Yamaha MU500: some impressions

[shad0wfax]

Some weeks ago I received a Yamaha MU500 sound module that I purchased on Yahoo Japan, for only 7,200 yen plus shipping. As you probably know, the MU500 is some kind of a “budget version” of the top line of MU series (MU1000 and MU2000), the most powerful XG synthesizers to date. It has the same soundmap and drum kits as the MU1000/2000, although it has some important differences when compared to those models, such as the following ones:

-   64 voice polyphony instead of 128 voices (but it has also 64 midi channels, just like the higher models)
-   Less powerful effects section: reverb (18 types), chorus (20 types), variation (70 types), 2x insertion (43 types), global EQ and channel EQ instead of reverb (18 types), chorus (20 types), variation (97 types), 4x insertion (97 types), global EQ and channel EQ.
-   No LCD screen and no front panel buttons (only some leds and a volume and on/off switch/potentiometer)
-   No PLG expansion slots
-   No A/D inputs (only stereo analog input mixer; the incoming signal cannot be processed and it’s not output through the digital out)
-   No sampling and no sample reproduction (MU2000)
-   No “EX” version, so it’s not formally compatible with the GS standard (it has only the typical “TG300B mode”).

Other than that, it’s very similar to the MU1000/2000 and it sounds the same (the possible differences depend only on the different effects section).

After playing with it for a while, I think it’s a good synth, especially if you can find it for a low price. In my opinion is a very interesting choice if you look for a module that can be useful both for gaming and playing midi files, on the one hand (it’s GM, GM2, XG and GS –to some extent- compatible), and for creating music, on the other. Perhaps it’s the best option for the price. By contrast, if you’re looking for a module just for games, then you don’t need all the extra sounds and features; and if you want something only for creating original music, there could be better options for a similar price (like a Roland JV-1010, 1080 or 2080, for instance). But all things considered, the MU500 is a well balanced option, as it’s compact, it sounds pretty good, it’s compatible with the most important midi standards and it has lots of sounds.

One of my aims here is comparing the MU500 with the Roland SD-50 in different aspects (as you know, I did a review of the SD-50 some months ago). One of these aspects is how well they perform when playing midi files. At this point, I find that the MU500 sounds much better when playing GM/GM2 and, of course, XG midi files, than the SD-50. The GM/GM2 section of the SD-50 is quite poor and midi files tend to sound muddy and unpleasant. There’s a clear difference in quality between the GM soundbank and the native mode in the SD-50, and IMHO this Roland is not a good choice for playing standard midi files. Of course, if we’re talking about GS, the SD-50 has a GS mode which sound much closer to the “real thing” (SC-55 sound canvas) than the TG300B mode of the Yamaha, but this GS mode can be only accessed via sysex and by default all GM files are played in GM2 mode instead of the GS mode, making them (in my opinion) sound worse.

Here you can compare the same piece (GS) as performed by the SD-50 and the MU500 in TG300B mode:

GS midi Roland SD-50 (GS mode): http://shadowfax.ismael.cat/sd50/Castlevania_SD50.mp3
GS midi Yamaha MU500 (TG300B mode): http://shadowfax.ismael.cat/MU500/Castlevania_X68K_MU500.mp3

In “standard” (XG) mode, the MU500 has over 1,300 instrument presets and 58 drum kits, which include the sound kits of the previous models, making it “backwards compatible” with every XG midi file. To my ears, the sound quality of the instruments is quite good, although there are hardly “excellent” or “outstanding” sounds in it. As in the Roland SD-50 and the rest of the MU series, the sounds are not fully editable (from the waveform level), as it’s more conceived as a library of presets rather than a “real” synthesizer.

Compared with the SD-50, the Roland has some better sounds (such as those which are taken from the Fantom and the SonicCell, and remarkably the “solo tones”), but the quality it’s much more uneven, as you can find both very good sounds together with poor ones. The Yamaha is much more balanced in this point, and in general terms, it sounds better in ensembles rather than when playing individual sounds. On the other hand, the Roland has the added problem of a very limited effects section, as opposed to the Yamaha, much more powerful and flexible in this point.

Anyway, in both cases (MU500 and SD-50), there is an evident difference in sound quality when compared to more professional synthesizers such as the Roland XV and Fantom series, or the Yamaha Motif series; these ones sound better, besides being totally editable, although they are not very adequate for playing midi files, as the GM mode in the Rolands is very poor and the Motif (classic, ES or XS) is neither GM2, GS nor XG compatible. Indeed, strictly speaking, the Motif doesn’t even have a specific GM mode; it just has a GM preset bank with the 128 sounds, which are of the same level of quality as the rest of the preset banks.

For comparison purposes, I’ve recorded a song called “Chill Out”, both with the MU500 and the SD-50. The basis is a XG demo file from Yamaha, but I’ve adapted it to make use of specific instrument presets, drum kits and effects of the MU500, and sounds of the SD-50’s native mode in the case of the Roland:

Chill Out MU500: http://shadowfax.ismael.cat/MU500/Chillout_MU500.mp3
Chill Out SD-50: http://shadowfax.ismael.cat/sd50/ChillOut_SD50.mp3

Also, I made an adaptation of the “Dale Carsonian” theme from Leisure Suit Larry 3:

Dale Carsonian MU500: http://shadowfax.ismael.cat/MU500/lsl3(25)MU500.mp3

For comparison, here you’ve got the link to the same theme in my latest verision of this soundtrack, in which I used a Fantom XR, a Motif Rack XS and a Roland RD-700GX: http://shadowfax.ismael.cat/lsl3_v3/lsl3_v3(25).mp3

There’s not a SD-50 version due to its limitations in the effects section (there’s no overdrive, distortion or guitar amp simulator effect).

As I said before, IMHO the MU500 is a very interesting choice for the price (I would recommend it if you can get it for up to $200), and possibly the best option in this range for a synth which is pretty good both for games and midi files and for making music. It’s fully compatible with GM, GM2, XG standard and it’s reasonably good also for playing GS midi files, and it sounds good enough for using it in music production. If compatibility with midi standards is not important, I’d choose something like a JV-1010 or 1080 for about the same price. And if you can invest more money, I’d go for a Motif Rack “classic”, which now can be purchased for about $400. If you don’t mind about compatibility, it’s a more interesting choice, as it sounds clearly better.

[menkau_ra]

Thanks for the review!
I was going to buy one too. Do you know how big is the difference between MU50 and MU500? If you can, make some samples from games like Warcraft2, Descent2, Doom and Duke3D, please.

[shad0wfax]

The differences are, indeed, quite big. Put it simple, while the MU50 would be at the lowest level of XG synths (such as hte MU10, MU15, DB50XG and others), the MU500 would be at the highest level of XG modules.

The MU50 is 32-voice polyphonic, 16 midi channels, it has around 700 different sounds, and a much more limited effects section (reverb, chorus and variation), while the MU500 has 64 voices, 64 midi channels, nearly 1,400 patcehs (including the soundmaps of the MU50, 80, 90, 100 and 128) and a much more powerful effects section.

That said, if the intention is using it just for games and for playing midi files, a MU50 is enough, and getting a MU500 would be a bit pointless, as nearly all midi files are GM, GS or XG at the basic level, so they don't make use of the extra sounds and effects, and they sound the same in a MU50 or in a MU500. The MU500 makes more sense if you want just one synth both to make music while keeping compatibility with the most important midi standards.

EDIT: In fact, I noticed that the MU500 uses by default the MU100 GM soundmap, which replaces some of the MU50/80/90 GM sounds with others that, in principle, sound better. So the MU500 would sound like a MU100 in games and when playing midi files. There are, also, a couple of benefits to consider: the digital audio output and the USB connection (no need to use a midi interface).

[Stefan_L]

If you can, make some samples from games like Warcraft2, Descent2, Doom and Duke3D, please.

I have a couple of Warcraft 2 recordings from MU1000 i think thay would sound the same as played on MU500.
Played in "Mu1000 native mode" and EQ set to "concert":
http://www.files.ym2149.com/warcraft2_mu1000.zip

[theMidiTamer]

Great review, this module always made me very curious.

EDIT: In fact, I noticed that the MU500 uses by default the MU100 GM soundmap, which replaces some of the MU50/80/90 GM sounds with others that, in principle, sound better. So the MU500 would sound like a MU100 in games and when playing midi files. There are, also, a couple of benefits to consider: the digital audio output and the USB connection (no need to use a midi interface).

I would like to hear some example of the "new" GM soundmap in a comparison with an old one. I still own a MU100r myself and would consider the MU500 for buying if there are noticeable differences in sound quality. For example, in the demo samples on the Yamaha Japan website I heard a mix of both old samples and some new (french horn, drum kits) that sounded very cool.

[Alistair]

As someone who owned the MU100R and sold it, and bought a MU2000, I'd say there is one major difference- digital output. If you're using the MU2000 with the optical output it sounds light years ahead. With analog RCA hookups the 2 modules sound about the same, so no major improvement there. But with the digital hookup a lot of the problems associated with what I perceived as the "Yamaha sound" were gone- the dullness, flatness of a lot of the tones, excess reverb- sounds much better over digital.

So that for me is the major boost. The other thing would be expansion cards. But the digital out is #1.

Of course, having some extra patches never hurts either..

- Alistair

[theMidiTamer]

That's a good point. I bought MU100r mainly because I would like to have a 19" rack version of my SW1000XG card, just like my other synths.

But after listening to the demos of the new soundset (both MU1000/2000 and MU500) on the Yamaha site, I really would like to give it a try.

BTW Alistair, did you ever try to load a DLS file on your MU2000? Is that really possible? I remember to have read something about it somewhere.

[Alistair]

Yeah, I was just reading the old posts on the forum after you mentioned it. might have to email Cloudschatze because I don't know how to send a DLS bank to the MU module- all the manuals and help online are in Japanese.

Actually, I found it:

I only have 128MB cards, and seem to recall using one without issue (to load a DLS bank).

Looks like I'd have to own a Smart Media card, or an XD adapter and an XD card. I can't afford either at the moment so I will have to get back to you down the line.


What I'm really curious about is the plugin boards. Some of those look quite tasty. Again, money is the issue, most of them cost over a hundred bucks.

Would I recommend the module? I think it has a lot of good sounds, and it complements the Roland synths I have well, but was it worth the 300+ US bucks I paid? Probably not, (I think the Roland SC-8820/50 has more realistic overall patches) but I would it own it anyway to have the Yamaha XG sounds I do use (some drumkits, french horns, clarinets, mainly strings, guitars, synths and pianos though) in digital. It just sounds better. The same goes for the SC-8820 versus the 8850, although it's more complicated on that comparison. But that's another tale.

- Alistair

[3650guy]

great impressions from shadowfax. for me the best of both worlds are my sc88pro st and my mu 500.  no single module can do both gm, xg and gs in one model. yes it can be done with judicious tweaking . however with these "no display at all models"  you are flying blind in terms of navigating the module. and you are dependent on software. with Roland modules there is great support with the GSAE editor and instrument definitions and also sound canvas panels for cakewalk sequencers. and thank god sysex implementation is quite common across all models. as for the mu 500 I get my patches by using a mu 100 instrument definition file to audition patches. and yes the digital output on the mu 500 is an excellent bonus.