|
|
|
|
Great Hierophant
Senior Member
 Offline
Posts: 1,003
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2011, 03:32:27 AM » |
|
Is this a straight recording or did you do any post-processing? Also, although no one has demonstrated that LSL1 takes advantage of the bugs in the rev 0 MT-32 units, a true canonical recording would be from one of those units. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
endre1952
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 397
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2011, 05:28:19 AM » |
|
It's a straight recording. I do own a rev 0 MT-32.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2011, 02:03:07 AM » |
|
With respect, as GH, you're a very smart person, I don't think the phrase "canonical recording" really means very much. Personally, I care about two things:
- sound quality
- minimal loss of polyphony
Rev 1 all the way, baby. I don't think the average listener cares about the vibrato differences, they want it to sound good.
(If you do care, of course, you can buy a rev 0 MT-32.)
Now I agree about post-processing and how people can definitely muddy up a good MT-32 WAV recording, I've done it myself as a teenager back in the mid-2000's, and I'll never do it again. But sound quality is the name of the game. If you care about fidelity and quality, lossless should go hand in hand with better output like the rev 1.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 02:03:57 AM by Alistair »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
endre1952
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 397
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2011, 03:04:16 PM » |
|
Don't only the "3rd gen." units have a faster vibrato? I might record some stuff from a CM-32LN running on batteries, the CM-500 is quite noisy....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Great Hierophant
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 1,003
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2011, 03:13:44 PM » |
|
With respect, as GH, you're a very smart person, I don't think the phrase "canonical recording" really means very much. Personally, I care about two things:
- sound quality
- minimal loss of polyphony
Rev 1 all the way, baby. I don't think the average listener cares about the vibrato differences, they want it to sound good.
(If you do care, of course, you can buy a rev 0 MT-32.)
I was not referring to the vibrato differences of the CM-500 and CM-32LN (endre1952 got that right), I was referring to "exploits software bugs of MT-32 (Old) modules' firmware; will on some occasions sound wrong on later-generation modules." When 6 other Sierra SCI games have been demonstrated to fit in this category, it only makes sense to consider whether other games may also fall within this category. Sierra was known to use rev.0 MT-32s for all its in-house MT-32 sound tracks (which encompasses every SCI game except LSL5.) I stand by my original statement. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jharris01
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 453
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2011, 10:02:34 PM » |
|
The archive sounds fine to me. Just like my MT-32 (rev 0). Good job endre!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 10:03:47 PM by jharris01 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhizome
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2012, 06:58:07 AM » |
|
I guess I should chip in. Recently got given a TerraTec DMX 6Fire USB sound card, so I've been slowly updating all my recordings. Ones done so far, recorded from the Ocean MIDI editor (MEDIT) & CM-32L: InfernoJurassic ParkOne Step BeyondUtopia |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
endre1952
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 397
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2012, 01:45:44 PM » |
|
Thanks.
That looks like a cool sound card! Do you happen to know if it can make "bit-perfect" recordings from an optical or coaxial digital source?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rhizome
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2012, 11:23:09 AM » |
|
Thanks.
That looks like a cool sound card! Do you happen to know if it can make "bit-perfect" recordings from an optical or coaxial digital source?
I'm unsure. I haven't tested the optical/coaxial digital-in yet - I need to get a new cable to try the AWE32's S/PDIF out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
endre1952
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 397
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2012, 05:30:18 PM » |
|
Any FLAC recording requests? Frankly, I do prefer the cleaner output of the CM-32L, but am still willing to use my first gen. MT-32...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jharris01
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 453
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2012, 05:21:54 AM » |
|
My vote goes to Leisure Suit Larry 6 or Conquests of Camelot. Maybe Dark Forces? ;-)
Endre: use whatever equipment you like. I am sure it will sound great no matter which one you use.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jharris01
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 453
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2012, 09:27:36 PM » |
|
Thanks Endre. I am still trying to download.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2012, 03:20:15 AM » |
|
Frankly, I do prefer the cleaner output of the CM-32L I agreed with this statement until this week, when I compared some games' music with the 2 modules. I thought I was enjoying the CM better, but the sound is just so wrong on some pieces- listen to Willy Beamish's intro music for example, and the trumpets in the SQ4 intro as another example. The CM can be really flat in places, especially on brass and synth notes. The output sounds slightly slightly better, but I think it's a negative tradeoff for the sound being changed for the worse. Only a couple of Sierra games had bits composed on a CM, to my knowledge, most used a first gen and sound more true with one. But I like hearing the CM recordings as a comparison anyway, so I don't mind you recording with it  On Sound Canvases, I think only QFG4 'needs' a SC-55 mk II to sound correct, maybe bits of SQ5 too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
endre1952
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 397
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2012, 10:58:50 AM » |
|
I have some problems with the MT-32:
- the slight hum audible when making digital recordings
- an awful lot of games were composed for the LAPC-I (or similar)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
