LGR - Roland MT-32: Retro PC MIDI Music Revisited
video description
Date: 2022-04-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Adam
I own a Roland D-20 synthesizer, the little brother to the D-50 pictured near the beginning of your video. My parents actually bought it new back in 1980-whatever for my oldest brother, who used it to jam out with some friends for a number of years before I took it over out of curiosity. I've owned it for over a decade now.
One thing to note about the D-series synthesizers, they have one of the worst programming interfaces ever invented, using a two-row screen that was only about a dozen characters wide and a few buttons designed to scroll through endless menus of patch parameters. It's a nightmare to use, and even with the manual it can be frustratingly difficult to create patches. My Ensoniq ESQ-1 (which was designed by the guy who created the C64 SID chip, and can be seen as the spiritual successor of that chip) in comparison is a breeze to use.
But in spite of its near-useless interface, the D-20 (and other D-series synths) is actually worth investigating. The synthesizer is rather unique even among its peers of the time, as it used a combination of PCM samples and synthesis to create sounds. So for instance, your -piano- patch sound is actually a PCM sample with a synth tone decay; that is, the PCM sample makes up the first part of the note while the synth engine, Roland's LA Synthesis, makes up the rest of the note. It's sort of a combination of sampler and synth.
Now, the PCM samples mostly sound like garbage, at least to my ears. The bit rate and sample rate are fairly low, and in a bad way (they lack the charm of other lower bit-rate samples of machines of that era. But the gem here is the LA Synthesis. Standing for Linear Arithmetic, Roland's LA Synthesis was a competitor to things like Yamaha's FM synthesis. This was around the time when digital waveform synthesis was a relatively new thing and synth makers were coming up with their own versions of it. Yamaha really set the bar with their outstanding FM synthesizers which still remain a gold standard to some degree today, but Roland's LA Synthesis is an often overlooked implementation (probably because of that terrible user interface. It lacks some punch, but somehow manages to create sonic layers that just sound a bit different, this synth really stands out (to my ears) when it's programmed properly.
And speaking of which, Steinberg (the makers of Cubase) actually made a programmer for this for the Atari ST. So if you have a MIDI-capable audio interface, you can load up a copy of the ST emulator Stella and use the Steinberg programming software to actually program the patches. It is a beautiful piece of software and completely unlocks the capability of the D-series synthesizer, anyone who owns one needs to try it. I can't describe the joy I felt when I first found and used this program. It completely changed my opinion of the synthesizer and cemented it in my collection as one that I will never sell.
reply
I own a Roland D-20 synthesizer, the little brother to the D-50 pictured near the beginning of your video. My parents actually bought it new back in 1980-whatever for my oldest brother, who used it to jam out with some friends for a number of years before I took it over out of curiosity. I've owned it for over a decade now.
One thing to note about the D-series synthesizers, they have one of the worst programming interfaces ever invented, using a two-row screen that was only about a dozen characters wide and a few buttons designed to scroll through endless menus of patch parameters. It's a nightmare to use, and even with the manual it can be frustratingly difficult to create patches. My Ensoniq ESQ-1 (which was designed by the guy who created the C64 SID chip, and can be seen as the spiritual successor of that chip) in comparison is a breeze to use.
But in spite of its near-useless interface, the D-20 (and other D-series synths) is actually worth investigating. The synthesizer is rather unique even among its peers of the time, as it used a combination of PCM samples and synthesis to create sounds. So for instance, your -piano- patch sound is actually a PCM sample with a synth tone decay; that is, the PCM sample makes up the first part of the note while the synth engine, Roland's LA Synthesis, makes up the rest of the note. It's sort of a combination of sampler and synth.
Now, the PCM samples mostly sound like garbage, at least to my ears. The bit rate and sample rate are fairly low, and in a bad way (they lack the charm of other lower bit-rate samples of machines of that era. But the gem here is the LA Synthesis. Standing for Linear Arithmetic, Roland's LA Synthesis was a competitor to things like Yamaha's FM synthesis. This was around the time when digital waveform synthesis was a relatively new thing and synth makers were coming up with their own versions of it. Yamaha really set the bar with their outstanding FM synthesizers which still remain a gold standard to some degree today, but Roland's LA Synthesis is an often overlooked implementation (probably because of that terrible user interface. It lacks some punch, but somehow manages to create sonic layers that just sound a bit different, this synth really stands out (to my ears) when it's programmed properly.
And speaking of which, Steinberg (the makers of Cubase) actually made a programmer for this for the Atari ST. So if you have a MIDI-capable audio interface, you can load up a copy of the ST emulator Stella and use the Steinberg programming software to actually program the patches. It is a beautiful piece of software and completely unlocks the capability of the D-series synthesizer, anyone who owns one needs to try it. I can't describe the joy I felt when I first found and used this program. It completely changed my opinion of the synthesizer and cemented it in my collection as one that I will never sell.
reply
Kefas
-LGR My comparison between the way the music sounded on the PC Speaker between the AdLib/Sound Blaster or the Roland MT-32 is:
In King's Quest IV -
2: 38 The square-wave PC Speaker symphony. well, It doesn't sounds so special or musical, especially with that epic and intense vibe that the game has, but at this time, it sounded so unique and so simple for the gamers who didn't had an actual sound card and of course the music on the speaker is just -beeps-.
2: 49 Now the MT-32 sounds so much better! WOW, whenever I think of this MIDI module and how the way it sounds it, especially for this game it just makes it sound so amazing! It sounds just like one of those 80s cheesy live orchestras with such stunning instruments, synths, percussions and the MT-32 adds so much into it.
3: 10 The AdLib FM synthesis melody in the song adds that nostalgic feeling of having that synthetic, bright and metallic late 80s and early 90s sound, but unfortunately this sound card won't give you the -orchestral sound- and feeling that the original soundtrack of this game (MT-32 version) has.
In Tyrian -
9: 20 I have listened to most of the MT-32 soundtracks in DOS games and most of them sounds much better than the FM sound of the AdLib/Sound Blaster, but this. just listen to it: it's flat, fast-paced and it sounds just odd and simple, wether it's General MIDI or not. It sounds just like one of these soft mellow-piano songs with no drums and most of all, no energy-filled vibe in the music. I HATE IT!
9: 32 This sounds MUCH better, as it stands out more than the MT-32 version of the theme and that game wouldn't had been Tyrian if it doesn't was with that superb energetic action feeling that adds depth to it. And yes, the original soundtrack was officially made with the AdLib FM synthesis sound card (Yamaha OPL2/OPL3) and that's why it was clearly made for it in mind.
reply
-LGR My comparison between the way the music sounded on the PC Speaker between the AdLib/Sound Blaster or the Roland MT-32 is:
In King's Quest IV -
2: 38 The square-wave PC Speaker symphony. well, It doesn't sounds so special or musical, especially with that epic and intense vibe that the game has, but at this time, it sounded so unique and so simple for the gamers who didn't had an actual sound card and of course the music on the speaker is just -beeps-.
2: 49 Now the MT-32 sounds so much better! WOW, whenever I think of this MIDI module and how the way it sounds it, especially for this game it just makes it sound so amazing! It sounds just like one of those 80s cheesy live orchestras with such stunning instruments, synths, percussions and the MT-32 adds so much into it.
3: 10 The AdLib FM synthesis melody in the song adds that nostalgic feeling of having that synthetic, bright and metallic late 80s and early 90s sound, but unfortunately this sound card won't give you the -orchestral sound- and feeling that the original soundtrack of this game (MT-32 version) has.
In Tyrian -
9: 20 I have listened to most of the MT-32 soundtracks in DOS games and most of them sounds much better than the FM sound of the AdLib/Sound Blaster, but this. just listen to it: it's flat, fast-paced and it sounds just odd and simple, wether it's General MIDI or not. It sounds just like one of these soft mellow-piano songs with no drums and most of all, no energy-filled vibe in the music. I HATE IT!
9: 32 This sounds MUCH better, as it stands out more than the MT-32 version of the theme and that game wouldn't had been Tyrian if it doesn't was with that superb energetic action feeling that adds depth to it. And yes, the original soundtrack was officially made with the AdLib FM synthesis sound card (Yamaha OPL2/OPL3) and that's why it was clearly made for it in mind.
reply
Ronald
Great video, thanks. When you said that as a kid you always thought Roland MT-32 would be a sound card and not an external MIDI module, maybe you were thinking of Roland LAPC-1? LAPC-1 was basically Roland CM-32L + MPU-401 interface on a full-size ISA card.
I had LAPC-1 back then, yes it cost an arm and a leg but it was great. I later sold it for a good price and bought an used CM-32L (which is an external module like MT-32) so that I could use my new Roland SCC-1 General MIDI sound card as well (SCC-1 acted as the MPU-401 interface card for CM-32L, so i got the best of both worlds for different games.
CM-32L/LAPC-1 had some extra sound effects etc. compared to the MT-32, they were almost fully compatible with each other, but not quite. It goes so that some -Roland games- were made specifically for MT-32 (like Heart of China, most old Sierra games, while some were made for CM-32L/LAPC-1 (Ultima Underworld 1-2 etc. The older games were for MT-32 and newer for CM-32L, usually. Usually you could hear the difference in sound effects, e. g. the cow moo in Heart of China is correct only the the original MT-32, while on Ultima Underworld you hear the correct swimming sound effect only on CM-32L/LAPC-1.
I still have the CM-32L in my cupboard, but frankly I don't use it anymore, thanks to Munt being so good nowadays. I guess I should really sell the CM-32L, if it still has value.
reply
Great video, thanks. When you said that as a kid you always thought Roland MT-32 would be a sound card and not an external MIDI module, maybe you were thinking of Roland LAPC-1? LAPC-1 was basically Roland CM-32L + MPU-401 interface on a full-size ISA card.
I had LAPC-1 back then, yes it cost an arm and a leg but it was great. I later sold it for a good price and bought an used CM-32L (which is an external module like MT-32) so that I could use my new Roland SCC-1 General MIDI sound card as well (SCC-1 acted as the MPU-401 interface card for CM-32L, so i got the best of both worlds for different games.
CM-32L/LAPC-1 had some extra sound effects etc. compared to the MT-32, they were almost fully compatible with each other, but not quite. It goes so that some -Roland games- were made specifically for MT-32 (like Heart of China, most old Sierra games, while some were made for CM-32L/LAPC-1 (Ultima Underworld 1-2 etc. The older games were for MT-32 and newer for CM-32L, usually. Usually you could hear the difference in sound effects, e. g. the cow moo in Heart of China is correct only the the original MT-32, while on Ultima Underworld you hear the correct swimming sound effect only on CM-32L/LAPC-1.
I still have the CM-32L in my cupboard, but frankly I don't use it anymore, thanks to Munt being so good nowadays. I guess I should really sell the CM-32L, if it still has value.
reply
barbarianbros
-Background music is from Adventures of Willy Beamish-: thanks for the link to my video: )
About the LA devices: there are 3 versions of the MT-32: Rev. 0, Rev. 1 old, Rev. 1 new. Only the latter has the phones jack and no 'buffer overflow' bug. This later model also introduce a preset duration for 'sustain' (with earlier models, composers had to stop the sustain or to use a fade-out to avoid 'stuck notes' )
-CM-32L is a MT-32 with 32 new sound effects, no screen nor buttons on the front panel.
-LAPC-I is a soundcard. It's basically a CM-32L and a MPU-401 combined on an ISA card.
-CM-64 is a CM-32L and a CM-32P (a 'patches' or samples module) in one only module.
-CM-500: combines a LA CM-32L and a GM/GS CM-300 (the CM version of the SC-55) in one module.
Note that many european games have problems with the original MT-32.
As PC MS-DOS games was a tiny market in Europe until 1991 (because Amiga and Atari ST computers ruled the marked, European developpers composed their music for MT--32 'new' or later models. So many european games have buffer overflow bug or stuck notes.
reply
-Background music is from Adventures of Willy Beamish-: thanks for the link to my video: )
About the LA devices: there are 3 versions of the MT-32: Rev. 0, Rev. 1 old, Rev. 1 new. Only the latter has the phones jack and no 'buffer overflow' bug. This later model also introduce a preset duration for 'sustain' (with earlier models, composers had to stop the sustain or to use a fade-out to avoid 'stuck notes' )
-CM-32L is a MT-32 with 32 new sound effects, no screen nor buttons on the front panel.
-LAPC-I is a soundcard. It's basically a CM-32L and a MPU-401 combined on an ISA card.
-CM-64 is a CM-32L and a CM-32P (a 'patches' or samples module) in one only module.
-CM-500: combines a LA CM-32L and a GM/GS CM-300 (the CM version of the SC-55) in one module.
Note that many european games have problems with the original MT-32.
As PC MS-DOS games was a tiny market in Europe until 1991 (because Amiga and Atari ST computers ruled the marked, European developpers composed their music for MT--32 'new' or later models. So many european games have buffer overflow bug or stuck notes.
reply
SerErris
One thing you did not mention is the fact that the MT-32 module is truly programmable instrument like the D-50 or more closely it smaller brother the D-20. So game musicians could not only use the build in presets (like in GM) but they could program their own sounds. Studios like Sierra and Origin did. Also Lucas Arts did some sounds but not massively.
Unfortunately the potential was great but most games used only the building sounds and did not unleash the potential. As always going the easy way to put a tick in a feature box seemed to be good enough. Instead of really utilizing it, the simply rewrote the soundtrack for MT-32 and best matched the available sounds. Done.
And that was where it then died with its price point. The LAPC-I was the most convenient one card solution, but still expensive as hell.
Today with MT-32 emulation available with MUNT there could be new Endeavour, but for that the LA synthesis is too limited. so it is good to float in old memories, but that it.
reply
One thing you did not mention is the fact that the MT-32 module is truly programmable instrument like the D-50 or more closely it smaller brother the D-20. So game musicians could not only use the build in presets (like in GM) but they could program their own sounds. Studios like Sierra and Origin did. Also Lucas Arts did some sounds but not massively.
Unfortunately the potential was great but most games used only the building sounds and did not unleash the potential. As always going the easy way to put a tick in a feature box seemed to be good enough. Instead of really utilizing it, the simply rewrote the soundtrack for MT-32 and best matched the available sounds. Done.
And that was where it then died with its price point. The LAPC-I was the most convenient one card solution, but still expensive as hell.
Today with MT-32 emulation available with MUNT there could be new Endeavour, but for that the LA synthesis is too limited. so it is good to float in old memories, but that it.
reply
Deadly
I first started out using MUNT last year and it's fantastic but just a few months ago I got a MT32 and a SC55 MKII and using these devices on a real DOS machine is a whole different experience. I wouldn't say it's better or worse. That would be up to interpretation of each individual user but to me using real hardware feels better. It just has a different feel and a different experience especially when it's connected directly to speakers instead of the line in on the sound card and then outputted to the speakers.
The only thing is that you need another set of speakers for the sound effects or you could use a mixer. That within itself can be cool because then you can arrange the speakers where the ones with the sound effects coming out could be placed up front closer together while the speakers with the MT32 output could be placed on either side of you spaced out further and then you have yourself a pseudo 3D sound setup. :)
reply
I first started out using MUNT last year and it's fantastic but just a few months ago I got a MT32 and a SC55 MKII and using these devices on a real DOS machine is a whole different experience. I wouldn't say it's better or worse. That would be up to interpretation of each individual user but to me using real hardware feels better. It just has a different feel and a different experience especially when it's connected directly to speakers instead of the line in on the sound card and then outputted to the speakers.
The only thing is that you need another set of speakers for the sound effects or you could use a mixer. That within itself can be cool because then you can arrange the speakers where the ones with the sound effects coming out could be placed up front closer together while the speakers with the MT32 output could be placed on either side of you spaced out further and then you have yourself a pseudo 3D sound setup. :)
reply
wocko1
You're not wrong that some games sound worse with an MT-32 than Yamaha OPL/Adlib. Dune was developed with the Adlib Gold in mind, and sounds so much better. You're right about Tyrian sounding superior on the good old Adlib! Tyrian actually sounds to me like a Sega Genesis game pushed to it's limits, and I dig that! (And yes I know the Genesis also used a Yamaha FM chip, though not as powerful as the OPL2/OPL3)
Though games that showed off the MT-32, like Sierra games really blows me away! King's Quest 5, and Police Quest 2 had brilliant music with an MT-32.
Why no mention of the CM-32L? It had extra sound effects that quite a few games used, like the LucasArts games.
reply
You're not wrong that some games sound worse with an MT-32 than Yamaha OPL/Adlib. Dune was developed with the Adlib Gold in mind, and sounds so much better. You're right about Tyrian sounding superior on the good old Adlib! Tyrian actually sounds to me like a Sega Genesis game pushed to it's limits, and I dig that! (And yes I know the Genesis also used a Yamaha FM chip, though not as powerful as the OPL2/OPL3)
Though games that showed off the MT-32, like Sierra games really blows me away! King's Quest 5, and Police Quest 2 had brilliant music with an MT-32.
Why no mention of the CM-32L? It had extra sound effects that quite a few games used, like the LucasArts games.
reply
Mark
Growing up in the late 80s/early 90s was an interesting time for anyone interested in video games. In addition to the graphics, sound was a very big deal. Today, all games have good sound, but in the 80s/90s, even if you had decent graphics, the pc speaker was absolute crap and it ruined the game. I saved up my dollars and was thrilled to buy a Sound Blaster in 1991 to play a game called Wing Commander, which was awesome. Only one of my friends had the Roland, which was the envy of the computer gaming world at the time. It cost a fortune, but it was fantastic.
reply
Growing up in the late 80s/early 90s was an interesting time for anyone interested in video games. In addition to the graphics, sound was a very big deal. Today, all games have good sound, but in the 80s/90s, even if you had decent graphics, the pc speaker was absolute crap and it ruined the game. I saved up my dollars and was thrilled to buy a Sound Blaster in 1991 to play a game called Wing Commander, which was awesome. Only one of my friends had the Roland, which was the envy of the computer gaming world at the time. It cost a fortune, but it was fantastic.
reply
Gregor
Ahhh, the dream machine of the 80s for PC gamers and amateur musicians alike. Essentially a rack synthesizer, the legendary MT-32 was too expensive for the -common mortals-; most gamers thought it was a sound card, because they never had the chance to actually see this thing. Nevertheless, this piece of technology art still sounds great, even today.
It took me 17 years to finally listen to the intro music of Monkey Island played by this beast. Well, it could be worse, I guess. Thank you Clint!
reply
Ahhh, the dream machine of the 80s for PC gamers and amateur musicians alike. Essentially a rack synthesizer, the legendary MT-32 was too expensive for the -common mortals-; most gamers thought it was a sound card, because they never had the chance to actually see this thing. Nevertheless, this piece of technology art still sounds great, even today.
It took me 17 years to finally listen to the intro music of Monkey Island played by this beast. Well, it could be worse, I guess. Thank you Clint!
reply
CoTeCiOtm
As much as it improves the quality of the music, I believe anything beyond the OPL3 creates some sort of asymmetry of sorts with the graphics on DOS games, so you get these 8-bit like graphics with relatively realistic sounding music and for me, it just doesn't fit. it's like having a real orchestra playing while playing Super Mario Bros, it's just strange. Although, considering how fantastic it sounds, I would have it to play game MIDIs and listen to them all day long!
reply
As much as it improves the quality of the music, I believe anything beyond the OPL3 creates some sort of asymmetry of sorts with the graphics on DOS games, so you get these 8-bit like graphics with relatively realistic sounding music and for me, it just doesn't fit. it's like having a real orchestra playing while playing Super Mario Bros, it's just strange. Although, considering how fantastic it sounds, I would have it to play game MIDIs and listen to them all day long!
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
