Difference between CM-500 revisions?

[Galahad]

Hello,

Does anyone know if there is any difference in sound output/quality between the first and second revisions of the CM-500?  The reason I ask is because after I acquired one newer-version CM-500 in addition to the 2 older rev CM-500s I already had, in comparing all 3, it seemed like the newer edition had *slightly* better sound output.  (The newer CM-500 sounded just a tiny bit more sharp/crisp/clear, whereas both older versions sounded identical AFAIK.)

Thanks,

galahad

[BlueMax]

Holy smokes....  what'cha gonna' do with THREE CM-500s?    Give one to BlueMax?  I hear he could use one now that he's sold his CM-64....   

[Galahad]

Right now I have two CM-500s in use on 2 separate PCs at different locations, and the 3rd one is sitting on the shelf as a spare in case either of the other 2 wears out.  Although I haven't considered selling any at the present time -- even if I were to in the future --, since all except the most recent CM-500 are not in the greatest shape cosmetically (moderate casing scratches/discoloration), I don't think it would generate much interest since 2/3 are not in collector's grade condition.

Holy smokes....  what'cha gonna' do with THREE CM-500s?    Give one to BlueMax?  I hear he could use one now that he's sold his CM-64....   

[Cloudschatze]

Does anyone know if there is any difference in sound output/quality between the first and second revisions of the CM-500?

The only documented difference between the two is that the former (sans GM logo) interprets a GM System On as as a GS Reset.

Better hold onto that third spare, since it sounds like the other two might be wearing out already!

[Galahad]

This is an interesting point, and something I've been wondering about for a while, after noticing various references online where some users mentioned their Roland equipment has died or is no longer working.  Does anyone know what sort of reasonable life expectancy we can expect for Roland synths like the MT-32, SC-55 and derivatives, etc.?  (Especially since a lot of the equipment in question goes back to 1992 or earlier.)

Better hold onto that third spare, since it sounds like the other two might be wearing out already!

[Cloudschatze]

This is an interesting point, and something I've been wondering about for a while, after noticing various references online where some users mentioned their Roland equipment has died or is no longer working.  Does anyone know what sort of reasonable life expectancy we can expect for Roland synths like the MT-32, SC-55 and derivatives, etc.?  (Especially since a lot of the equipment in question goes back to 1992 or earlier.)

Eh, I meant that in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way...

Still, you bring up a question that I've wondered about as well. Considering that I've not seen or heard of many dead MT-32s, I expect that the majority of them will function nigh indefinitely. In any event, most of the parts that might go bad can be replaced without too much trouble. Having socketed EPROMS is a plus, since it allows one to dump the contents and burn a new chip (or have Roland do it). The service documentation is also fairly decent, in case you ever need to do your own repairs.

[Tom]

The MT-32's sure are workhorses, aren't they!  Our two units have been powered on for days at a time on numerous ocassions over the past 18 years.  They're used a lot; if I'm not working on my own music, I'm working with game music.  I'm guessing they'll easily outlive me. 

[HondaSiR]

You're not that old Tom, believe me. You will easily outlive (and I hope all of us here) most hardware things out there, including the venerable MT-32. 

[NewRisingSUn]

it seemed like the newer edition had *slightly* better sound output.  (The newer CM-500 sounded just a tiny bit more sharp/crisp/clear, whereas both older versions sounded identical AFAIK.)

Is the better sound limited to the GS or LA part? Because the GS part's output depends on how well the trimpot is adjusted --- it's the little orange screw next to the PCM61P DAC. I improved my CM-500's sound quality quite a bit by adjusting it with a small screwdriver.

[Cloudschatze]

it seemed like the newer edition had *slightly* better sound output.  (The newer CM-500 sounded just a tiny bit more sharp/crisp/clear, whereas both older versions sounded identical AFAIK.)

Is the better sound limited to the GS or LA part? Because the GS part's output depends on how well the trimpot is adjusted --- it's the little orange screw next to the PCM61P DAC. I improved my CM-500's sound quality quite a bit by adjusting it with a small screwdriver.

Hmm. Did you use some sort of spectrum analyzer, or simply adjust it by ear?

[Galahad]

Thanks for the neat technical tip NewRisingSUn!  For me, it was the GS part that seemed to give the better sound output.  Couldn't detect that much of a substantial difference from the LA part between the 3 CM-500s.  (Although I did spend significantly more time experimenting with the GS part.)

Is the better sound limited to the GS or LA part? Because the GS part's output depends on how well the trimpot is adjusted --- it's the little orange screw next to the PCM61P DAC. I improved my CM-500's sound quality quite a bit by adjusting it with a small screwdriver.

[NewRisingSUn]

Hmm. Did you use some sort of spectrum analyzer, or simply adjust it by ear?

By ear (and turning up the treble control on the amplifier). I find its range way too broad --- the maximum and minimum positions are so off, there's so much fuzz you almost can't hear the signal.
The range where it produces proper sound is about 45 degrees or so of the screw's radius, making "perfect" adjustment very difficult --- don't know about you, but I can't spin my screwdriver in micro-degree steps