Sound Card/Module Comparison Page

[HondaSiR]

I gave the page a listen a while back. My observation is: Most of the upper end Roland devices like the Fantom XR, 8850, 8820, 88PRO do not give a good rendition of the sample MIDI file in default mode. But these modules (except the Fantom) do the sample file justice when playing it in SC-55 mode. The warmness, brightness and ambience is there. Can I conclude then that the sample file was written specifically for an SC-55? If so, then I feel it is unfair for the upper end modules because it makes their default mode sound cheap. This is specially true for the ultra expensive Fantom XR (there is no SC-55 rendition yet but it sucked when playing the sample file).

Would it be possible to set up a separate comparison page wherein the upper class modules can really strut their stuff with a sample file written specifically for them? I agree this can be a big task, each module has to have a special sysex...but for fairness sake, perhaps we can consider it in the future? When Tom is not busy and the new server is running flawlessly already?

[Alistair]

I totally agree with Honda, I was thinking this myself back when I was making my MP3. It actually sounds good with the MU100R, although I need to reedit that wave file and resend Tom the MP3.

It should be balanced for al the devices individually, AS WELL AS the 'General MIDI' defaults of all the modules. Otherwise, I feel the page is redundant. Who cares about General MIDI, honestly? I loathe it. Sierra's composers hated it back in '92! As Honda suggests, we need the comparison page to engulf all the new formats, such as GS, ED, XG.. and the legions of others. I think that'd be awesome, and not too hard a project, although not EASY at the same time.

- Alistair

[moturimi1]

I agree with HondaSiR!!!

The comparison2005 midi file doesn't show the advantages of some midi devices in GM mode. The file is composed for the SC-55 so that the file sounds nearly as good as the original file composed for the MT-32.

I have to say the last comparison file from the LSL3 soundtrack was much better. I also think we have to search for a new GM midi file that really can show how the device acts in GM mode. e.g. the SD-90 sounds good with many other GM files, but really bad with the comparison midi file. I think it's the same with the Fantom.

e.g. when playing saxes or some brass sections the SD-90 is far better than any other Sound Canvas.
Hear this file and compare http://service.gmx.net/mc/BTUb12HhuhL6IXnTVLrMXLnBMirTu0

I think an additional midi file should contain different parts. Each part should contain different instrument sections. e.g. piano and organ part, guitar and bassa, string/orchestra, reed and brass and a synth pad ect. part. So everyone can judge how a device acts when playing GM files.

[Alistair]

That's almost a bit much.. rather than one file with so many instruments it overloads the older modules; I think if you were heading down that path it'd be better to have 5 or 6 MIDI files that each device was compared with. A rock one, a jazz one, a synth pop one, an ethnic one, an orchestral one, and a new age-y one, for example. This current comparison, with Iceman disco music and Laura Bow I semi-boring background victrola fare, is not brilliant (in my opinion) for comparing modules, as Motimuri suggested, and should be converted for at least the other major Roland formats (GS/ED) and Yamaha XG, if not all platforms, assuming the owners of modules like the 'Fantom' know how to balance the files.. anyway, enough said today.

- Alistair

[Tom]

The point of the Comparison Page on THIS site is to demonstrate how GM-converted Sierra music sounds on various MIDI devices; not to demonstrate the capabilities of the MIDI devices for composing or other such purposes.  That's beyond the scope of this comparison; the comparisons are only for getting a rough idea of how the MT-32 converted Sierra song files found at Quest Studios will sound on non-MT-32 devices -- that's it....nothing else.

The song(s) used are chosen because they have to first be converted from MT-32 format.  Those not owning a Sound Canvas SC-55 can hear how the converted song is supposed to sound, then compare it with various other MIDI devices.  That's it in a nutshell.

[moturimi1]

I got it now TOM. But why not having some aother comparison files for GM.
Cause there are many files in this format on this site and all around the net.
Wouldn't it be also nice to see how the devices act in GM?
(I know GM isn't the ulimative format and most devices don't act that good in GM mode.)
I don't think that the GS/XG format is that important and most newer devices can't emulate this format.(e.g. Fantom) But I think that one file for each format would be enough.

[HondaSiR]

I understand Tom's point, this site is primarily a Sierra/MT-32/GM locale. Although a separate comparison chart would be interesting, it would require a huge effort and manpower.

Out of curiosity, just what is the format of a Fantom XR? What makes it so expensive and different from an 8850? I'm very interested in the difference since I haven't heard from its true native mode. My disappointment when I heard it in the comparison page is an understatement in the least.

[Tom]

I'd like to hear one of the XR's OWN demo songs; one that really shows it off.

[HondaSiR]

Ditto for me too. Shadowfax, are you up for the task? Can you record a demo song on your XR preferably in MP3 format? I'm having some trouble playing OGG files as of now, so if you feel up to it, it will be appreciated.  

[shad0wfax]

Hi everyone,

Hey, there's an interesting discussion here...

I think that Tom has put things clear when he states that the only aim of the comparison is how a GM conversion of a MT-32 track would sound in non-MT32 modules/cards. A comparison between 'real' midi instrument capabilities is far beyond the scope of Compare 2005.

Regarding the Fantom version of the file, it's true that is sounds a bit poor, but comments on it are also a bit unfair on my opinion, because you have to consider the following:
a) GM2 section of Fantom is far beyond, in terms of sound quality and effects, to native fantom section. The difference is very noticeable even in patches with the same name (e.g. GM2 nylon guitar and native nylon guitars). GM is there for mere compatibility reasons.
b) Actually, I don't think that the comparison file sounds so bad in the Fantom. The most noticeably difference between Fantom's and SC's versions is the reverb level (high in SC's, low on Fantom). But if you listen carefully to the sound quality of the samples ("dry" sounds, not mascarated by reverb), I think in general terms the Fantom version sounds at least a bit better. Try to listen again the files through a good pair of HiFi headphones.

In order to get a closer idea of how a Fantom X sounds, you can take a look at http://www.roland.com/products/en/Fantom-XR/demos.html , when you can listen the actual module demos. Most of them are perhaps a bit too techno-oriented for my tastes, but you can get a good picture of the overall sound. Keep in mind that the Fantom is also a sampler, and the first demo makes use of them (vocals).

[HondaSiR]

Thanks for the XR link Shadowfax, its specs really are amazing. The demo songs won't work for me though, I'll try to download some really huge software players later, my ISP is really slow.

Perhaps you can update the default MIDI settings on the XR in the comparison page. Add some reverb so it may sound better. The SC-55 version has it, I see no reason why the default shouldn't.

[moturimi1]

@ shad0wfax

I can't await your new compositions. I really like the song you created with the XV2020. I hope you post the links to your new songs also on this forum.

@ Alistair and all interested in additional comparison

I would like to have a comparison chart for GM/GS compatible devices too. I will also recor files with the devices I have. But I don't have room to post the files, only on my gmx web space. Maybe you have valuable suggestions on how to get things started. Do you know of some files you want to use.

[Alistair]

Well, as I said, not just one MIDI file. It doesn't test enough. Various MIDI's representing different genres would be the go. I can come up with a list of Sierra-related ones if you want me to.

- Alistair

[moturimi1]

Just tell me when you have found some mids. Doesn't need to be sierra related mid files.

[shad0wfax]

Hi everyone,

The idea of having some midi files to compare "real" instrument capabilities is very interesting. But perhaps we should think a bit more before putting there some files... let me explain.

If we have some midi files to try to compare different sound modules/cards, this midis would have to follow some kind of standard, so all modules could be able to play them in a simmilar way and we all could notice the differences in sound quality. But there's a big problem there, because the ONLY standard shared by all those gear is GM... (and this if we exclude the MT-32). Not XG, not GS (not even all Roland modules are GS compatible, especially newest gear such as SD and Fantom), and not GM2. On the other hand, even if we had a shared standard, this standard wouldn't do justice to the real capabilities of higher-end modules (SC-88Pro and up), so this wouldn't show their quality and serve as a good reference. So I think we should look for other alternatives.

One of these possible alternatives I've been thinking about is the following: Instead of putting midi song files, we could have single-patch midi files, for instance, one midi of acoustic piano, one of nylon guitar, one of strings, one of drum sequence... Then, everyone could record this sequences using the BEST patch (or the one he/she likes most) of his/her module. Then, for instance, if I want to show how a piano sounds in a Fantom XR, I could select the best acoustic piano of the module, and not 'piano 1' of GM2 section, and everyone could do the same regarding his/her own gear.

Let me know what do you think about this or which other alternatives we all could use.

[moturimi1]

Yes why not. I also think that only GS or XG midi files aren't good for a comparison. The problem will be that we all have to record many files. So I think we have to reduce the files to only a few midis !! And where can we upload those files and does everybody have enough time to record the files.
But I still think that there also has to be one GM or GM2 file too, so you can see how the device can handle files all around the net.

[Zemus]

A more important question. Would the regular visitor be interested in this endless list of MIDI files? Why put it up if no one downloads it?

[Alistair]

I think we'd moved beyond the idea of hosting this on this site, Zemus, it's more of us regulars talking about a cool project. Is that right, Shadowfax/Motimuri?

- Alistair

[HondaSiR]

I'm a regular visitor in this site, and I'm definitely interested in the project. Most who come to visit have a keen interest in MIDI in general and in sound module capabilities both past and present hardware.

Tom and Ari and probably some others out there have used MIDI equipment that is beyond GM to "enhance" the scores. Beyond GM can be anything like GS, ED, XG, GM2 and whatever is out there as of this moment. Adding the advanced features of the newest devices will give the enhancer (Tom for example) more possibilities, more sounds that were not heard before. It can be anything like a better sounding piano to a more dynamic drum effect. (Based on the XR site, this module boasts of the cleanest, meanest most truthful rendition of a piano instrument no other synth module from any other brand can match. I'd really like to hear it compared with our own SC-55's piano)

Of course I don't mean everybody go out and buy the latest XR synth, but at least we are delving into the present MIDI atmosphere. It gives us a chance to sample and enjoy the most advanced MIDI as heard from the latest modules courtesy of the people who own them. Nothing wrong with this scenario, right?

[shad0wfax]

The midi file list wouldn't be very long, I think... perhaps about 10 files or so, mostly of 'acoustic' patches (synth/electronic patches can be very different depending on the synth and wouldn't be a good reference for making a comparison, in my opinion). The biggest problem would be finding good midi files suitable for the task (although I think I have good ones at least for acoustic piano and nylon -classic- guitar).

By the way, one of the first things I've done with the Fantom XR is making an adaptation of 'Big Rock', the tune I wrote for the XV-2020 I used to have. I'm now working on another adaptation. I hope I'll be able to upload them both to a server soon.