david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.060414.11807@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >>Too damn expensive and not good enough. In that order. >I paid $350 Canadian for my LAPC. Soundblasters cost about $200 here. >Add the pseudo-midi adapter to the SB and their prices are not too far off. >What would YOU consider to be a reasonable price for the Roland board? I don't know what the US to Canadian conversion factor is, but I think that $350 US is a reasonable price. Last I checked, however, the board was uo over $700 US, but it may have gone down since then. >>the model numbers of these boxes. The problem with these devices is that they >>are MIDI, true enough, but they lack the MIDI-implamentation-robustness, and >This is news to me. Please elaborate. IMHO, the biggest drawback with the MT-32 is how you select MIDI channels. It has nine parts (eight instruments, and a rythmn) that can be assigned to MIDI channels. On most MIDI devices, you can individually set the MIDI channel for each instrument/part. On the MT-32, you can only choose to either have those parts assigned to channels 1 though 9, or 2 through 10 and you cannot turn them off. This is OK if you have one or two MIDI devices, but all hell breaks loose if you have more. You also cannot take two MT-32's and hook them up at the same time... I do not know if the LAPC (or the 'home' external boxes) works the same way, but looking at the pictures, I cannot figure out how to set something like that... Perhapse you can enlighten me on this... >>the MT-32/LAPC sounds ho-hum, but sparkles when compared to the Amiga. >>From a professional musican standpoint, the MT-32/LAPC sounds noisy, and the > >Noisy compared to what? It sounds better than a Yamaha DX7. I like the DX7 myself, but never played it with headphones hooked up so I cannot comment on it's 'noise'. Also, keep in mind that the DX7 was the first commercially viable digital synth. I have used the MT-32 along with a D10, D20, D50, and D70-- all which use Rolands LA Synthysis. The MT-32 is noisier than all of the. The D10 is the closest thing to an MT-32, and the factory patches are similar (if not the same). Comparing these patches there is a noticeable grainyness/noise in the MT-32. Just FYI: Comparing a recording of a real grand piano, and a recording of the D70's piano patch (tweeked a bit) I cannot tell the difference. Playing them is another story. But that's what you get with a $2000 synth. >>Yes, it has a DSP, but you might as well ignore it since you cannot program >>it. The entire sound generating section is actually an embedded DSP within >>a custom ASIC. > >The boards' sounds are programmable, could you elaborate? Oops. Wrong choice of words. You can program the sounds that the MT-32/LAPC makes. You cannot write a small assembly or C program that is ran by the DSP on the board. This is important to know, since it puts things like an LAPC equipted PC in a different class than things like the NeXT with it's fully programmable DSP. >The Roland boards are directly supported by many programs and provide by far >the best sound I've heard from a computer. 'even better than Amiga' doesn't >begin to describe it. There isn't much needed to directly support the LAPC. Any MIDI program will utilize the LAPC. Most games support an MT-32 hooked up via MIDI, and since the LAPC board _IS_ an MT-32 and MIDI interface on one boars... The sounds from the LAPC are good, for a computer. In fact, the only computer that comes to mind that has better sound is the NeXT. Now, this is what I think about the LAPC/MT-32, in comparison to the Amiga's sound: Sound quality is better, it has less noise (sounds like 12 bit DAC's) and _seems_ to have a higher frequency response. On the down side, the LAPC does not have CD quality sound. It can play more notes at a time. This makes it MUCH more musically useful, since the standard Amiga's sound cannot play large chords without jumping though major hoops. It can only play back the factory preset sound samples; none can be "downloaded", where all the Amiga can do is play back samples (I know I am ignoring the weird FM/AM cross-modulaton that cuts the number of voices down to TWO). The LAPC can EASILY add expression to a sound, where the Amiga needs to have LOTS of samples to do the same. The LAPC is expensive when compared to the Amiga's sound. It is cheap when compared to a more full-blown synth (like the Roland U-220, at $800). The MPU-401 compatable MIDI interface contained in the LAPC automagically deals with timing. In a brain-dead multitasking system (such as you find with MS-DOS machines), a heavily loaded machine will not miss a beat when playing/recording a song. (Just FYI: my MPU-401 interface has it's own CPU to do timing.) >>What I really wonder about is the crosstalk. For instance, if I placed >>it into my computer the guts of it would be sandwitched between a disk >>controller and a RAM board stocked with eight meg of 80ns, 32-bit RAM. This >>has GOT to create some noise! (Comments?) > >My LAPC generates no noticable noise on my stereo (it is negligable >compared to that generated by my amplifier anyway). Since you did not notice the normal noise that the thing produces, I would not expect you to notice crosstalk (this is not intended as an insult). Try this, however. Put on a good set of headphones and turn the volumn WAY UP (if the LAPC has it's own headphone jack, all the better). For gods sake, don't play any sounds on the thing. Anyway, use the computer and listen for 'noise' that changes as you do different things-- like during disk activity, screen drawing, or while the computer sits idle. BTW, what kind of CPU/MHZ are you using? On a different note (pun fully intended, all flames will be delt with my my staff-- they will take the proper measure)... In a similar discussion someone said that the Soundblaster sounds 'worse' than the Amiga, and that may be true. However, the soundblaster has much more voices (eight I think). This makes it more useful for music related things. -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! Compuserve? Isn't that some sort of FIDO BBS? |
drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.090341.696@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.060414.11807@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: > >>>the MT-32/LAPC sounds ho-hum, but sparkles when compared to the Amiga. >>>From a professional musican standpoint, the MT-32/LAPC sounds noisy, and the >> >>Noisy compared to what? It sounds better than a Yamaha DX7. > >I like the DX7 myself, but never played it with headphones hooked up so I I just played with a Korg M1. Wow. Maybe the Mt32 isn't so perfect after all! Too bad Kings Quest 5 doesn't support it. >>The Roland boards are directly supported by many programs and provide by far >>the best sound I've heard from a computer. 'even better than Amiga' doesn't >>begin to describe it. > >There isn't much needed to directly support the LAPC. Any MIDI program will >utilize the LAPC. Most games support an MT-32 hooked up via MIDI, and since >the LAPC board _IS_ an MT-32 and MIDI interface on one board... What I mean is that Wing Commander knows which patch to use for a cello etc. >The sounds from the LAPC are good, for a computer. In fact, the only computer >that comes to mind that has better sound is the NeXT. You don't get the same functionality though... > On the down side, the LAPC does not have CD quality sound. Pretty close... > It can only play back the factory preset sound samples; none can be > "downloaded", where all the Amiga can do is play back samples (I know Again, programs DO download new sounds. For example, the scene in Space Quest 4 where the sewar grate explodes and crashes against the road. I didn't find this in list of presets!!! > (such as you find with MS-DOS machines), a heavily loaded machine > will not miss a beat when playing/recording a song. (Just FYI: my > MPU-401 interface has it's own CPU to do timing.) In fact, music occassionally keeps playing when I crash my machine. >Since you did not notice the normal noise that the thing produces, I would not >expect you to notice crosstalk (this is not intended as an insult). Try this, >however. Put on a good set of headphones and turn the volumn WAY UP (if the This is exactly what I did. Then I switched the line input to my CD player. No difference. Then to tape. HISSSSSSSSS! >someone said that the Soundblaster sounds 'worse' than the Amiga, and that >may be true. However, the soundblaster has much more voices (eight I think). >This makes it more useful for music related things. Actually 11 voices but it does not support stereo without an extra set of chips. It does digitized speech pretty well, which is the only thing I miss on the Roland. >David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | >1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! >Compuserve? Isn't that some sort of FIDO BBS? | OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN.