After playing around with/owning almost every possible option - what are your ultimate recommendations for the best general purpose soundcard/midi setup for retro DOS gaming?

hmm tempting - always wanted a midi keyboard - how much does it weigh?

cool.. well reading the thread then I'm not sure the question was answered. You seem to be theorising that SCC-1 boards marked SCC-1A have the SC-55 MK II sample set - but did you actually find out if this was so?

None of mine are marked SCC-1A anyway - so I think they must be vanilla SCC-1 cards.

hmm $7USD for each cable? ouchie.

I have 3 SCC-1 cards and am wondering how to tell if these are SCC-1B cards or not. I guess the only difference is the rom chip (I don't have the manuals for these)- but I can't find any way of  discriminating between the two versions from the markings on the board.  Anyone have an idea about this?

Also, anyone know where to get some mini din midi cables for these?

Sounds good to me - PM on the way.

oops, you are right.  Did a search for c1 and got a CX5M page that I didn't read correctly.

Was sorta hoping it was something like the atari STacy.

Saw this on ebay.. looks like a cool bit of kit.  Supposed to have similar capabilities to an FB-01 (plus a MSX computer in laptop form)?

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7393338739&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

Sorry, had a bit of a mishap with a browser crash while editing - the link works now.

And if you still want to sell the CM-64 & cloud doesn't want it - I'd be interested in buying it.

offtopic, but I don't think the GuS max had a memory expansion?

Ulitma 8 has options for GM and GS music.  System shock 1 does also (it actually lets you choose specifically SCC-1,RAP-10 or GM music).

Thanks for the quick response & correction. Not sure where I got the idea that the RAP-10 did GS from.

Just out of curiosity, is the GM from the RAP-10 equivalent (or inferior?) to that produced by the SCC-1?  i.e. if you were not playing GS games would it be an adequate substitute?

Some games support both GM and GS - I understand that the RAP-10 properly supports GS but the Roland SCC-1 (and variants) does not (please correct me if wrong).

So, my question is - for gaming purposes, is a RAP-10 superior to a SCC-1? By superior I mean sounds closest to the music author's intended sound.

Here's what I have:

(In use in gaming 486 rig)

MT32 (thanks Cloudschatze!)
DB50XG attached to SB16 ASP
SCC-1
Not really midi but Gravis Ultrasound MAX in there too for old demos

As backup:

MPU-401AT+SCD15
LAPC-I and MCB-1
AWE64 Gold (yeah I know it sucks - but there is a soundfont that sounds good with the PC version of Final Fantasy VII)

Also have a Monster Sound with dream MX200 GM wavetable board on it's way + the original Monster Sound with it's craptacular  daugherboard + the Diamond M80 Monster Sound + whose wavetable board was even worse.

One day I might get a SC-55 Mk 2, as the LCD is quite neat!  A midi controller keyboard would also be cool to play with - but I think I'm more or less done for the moment.

This is beginning to smell a bit like trolling (you continue to put words in my mouth when you reply).. anyway I'll respond.

BBC is biased?  Well not intentionally if it is. The BBC is pretty much the international model of how responsible journalism should be conducted.  Our ABC certainly takes after it, and it is regarded as only mildly left leaning.  

If anything, the "liberals" in the US would be regarded as mild to strong conservatives anywhere else in the world.  You have a choice of right or way-right in your political parties - so perhaps that's why you see the BBC as way-left.

I think Al-Jazeera is much maligned (and certainly didn't deserve to have it's offices "accidentally" bombed) - many things that were later  rebroadcasted by other stations were heard first on Al-Jazeera.  Not exactly a model of investigative journalism (and comparisons to the BBC are unkind) - but any information is better than no information.

It should matter what the world thinks of Bush, as your leaders represent you.  I'd have thought you would be proud for the US to be an example to others of what your constitution claims to represent.  

The US ignored the UN when they invaded Iraq recently, without UN sanction (Kofi Annan has stated that the UN continues to regard the war as an illegal act).  There's one for you.

Germany's war reparations in WW1 were unjust yes.  But a strong league of nations might have been able to enforce a peace (just or unjust) before the point of no return, had it any authority.  This is pretty much the whole point behind the a body such as UN - but it's going along a similar path now.

Ideally, the UN would be a quasi-world government, with elected global representatives and an independent standing army.  Sort of like a worldwide EU, but with moral responsibility and guns.  This will never happen though, as the big nations will never give up their veto powers (maybe the EU will eventually expand enough to provide an alternative?).

The UN is doing the best it can, with the resources it has, within the constraints that have been imposed upon it. If the US feels so strongly against the UN - they should withdraw from it (you can't just "protest" by not paying your dues, any more than I can protest by not paying my taxes).  

Inefficient as it is, the UN is the only option we have, and it should be supported and helped to evolve, rather than sabotaged and torn down.

I think you are mistaken with your "Islamo-facist" diatribe/approach.  Most things come down to national interests, such as obtaining resources or land, or removing a threat.  The religious aspect is a big factor - but probably not the main motivating one.  Satisfy the grumbling masses and the extremists have no power-base to use.

But it sounds like you want to go to war on fundamentalist Islam. I don't think this is a war anyone can win.

I would have thought the US would have been proud to play a leading part in removing Milosevic.  It earned them much political (and economic) capital - which they appear to have spent now.

To say control of oil has no part in this conflict is plain wrong.  Having control of Iraq is similar to having control of Panama - it's the linchpin of the world's economic prosperity.  The inital invasion of Kuwait was about oil - the US repelling them from Kuwait was about control of oil.  The current invasion was also about oil and revenge.

Afghanistan is more unstable than you know - opium poppies have experienced a popularity surge, and Harmid Karzai (sp?) is always pleading not to be forgotten.  If the goal in Afghanistan was to stop it being a terrorist training ground, then they have failed.

Iran is double daring the US to even try invading - as they know they won't/can't do it.  It would be folly to even consider it - even if they won they could not pacify such a region.  North Korea also double dares the US - as China wouldn't hear of it.

I don't think there was any way of winning in Vietnam - I'm not sure any dominos were prevented from falling or any objectives were achived, or could have been achieved the way the US was going about it.  The US was indirectly responsible for the Khmer Rouge gaining power in Cambodia if you want to bring atrocities into it..

Agree to disagree for sure anyway.  It's been an enjoyable debate. Hopefully you can lay off the rhetoric and insults in the future and I'm sure the next one will be more pleasant (for me anyway).

I didn't say Americans are stupid or arrogant - just misled.  But the American public does bear fault for letting things get to such a state.

I think you should check out other media (such as the BBC) if you want a true representation of what the world's media thinks of the Bush Administration.  There is no petty partisan politics here - just rational thought.

Let's address specifics then:

The UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq after they were found to be spying for the US (intelligence which was surely used in those "surgical strikes" - so kicking them out was justifiable in restrospect).  This was admitted to be true, and Richard Butler (head of the UN inspectors at the time) was not at all happy about this.  The US bombed Iraq because of this, which was probably a good solution as Saddam was indeed being uncooperative.  It was hardly a war trigger though.

The US has made the UN impotent by years of disregarding it's authority. What use is an international body if the most powerful ignore it at will?  The league of nations was ignored in a similar fashion - and WW2 was a consequence. Sure, during the cold war, pragmatism had to win over the establishment of a powerful international body - but there is no excuse today for undermining the UN.

The Bush Administration should be punished by the voting public, who's country has been tarnished by their actions.

Islamo-facists?  Now you are into the realms of crazy talk.  They are people just like the rest of us - some are power-hungry, others are just fed up with being stomped upon.  Don't de-humanize the enemy.

When you say "Clinton and the US stepped in" in Bosnia - I think you mean "an international coalition of UN/NATO peacekeepers".  The only reason it worked was because this was a multilateral action, supported by almost all of Europe (their peers).  

The UN does nothing in recent conflicts because they have been rendered impotent through being constantly undermined and not invested with the funds (the US constantly postpones paying moneys owed to the UN) or authority which is required for them to be effective.  It's a chicken and egg situation.

I think you'll find the tsunami aid wasn't all that properly given - quite a few anniversary newsbits have aired recently, stating how poorly the job was done.  No mention was ever made about US military aid btw (could be propaganda? we get stuff about Aus military aid over here).

Getting them on their feet? Make no mistake - this is a hostile occupation, totally unlike the Balkans.  Much like the palestinians around Israel, they'll never give up. So long as the US is around, a semblance of order might be maintained (at a cost) - and when it is gone, civil war is inevitable (Iran will see to that).  Afghanistan will probably go this way also, but as they have no resources - who cares hey?

The US lost Vietnam - you are in denial on this one.  The South Vietnamese govt was corrupt and authoritarian - it deserved to die.

McCain is a former POW, he would at least have sympathy for the vanquished if he did invade (though I don't think he would have, as there was no reason to).

Phew.

(btw RE: "hindsight is 20-20"- my POV has stayed consistent throughout this whole affair, has yours?).

The case for war was paper-thin at the time - and even weaker now in retrospect.  That a war actually happened, was primarily the fault of an unskeptical and pandering media, but secondarily the fault of a gullible and easily manipulated public.

The Bush Administration who pursued this course of action also deserves to be punished.  

This being as it is, the way out isn't to "stop the war".  Even though this really is an unwinnable "war" (as there are no ultimate objectives or real enemies to defeat) - there are acceptable outcomes.

The US must humble itself before the UN and beg for a truly international occupation.  All other roads lead to Afghanistan (in the 80s vs the Russians) or Vietnam.  

BTW: it's a shame that John McCain wasn't chosen as the republican candidate way back when, as he would have been a perfect man for the times (IMO).