o be included in the wiki regardless of semantics (i.e. we don't have to use the word version or rev but maybe design or something else).

[Cloudschatze]

No, this is exactly the type of irrelevant and unnecessary information that shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. We're talking about minor product changes, none of which significantly alters the design or operation of the LAPC.

[Shadow Lord]

Given that you yourself argued for waiting for a the later boards in this thread http://queststudios.com/smf/index.php/topic,3151.msg31728.html#msg31728 because the HW changes did effect sound quality I find it very surprising you are now calling the info irrelevant. I think that someone new to the LAPC could use this info to get an idea of what is being sold.

Too much info is never a bad thing as long as it is accurate info.

[Cloudschatze]

...I find it very surprising you are now calling the info irrelevant.

It's irrelevant for an encyclopedic article, which is what you were seeking opinions on. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a buyer's guide - there is enough information on these forums to assist with that.

[Cloudschatze]

Umm, my wife says I sound arrogant...

Trixter, of MobyGames fame, is planning a comprehensive soundcard website/database geared toward a more technically-minded audience. Detailed change information for the LAPC is the type of thing that I hope to see there.

[Mau1wurf1977]

As the latest (youngest) member of this forum I still have a quite neutral regarding the wikipedia article.

I have read most pages of the forum over many weeks and it does seem that that wikipedia article is a bit of a touchy subject.

I can totally understand this as likely some of the forum members here wrote / modified / contributed to this article and any changes to the article might be taken a little bit personal...

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia articles. If you feel like you can add something to make it better, nobody is stopping you!

Can there be to much information in an article? Well that's of course debatable, personally though I don't see getting more information as a problem. The individual articles are very short (especially the LAPC-I page, so I would welcome any added information! Some other links don't seem to work or have been removed because of lack of references. References are very important and there aren't many in this article at all...

It is interesting that this forum is pointed at to find more information which I find surprising because it appears to me that the purpose of Queststudio is to be a legitimate resource for commercial computer gaming music. and not a reference site outlining differences between various Roland modules.

From my perspective, what this boils down to is a classic generational conflict. Those who have been around for a long time and having built and influenced most of the content, are reluctant against changes put forward by younger members... 

So Shadow Lord if you feel like adding more information to the LAPC-I article, well please go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

[NewRisingSUn]

Wikipedia articles aren't touchy, it's just that people have been adding crap to the MT-32 article in the past, such as a schematic of the MT-32 PCB in ASCII art and commentary on how beautiful the music in LSL5 is orchestrated.

The relevant objection is that Wikipedia is no place for original research. While the MT-32 article does compile information in a way that hasn't been done before, all non-trivial information in it is properly sourced using the various editions of the service notes. "it seems there maybe a revision 0.5 board as well" does not meet that criterion.

[Mau1wurf1977]

Totally agree with you that information has to be sourced and referenced and personal opinions have no place on wikipedia.

I am playing devils advocate here because that isn't what I am seeing. The article has a ton of information but at the bottom there are only 2 references pointing at documents from 1988.

There are external links at the bottom but they take you to other forums and sites and it don't really tell you where what peace of information was obtained.

One usually expects references to books, newspaper articles, press releases, technical specifications, data sheets and so on...

Now don't get me wrong, I think the article is great. But there are hardly any references, which is the same argument being used against "it seems there maybe a revision 0.5 board as well"...

[Shadow Lord]

So Shadow Lord if you feel like adding more information to the LAPC-I article, well please go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

Mau1wurf1977,

I guess my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking permission about adding stuff to wiki. I was asking if people agreed there seems to be at least THREE different revisions, designs, PCBs, whatever for the entity known as the LAPC-I. To me there seems to be three but others may know of even more although up to this point I have always only read about two.

As for the wiki, wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia (defined by Webster as: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge") so it is utterly ridiculous to argue a particular part of the knowledge can not be included in there (Cloudschatze please tell your wife you are not the only one who is making arrogant sounding posts ) for whatever reason. If the knowledge is accurate and on topic then it can be included in that topic. Previously in printed encyclopedias one was limited by time, space and cost and had to remain consice but the beauty of Wikipedia is that it can be limitless on any given subject! For example, a schematic in jpg would have been much better but if the ASCII is accurate and easy to print then what is the problem? As for sourcing it, please most of wiki is not sourced, or needs citation or is sourced via other wiki articles. What I wanted to add is very well sourced in that I have three cards, all three are different in design (in minor ways) and I can put a detailed picture of each up.

Now I agree regarding the "personal opinions" thing being presented as fact. However, if it is clearly defined that for example we use the term "revision" just to indicate different designs and that Roland has never officially named the cards a different revision that is accurate and limits the argument to a semantic discussion.

Ideally, what I would like and which maybe different from Cloudschatze's vision is that someone who has never heard of an MT-32 or LAPC-I can get on wiki and gain 90-99% of the knowledge contained in these forums from that article. If they want to know more, or understand more then join us here and discuss. But you shouldn't be FORCED to read every forum to pickup something minor but important (e.g. you can, well could , order an upgrade ROM for the LAPC-I).

My two cents....

[Mau1wurf1977]

You have 3 LAPC-I cards with pictures? Well what are you waiting for! 

As to the different version. Well do they sound different? Or are the differences of "cost cutting" nature like combining logic into more complex devices?

The MT32 and compatible versions all have distinct differences which one can hear, so if something similar exists with the LAPC-I well bring it on!

EDIT: Added a reference to the user manual and used it for the "LAPC-1 / LAPC-I" line.

[Shadow Lord]

To be honest not to my tone deaf ears! I linked a thread earlier and in that there was some talk about how the shielded opamps were less noisy and a bug fix in the 1.02 ROM. Take it for what you will as I can not source it any better then that!

[Mau1wurf1977]

Hmm if that is the case, what about just mentioning that some cards have jumpers, some are plug and play and some have shielded components?

You can reference your recordings, state that although there where differences between cards those differences didn't affect how they sound. Add your images as well and I don't see why anyone would complain 

[Shadow Lord]

Hmm if that is the case, what about just mentioning that some cards have jumpers, some are plug and play and some have shielded components?

You can reference your recordings, state that although there where differences between cards those differences didn't affect how they sound. Add your images as well and I don't see why anyone would complain 

Which is exactly what I had in mind. Something along the lines of "There are at least three known designs of the LAPC-I board. Although essentially the same each has minor differences:

Design 1:
Design 2:
Design 3:
"

etc. and add links to photos... I am happy to do it but as I said it will be a bit before I get to it... As Cloudschatze  will attest it took me a good few weeks to do a simple MIDI test! 

[Mau1wurf1977]

Well you got me cheering for you 

[NewRisingSUn]

The article has a ton of information but at the bottom there are only 2 references pointing at documents from 1988. (...) One usually expects references to books, newspaper articles, press releases, technical specifications, data sheets and so on...

The two documents at the bottom, being Roland Service Notes, are actually the source all of the technical information. Hence, it is properly sourced.

In addition to that, one could cite the MT-32 manual for the more basic information. The only parts which are not properly sourced are "Music for PC games" and "Emulation". The former might be filled to some extent with references to PC magazines of the day, but it's going to be difficult to find sources for information on emulation. This however is a problem with many topics related in some way to popular culture, as one wouldn't even expect to find many authoritative sources for that, hence Wikipedia's tolerance for that.

"it seems there maybe a revision 0.5 board as well" however is different than that, because 1) it doesn't even contain a definite statement, just a "maybe", and that's not good enough for any publication; 2) it relates to a technical matter on which one would expect to find an authoritative source.

[Shadow Lord]

"it seems there maybe a revision 0.5 board as well" however is different than that, because 1) it doesn't even contain a definite statement, just a "maybe", and that's not good enough for any publication; 2) it relates to a technical matter on which one would expect to find an authoritative source.

Of course not, but you are not seriously arguing that you thought I was saying lets just call it rev 0.5 as opposed to me using the term rev 0.5 in an illustrative manner to indicate that it seems to be an incremental change between the other two well known HW designs (i.e. it has some components of the later boards but not all of them).  All I said was lets add that there are three known HW designs if people actually agree that there are three known HW designs.

[NewRisingSUn]

What I am saying is that this is the kind of information that needs to be verified with Service Notes or a Service Bulletin, if anything to get the terminology right.

Look for the "ASSY number" on the three boards, and see if they differ between the purported revisions.

[Shadow Lord]

What I am saying is that this is the kind of information that needs to be verified with Service Notes or a Service Bulletin, if anything to get the terminology right.

Look for the "ASSY number" on the three boards, and see if they differ between the purported revisions.

I'll have to double check but I am almost postitive they DO NOT differ. However, this does not change the fact that they are build differently from each other.