Grand MS-DOS gaming General MIDI showdown | John NovakRiding on the tail of theGaussian curvesince 1979AboutPostsTagsGrand MS-DOS gaming General MIDI showdown2023 Mar 5audiogamingmidims-dosTable of contentsIntroductionMeet the contestantsRoland Sound Canvas SC-55Roland Sound Canvas VAYamaha MU80Yamaha S-YXG50Recording processCapturing MIDI dataRecording the audioPost-processingRecordingsQuick impressionsFinal verdictRoland SC-55 vs Roland Sound Canvas VARoland SC-55 vs later Sound Canvas modelsRoland SC-55 vs Yamaha MU80Yamaha MU80 vs Yamaha S-YXG50In closingRecordings, links & further readingFilesSoftsynthsReviewsIntroductionThe Roland SC-55 sound module is the undisputed king of mid-late 90s General
MIDI music in MS-DOS retro gaming
circles. Well, I’m going to dispute that a bit in the present article, and I’m
going to do more than just talk: as a happy new owner of a real SC-55 and one
of its later competitors, the glorious Yamaha MU80, I’m going to put these two
bad boys from the 90s to the test, along with their software recreation
attempts.You can read all sorts of opinions and claims on this subject over the great
(mis)information source of our time, the Internet, such as:The Roland Sound Canvas VA (SCVA) emulates the SC-55 wellThe SC-55 mode of the SCVA is inaccurateThe SC-88, SC-88Pro and SC-8820 are superior to the SC-55Music composed on the SC-55 sounds wrong on anything elseThe Yamaha modules are much better than anything ever put out by RolandThe Yamaha S-YXG50 is a 100% identical recreation of the Yamaha DB50XGAnd the list goes on… But instead of relying on second-hand information,
anecdotes, and vague personal opinions, I’ll present you with high-quality
lossless recordings of no less than 46 classic DOS game soundtracks, each
recorded on 7 different MIDI modules! That’s 322 recordings in total, yikes!Of course, then I’ll share my own anecdotal and vague personal opinions on the
matter—whether you ask for it or not—but that’s just how it goes. But now
at least you’ll have the option to disregard what I’m saying and draw your own
conclusions based solely on the recordings. Moreover, I’ll share all the MIDI
files and the REAPER project files as well, so you can create your own
recordings, should you wish to do so.Meet the contestantsRoland Sound Canvas SC-55The Sound Canvas SC-55 external
MIDI module was released in 1991 by Roland as the successor of their Roland
MT-32 family of modules. This was
the world’s first synthesiser with General MIDI support, and it quickly
established itself as the de facto standard for high-quality General MIDI
audio in DOS gaming—a status that remained largely unchanged until the end
of the DOS era.Roland Sound Canvas SC-55 (top) and Yamaha MU80 (bottom) General MIDI modules.(I’ve cable-tied up the whole thing already, and I won’t take it apart just
to make separate photographs of the two units…)Apart from supporting the General
MIDI standard (GM, in short), the
SC-55 also supports Roland’s own General Standard
(GS), which extends the General MIDI
instrument list with additional instrument variations and drum kit sounds, and
provides a standardised mechanism for adjusting chorus and reverb effect
parameters, among a few other things.Most DOS games that have a “General MIDI” sound option use in fact not just
GM, but also GS features. Variation instruments are generally
avoided—presumably for better compatibility with GM-only modules—, but
per-instrument chorus and reverb settings are frequently employed. As a result
of this, some compositions may sound overly dry on GM-only modules that
feature no such effects, lacking space and ambience. On other GM-only
modules that do feature these effects but don’t allow fine-tuning their
per-instrument levels via GS messages, the music may sometimes sound as if it
was recorded in a cave!In short, if you want to experience MIDI music in DOS games at their best
form, as their composers intended, you’ll need a GS-compatible device.I have recently bought an original Roland SC-55 from eBay Japan in near-mint
condition—probably retired from a prestigious karaoke bar after decades of
faithful service, entertaining drunk CEOs on the weekends… My unit was
manufactured in 1991; it’s one of the early revisions without a General MIDI
logo on the front plate (probably because the General MIDI standard released
in 1991 wasn’t fully finalised at the time of manufacture yet). It has the
v1.21 ROM, which is considered to be the overall best version for DOS gaming.Roland Sound Canvas VARoland’s Sound Canvas VA software
synthesiser VSTi plugin was first released in 2015. It provides a software
recreation of one of the last members of the Sound
Canvas family, the Roland
SC-8820 module from 1999 (a cut-down version of the SC-8850). It does not
emulate the SC-55 directly, but it can be switched into SC-55, SC-88, and
SC-88 Pro compatibility modes, just like the real SC-8820.Roland Sound Canvas VA VSTi pluginAlthough not perfect, this is the closest recreation of the original
SC-55 in software form as of 2023.Because the SCVA can emulate later Sound Canvas modules, and people have made
various claims about them over the years, naturally I’ll put all available
models to the test. Knowing the year of introduction of a particular model
might give you some hints about whether it’s suitable for a given game. The
general logic behind this is that in say 1995 most people—including the
composers—likely owned the upgraded SC-88 instead of the original SC-55, so
the music must have been optimised for the module most people had access to.
That’s sound reasoning, but I’ve found little empirical evidence to back up
that claim based on my listening tests, but more on that later. Anyway, here
are the original release dates of the different models:Roland Sound Canvas modelYear of releaseRoland SC-551991Roland SC-881994Roland SC-88Pro1996Roland SC-88201999Yamaha MU80The Yamaha MU-series of MIDI
modules were Yamaha’s answer to Roland’s Sound Canvas line. The Yamaha
MU80 was introduced in 1994
as a competitor to the Roland SC-88, the successor of the SC-55.Apart from basic GM support, the MU80 also has an excellent GS compatibility
mode that sounds eerily close to the original Sound Canvas on most source
materials. Additionally, the MU series also supports Yamaha’s vastly superior
XG standard (EXtended
General MIDI) which was sadly criminally underutilised in games. Because of
this, we’ll only investigate the GS compatibility mode in this article.While the SC-55 was squarely aimed at the computer hobbyist market, the MU80
is at least a semi-pro sound module that found its way into many studios over
the world. Objectively, it’s a much better device; the build quality is much
more solid, and the range and quality of available instruments and effects are
simply a league above the SC-55. But all this is for naught for us DOS gamers
if its GS compatibility mode doesn’t sound great! 1Is the MU80 a superior piece of studio equipment unsuitable for gaming
purposes? Or can it perhaps outdo Roland at its own thing? Fear not! As I
happen to be the happy owner of a Yamaha MU80 from 1994—again purchased from
eBay Japan—we will find out the answers to these pressing questions!Yamaha S-YXG50In 2003, Yamaha released the Yamaha S-YXG50 software synthesiser VSTi plugin
as part of their SOL2 package. The S-YXG50 is a software recreation of their
earlier DB50XG wavetable
add-on card, which is a scaled-down version of their
MU50
external MIDI module, which is in turn a scaled-down version of the MU80, the
very first module supporting the XG standard. From a purely DOS gaming
perspective, these differences don’t really matter; they’re all pretty much
interchangeable when all you care about is games.Yamaha S-YXG50 VSTi pluginIn 2016, a Belarusian programmer created an ultimate portable VSTi
version of this softsynth with the
copy-protection removed, mixing and matching parts from various official
Yamaha software releases. The plugin uses the original 4MB wavetable ROM of
the MU lineup, and it sounds extremely close to the MU80 on most materials. As
Yamaha discontinued all their software products in 2003, the S-YXG50 can be
considered abandonware for practical purposes.Recording processUnless approached methodically, the likelihood of self-delusion or honest
error in an endeavour like this is rather high. In order to turn this exercise
into a repeatable process, and to be able to batch-render the softsynth
versions in offline mode (faster than real-time), first I needed to record the
MIDI output of the games. This also ensured that all different MIDI modules
are sent exactly the same MIDI data during the audio recording process.As I’m intending to record lots of game music in the coming years, I think
it’s best to document my recording process here once and for all.Retro gaming man cave. The desktop machine on the left is my Pentium MMX 200 based real “DOS box”; the tower on the right is an Athlon 64 rig I use for Windows 98 gaming. Paired with CRTs, of course, because old computers without CRTs are like non-alcoholic beer—rather pointless 😎🍺Capturing MIDI dataRecord MIDI data from the game running in DOSBox Staging via loopMIDI into
REAPER. The REAPER project was set to 120 BPM and 960 PPQ MIDI event resolution,
resulting in a MIDI event quantisation of 60 × 1000 / 120 / 960 =
~0.52 ms.Split the continuous MIDI stream into individual songs (when needed), perform
minimal cleanup if necessary, and insert a “GS Reset” SysEx message at the
start of each song.Notes and exceptionsThe Elders Scrolls: Arena — I did not record these in-game but I used
the PX Player DOS
utility that can play back XMI MIDI files using the original Miles Sound
System drivers. Word of
warning: this usually results in identical results, but in rare cases, the
tempo might be off (e.g., for Discworld). Therefore, the results must
always be checked against the actual in-game music or known-good recordings
when taking this shortcut!System Shock — Similarly, I used PX to play the intro tune
to make the transition to the menu screen at the end sound smoother.Star Wars: TIE Fighter — The sound driver lowers the music volume
during voice-overs even when digital sound is disabled. I edited these
volume fades out manually while taking care to leave “legitimate” fades
intact (e.g., during song transitions).Quest for Glory III — Removed the fade-in at the start of the
Apothecary’s Hut song.Warcraft II — Imported the official MIDI tracks released by the
composer straight into REAPER.Leisure Suit Larry 6 — Edited out the sound effects from the intro music
because I found them too distracting.Realms of Arkania — I used PX to capture the intro music because
the game insists on automatically exiting the intro well before the end of
the tune.Some games send copious amounts of MIDI CC (Continuous
Controller), PC (Program Change), or SysEx (System Exclusive) data right
before the first notes of the compositions. This sudden surge of MIDI
messages can take some time to process, causing the first note to be
partially cut off. Perhaps this wasn’t a problem on all MIDI modules,
especially later ones such as the SC-55 mkII, but they’re definitely causing
issues on my first revision SC-55 and MU80 hardware modules. Softsynths are
completely unaffected by this.Recording the audioSequence the songs on a timeline, and record all of them in one go.For the hardware recordings, the MIDI data was fed to the MIDI modules via a
Midisport 2x2 USB box, and the audio was recorded at 24-bit / 48kHz through
the internal DAC of a Yamaha MG10XU analog mixer (it can also act as a USB
audio interface). This is a “prosumer” level, neutral-sounding mixer with a
flat frequency response and very little self-noise (well below -96dBFS).The output knob of the Roland SC-55 was set to 12’o clock; this was the best
balance between having a good signal level and not driving the module into
distortion even on high peaks. The Yamaha MU80 could be set a fair bit
higher; 3’o clock was deemed to be the best position for the Yamaha’s output
knob.Illustration of how the analog output stage of the Roland SC-55 can be
driven into distortion when setting the output volume knob too high. A
particularly dynamic segment of the Shadow Warrior intro music was used as
source material for these recordings.For the softsynth VSTs, the audio was rendered at faster-than-realtime
speed using REAPER’s offline render functionality.Post-processingOnly volume adjustments were performed in post-processing to normalise the
perceived loudness of the individual songs, plus some fade-outs were added.
The volume adjustments were added non-destructively in the REAPER project,
so the source waveforms got scaled only once before the final render.Noise-shaped dither was enabled for the final render due to the 24 to
16-bit reduction.This is how the REAPER project looked like once all recording tasks had been
completed. Note the volume automation curve of the master track at the top;
this is to ensure the same perceptual loudness of the different tracks.RecordingsAll recordings are available at the Internet Archive.You can listen to the recordings there online via the web-based audio player,
or you can download the whole pack (almost 6GB), or just the 16-bit / 48kHz FLAC
originals (4.3 GB) or the MP3 conversions (1.1 GB).The MIDI files and the REAPER project file I used for the recording process
are also available, plus another REAPER project with all the FLAC versions
imported onto separate tracks (one track per MIDI module).I recommend using that project for A/B listening comparisons
(general-midi-comparison-flac.rpp). To use it, download the FLAC files and
put them into the Renders subdirectory inside the REAPER project directory.
REAPER will take its time when loading the project for the first time to
generate the waveform “peaks” files for the FLACs, so please be patient. All
recordings are time-aligned and volume-matched, so you can easily switch
between them during playback to perform A/B comparisons using REAPER’s
exclusive solo functionality (Ctrl+Alt+Left Click on
the Solo (S) button).Quick impressionsNow some quick notes about my preferences as I’m listening to the recordings
while switching between the Yamaha MU80 and various Roland Sound Canvas
versions.Of course, if you wake up in the morning with “fresh ears”, pick one of the
modules at random, then go play some games, none of these relatively small
differences would really jump out—your ears would just get used to the
general tonal signature of that model, and that’s it. I guess this is one of
the drawbacks of A/B comparisons, and I kinda get why some people are against
them—it’s unavoidable that you become hyper-focused on the differences.
You’re effectively training yourself to become hyper-focused, and you’ll
notice things you normally wouldn’t when just enjoying the music. So read the
below notes with that in mind. But anyway, this is as “objective” and
“scientific” as I can make it, and I find making these comparisons a lot of
fun, so here we go!Discworld (1995) Yamaha MU80I prefer the MU80 by far; it sounds a lot fuller than the Sound Canvas, and
the higher-quality reverb of the Yamaha really brings the relatively sparse
arrangements to life. The SC-55 sounds tinny in comparison; its
over–prominent midrange gets annoying after a while in the woodwind-heavy
music. This is improved in the SC-88 version, but I just find the hardware
MU80 a lot more pleasant to listen to. The loss of sparkle is very noticeable
on the harpsichord parts on the S-YXG50, and with the more pronounced
midrange, we’re one step closer to the nasal SC-55 territory…Descent (1995) Yamaha MU80The Yamaha absolutely shines on electronic music, and these tracks are no
exception. The drums and bass are massive compared to the rather wimpy SC-55
rendition. Surprisingly, the SC-88 version sounds almost as good as the Yamaha
(but not the SC-88Pro version which has far too many different sounding
instruments).Azrael’s Tear (1996) Roland SC-55Although the MU80 sounds more expansive and spacious on this one, the
smaller-sounding SC-55 rendition has a more intimate feel that fits the game’s
atmosphere better (the music was composed for the SC-55). This is one of the
tracks where you can spot some instruments sounding different on the S-YXG50
compared to the hardware. Specifically, the flute on the softsynth is rather
annoying, whereas on the MU80 it’s quite beautiful-sounding.Doom (1993) Roland SC-88ProThis is the single track of all that sounds best on the SC-88Pro! The other
Sound Canvas modules are OK too, but they lack bass and impact compared to the
SC-88Pro. The Yamaha has over-prominent drums which gets a bit annoying. One
notable shortcoming of the SCVA is that it doesn’t seem to support proper
cymbal chokes. You can hear that in the intro; the cymbal hits at the start of
the bars don’t ring out but stop abruptly on the SC-55 rendition. Yes, that’s
absolutely how it’s supposed to sound. (Some dudes in some forum theorised
that was a bug in the original SC-55, and the SCVA “fixed it”. Because cymbals
“don’t do that in real life”…
You
guys
are
killing
me! 🤣)Quest for Glory III (1992) Roland SC-55The more lo-fi presentation of the SC-55 gives this soundtrack a certain
charm, plus it sounds more balanced on the Roland. The SC-88 rendition is also
very good, and so is the MU80, but the Yahama just makes it sound a bit too
polished and modern for my taste.Sam & Max: Hit the Road (1993) Roland SC-55Better overall balance on the SC-55 and the drums sound like a rock/metal
drummer’s idea of jazz drumming on the Yamaha (for the less musically
inclined: that’s not something you want). Not a big fan of the sax samples on
the Yamaha either, too nasal. Later Sound Canvas models introduce various
balance issues (e.g., the double-bass sounds too forward).Shadow Warrior (1997) Yamaha MU80The Yamaha sounds a lot better on this modern prog-metal-styled material. The
SC-55 is quite tinny in comparison and you can barely hear the drums. Strange
because it was composed for the SC-55. It sounds even worse on the SC-88.
The superiority of the hardware MU80 versus the S-YXG50 is quite evident on a
full-frequency range material like this (the hardware has more sparkle, more
low-end grunt, better stereo image, and a better sense of space).Space Quest V: The Next Mutation (1993) Yamaha MU80Even though originally composed on the SC-55, the music sounds more balanced
and more “hi-fi” on the Yamaha which tames the sometimes over-prominent
midrange of the SC-55. I prefer the deeper bass of the MU80 too.System Shock (1994) Yamaha MU80Yamaha all the way! 😎🤘 It’s not even a contest! The hardware MU80 oozes
character and makes a big difference over the S-YXG50 once again—the
softsynth version sounds pretty flat and too polite in comparison.Star Wars: TIE Fighter - Collector’s CD-ROM (1995) Yamaha MU80The Roland and Yamaha renditions are very close to each other. The Yamaha has
more bass, sounds more epic, and therefore is my preference.The Elder Scrolls: Arena (1994) Roland SC-55The combat track sounds better and more monumental on the Yahama, and the much
higher-quality reverb of the Yamaha can be clearly heard in the sparse
arrangement. But some of the synth patches sound way too different in the
dungeon music compared to the Roland, which markedly alters the
atmosphere—I’d say for the worse. The pieces featuring a full orchestra also
sound better balanced on the SC-55. This soundtrack was composed on the SC-55,
and it sounds best on that module.Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers (1993) Yamaha MU80Originally composed for the SC-55, but it sounds a lot better on the Yamaha.
The weak bass and overall tinny character of the Roland are painfully obvious
here. Switching from the MU80 version to the SC-55 makes you think you’re now
listening to the music on an old portable radio! This is especially apparent
in the menu music.Death Gate (1994) Yamaha MU80I find the MU80 version more pleasant to listen to because of the more
recessed midrange. Some of the flute sounds get ear-piercing on the SC-55.Betrayal at Krondor (1993) Roland SC-55The tonal balance is best on the SC-55. The marching snare drums are too loud
on the Yamaha, and some instruments sound pretty weird on later Sound Canvas
models.WarCraft II: Tides of Darkness (1995) Yamaha MU80Originally composed for the SC-88, but it sounds far cleaner and a lot more
impactful on the MU80. The better quality reverb of the Yamaha really brings
orchestral compositions such as this one to life.Duke Nukem 3D (1996) Roland SC-55Best on the real SC-55. The drums are way too loud on the MU80 and
everything else is off balance too in a rather bad way. The drum samples sound
different on the SC-55—for the worse—and the renditions of all later Sound
Canvas modules sound hilariously bad.Leisure Suit Larry 6: Shape Up or Slip Out! (1993) Yamaha MU80The deeper tonal character of the Yamaha fits the music very nicely. The flute
is a little bit on the loud side in the lobby music, but I can live with that.
That’s on real hardware; the flute sample on the Y-SXG50 sounds so annoying
that I prefer the SCVA SC-55 version. I don’t like the renditions of later
Sound Canvas models at all.Transport Tycoon Deluxe (1995) Roland SC-55The balance is pretty much perfect on the SC-55, while the heavier-hitting
drums of the MU80 are just too much. All later Sound Canvas models make this
music sound bad in different ways.Under a Killing Moon (1994) Roland SC-55The soundtrack is so perfectly balanced for the SC-55 that it just sounds
wrong on anything else. The Yamaha in particular manages to make the Tex’s
Office track sound out of tune, which is impressive in itself!Stonekeep (1995) Yamaha MU80I prefer the deeper and darker sound of the MU80 version, but it’s not a night
and day difference. This is one of the soundtracks that sounds good on any
module.Realms of Arkania: Star Trail (1994) Yamaha MU80This was clearly composed for the SC-55, but I like the darker, more
realistic, and more modern-sounding rendition of the MU80. The SC-55 version
sounds a bit too much like computer music compared to the MU80.So what does that give us? 12 votes for the Yamaha and 9 for the Roland.
That’s more than a slight bias toward the Yamaha. Hmmm, interesting!Final verdictOkay, ready for the grand finale? I’m certain you can hardly wait for the
final conclusions: which one sounds “best”? which one should I get?Well, if you can get hold of just one of these MIDI modules, either software
or hardware, you’ll get lots of enjoyment out of it. Yes, some fare better
with certain games than others, there’s no denying that. But the thing is, if
you use the same single module for all your DOS gaming, you just won’t know
any better, and you won’t notice anything particularly wrong with the majority
of game soundtracks. Also remember that these were expensive devices back in
the day, usually costing upwards of 500 USD. You could consider yourself lucky
for the privilege of owning one; hoarding all the General MIDI modules under
the sun is a relatively new phenomenon in retro-gaming circles.While I can certainly detect some differences between the modules when
seamlessly A/B comparing them without pausing the audio, I’d be hard-pressed
to correctly identify them in a blind listening test. Even more so when I’m
just enjoying a game and my focus is split between the music, the graphics,
and the actual gameplay.Anyway, here are my observations—I just wanted to include the above
disclaimer because now we’re getting into serious audiophile cork sniffer
territory!Roland SC-55 vs Roland Sound Canvas VAContrary to what Internet hearsay would make you believe, the Roland Sound
Canvas VA is an excellent substitute for the real SC-55. Technically, it does
not directly emulate the SC-55 but the much later SC-8820 module, which has an
SC-55 emulation mode. This doesn’t matter much though because it just sounds
stellar and true to the real SC-55 for the most part. But it should be also
noted that while good enough for everyday gaming purposes, the Sound Canvas VA
should not be the final word when it comes to 100% authenticity (e.g. if you
want to write an authentic SC-55 emulator, the SCVA simply isn’t a perfect and
flawless reference implementation).The real hardware sounds a bit nicer and has a beefier low-end, but this
becomes all very theoretical if you can’t get hold of one, don’t have the
space for it, or want to play DOS games on a laptop while commuting—the SCVA
will do the job just fine in these scenarios, and you won’t be missing out on
much as a gamer.Some specific observations:The SCVA in SC-55 mode uses the same samples as the hardware module—for the
most part. Some of the drums sound different; you can notice this by A/B
comparing the rock/metal-oriented Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, and Shadow Warrior
soundtracks. It’s not that significant, though, and by no means sounds
worse, only different. There are other differences too; for example, the
string samples are not quite the same either (I find them subjectively
inferior compared to the real deal), which is apparent when they are playing
in isolation (e.g., the start of the Daggerfall combat music).The analog output stage of the hardware unit gives it a certain character
that the SCVA doesn’t replicate as it does not seem to perform any analog
emulation (essentially, it’s just a fully digital sample player). This is
most noticeable in full-range music that fills the whole frequency spectrum
from the deep bass region to the very high end (typically, the more
synth-oriented and rock/metal tracks). Try A/B comparing the System Shock
intro music on a good pair of headphones, the difference is quite obvious.
I’m pretty sure what we’re hearing is the effects of some subtle saturation
distortion the relatively low-cost analog output stages impart to the sound.
Subjectively, this results in a tighter bottom end, wider stereo image, and
a more spacious, more “3D” sound.2Rarely, some effects are not applied correctly, e.g., the synth bass
in the System Shock intro track sounds completely mono on the SCVA, whereas
it has a nice stereo width due to the chorus effect of the SC-55. However,
this is a very rare occurrence; on most tracks, the effects are very similar
on all instruments.I used the word “similar” on purpose as there are some noticeable subtle
differences between the SCVA and the SC-55 reverb. On the hardware, the
reverb has a little bit better sense of space. This is probably due to the
floating-point versus fixed-point algorithm implementation, or something like
that (the “magic” of certain digital Lexicon reverb units from the 90s lies
partly in the various noises and rounding errors introduced by their
fixed-point algorithms; this might well be the case here too).My early revision SC-55 unit has polyphony limits that the SCVA doesn’t
emulate. This manifests in missing or cut notes on some soundtracks; e.g.,
there’s a rapid string run section in the TIE Fighter intro track where only
the initial notes can be heard on the hardware. Presumably, the music was
composed on the later SC-55 mkII, which has higher polyphony limits.There’s some weird quantisation noise as notes fade into silence on
the SC-55. This is usually not noticeable when the music is constantly
playing (as it rarely fades into complete silence), so it’s not a big deal
when just playing games (however, it would be when using the module for music
production). Thankfully, the SCVA does not replicate this quirk.The SC-55 is a little bit noisy. It’s okay for a consumer unit and it never
becomes annoying during gaming on headphones, but this would quickly become
a real problem during studio usage. (Yes, I’ve eliminated all sources of
noise, I’m using a high-quality noiseless AC adapter meant for musical
applications, good-quality cables, and my mixer is effectively
noiseless—it’s definitely the self-noise of the unit).Roland SC-55 vs later Sound Canvas modelsSome people claim that later DOS games sound better on the SC-88 because that
was supposedly more widespread in the second half of the 90s. That’s a nice
theory but there’s not much to back up that claim. First of all, many later
DOS-era games released after 1995 have been confirmed to be composed for the SC-55
(e.g., Azrael’s Tear (1996), Duke Nukem 3D (1996) and Stonekeep (1995)).
Secondly, these were expensive devices; people who already owned an SC-55 were
unlikely to upgrade to the SC-88 for marginal benefits, and game developers
had to cater to the least common denominator, which was the original SC-55.But whatever the reasons, I rarely found any use for the SC-88 and later modes
on the SCVA. So while the ability to emulate all these different modules seems
good on paper, in reality, you’ll be using the SC-55 compatibility mode almost
exclusively with DOS games.Roland SC-55 vs Yamaha MU80Now things get interesting! The Yamaha MU80 is just a better device—both
objectively and subjectively. The MU80 has a lower noise floor, doesn’t suffer
from polyphony issues, has generally higher quality samples, and the chorus
and reverb effects sound noticeably better. The hardware MU80 also has a
certain top-end sparkle and low-end weight and grunt the SC-55 is lacking. It
sounds a little bit like a built-in equaliser curve, but I have to say it
sounds really good on most materials. The resulting sound signature is deeper,
more “hi-fi”, and less strident than the mid-heavy, bass-shy SC-55. While the
Roland often sounds very much like computer music (which no doubt has its
charms, I must admit), the MU80 is a big step closer to “CD quality”
soundtracks. However, I realise some might find the “computer music” quality
of the SC-55 preferable, either due to nostalgic or aesthetic reasons. Also,
the drums are much more prominent on the Yamaha, making electronic and
rock/metal-oriented tracks sound a lot more exciting.The only problem with the improved samples is that some music specifically
composed for the SC-55 may sound a little bit off-balance on the MU80. In
my experience, this happens far less often than various online sources would
make you believe. Even though many game soundtracks sound different on the
Yahama, I think that’s for the better—it’s as if the same source material
was given to a different mixing engineer, who then created a final rendition
that is just more impactful, vibrant, and exciting than the SC-55 original.In rare cases, these changes can make some pieces composed on the SC-55 fall
apart a little bit, but the results are never “unlistenably bad”. Jazzy tracks
featuring soft drumming are the most problematic; the Yamaha can make jazz
drumming sound a bit too heavy-handed at times, and I’m not overly fond of the
sax samples of the MU80 either. These differences are not ideal, but again,
not disastrous either.In my view, the improvements the MU80 brings to the table on many soundtracks
are hard to ignore and outweigh these relatively minor and rare issues.
Overall, if I had to pick a single MIDI module for all my DOS gaming, it would
be the hardware Yamaha MU80, hands down.Yamaha MU80 vs Yamaha S-YXG50Similarly to the Roland, the real hardware Yamaha MU80 sounds more vibrant,
deep, exciting, spacious, and “3D” than its softsynth counterpart. The
differences are more noticeable than in the case of the Roland modules. The
hardware MU80 has a certain very attractive high-frequency “shimmer” or
“presence” to the sound that the S-YXG50 lacks. The mids are also quite a bit
more recessed, making the sound subjectively more “hi-fi”. I find it unlikely
that all these effects can be solely attributed to the analog output stages
like in the case of the SC-55 (although they’re certainly partially
responsible for the differences). I would bet on it that Yamaha employed some
“sweetening stage” at the output of the MU80, either digital or analog, that
hasn’t been emulated in the softsynth. As noted before, the reverb algorithm
also sounds subtly richer, more spacious, and more “3D”.Apart from these sound signature related differences, at the pure sample
reproduction level, the S-YXG50 is a lot closer to the MU80 than the SCVA is
to the SC-55. I’ve only noticed two instances where the instruments differ:
one of the flute instruments is quite annoying, loud, and mid-range heavy on
the softsynth (very audible in the Azral’s Tear music), and the synth-bass in
the System Shock intro is rather anemic compared to the hardware.There’s one slightly troubling issue with the S-YXG50: in the System Shock and
Shadow Warrior soundtracks, I noticed that sometimes there’s some weird
feedback forming on some of the sounds, ultimately culminating in hanging
notes. This is pretty random, but I had to render these two tracks several
times to get a single good take that doesn’t exhibit the issue. I haven’t
encountered the problem on any of the other tracks, so this is still a bit of
a mystery, and it would need further investigation.Overall, the S-YXG50 is a stellar free Yamaha MU80 / DB50XG substitute with
very few issues compared to the real hardware. If you’re using a VST host that
supports plugin chains, you can slap on an EQ plugin after the S-YXG50 to
approximate the pleasant mid-scooped sound of the hardware, and maybe an
exciter too to add back a little bit of that nice high-end shimmer.In closingSo, the Yamaha MU80 got the gold medal! Congratulations, Yamaha! This is good
news because you can get the free“liberated” S-YXG50 VSTi plugin and enjoy
a faithful MU80 emulation for all your DOS gaming needs.The SCVA surely sounds nice too, and it’s pretty close to the real SC-55, but
I imagine Roland’s subscription-based payment model, where you only “rent” the
plugin, could be quite offputting to many people. They also seem to offer a
“Lifetime Key” option (as in the lifetime of Roland, the company, not you, the
customer, if that wouldn’t be entirely clear 😎) where you pay a fixed price
upfront and only need to activate the plugin once online… or whenever you
buy a new machine… or install a new OS… or… you get the drift. As you
can tell, I’m not enthusiastic about DRM. It’s still an excellent softsynth
for sure, and I wouldn’t mind paying Roland a one-time fee for the privilege
of using a DRM-less version—but this is what we’ve got now, and you gotta
do what you gotta do…About the analog sweetening effects of the hardware boxes, both of them
feature analog audio inputs, so I think I’ll experiment with routing some test
signals through them in the hope of finding out more about what they’re doing
to the sound (based on the assumption that the audio in and the synthesised
output share the same signal path).I hope you found this article and the audio recordings interesting and useful!
Stay tuned, as I might put some GS-compatible SoundFonts to the test in a
future post using the same MIDI files.Recordings, links & further readingFilesAudio recordings, MIDI files & REAPER projects filesSoftsynthsRoland Sound Canvas VAYamaha S-YXG50 Portable VSTiReviewsSound On Sound — Roland Sound Canvas SC-55 review (from 1991)Sound On Sound — Roland Sound Canvas SC-88 review (from 1997)Sound On Sound — Roland Sound Canvas SC-8850 review (from 1999)Sound On Sound — Yamaha MU80 review (from 1995)Sound On Sound — Yamaha MU50 & Yamaha CBX-K1 review (from 1995)Sound On Sound — Yamaha DB50XG review (from 1996)Sound On Sound — Demystifying Yamaha’s XG Soundcards (from 1998)Yamaha — Evolution of the MU Series as the Ultimate PCM Tone GeneratorBefore anyone reprimanded me that this is an unfair
comparison, and I should compare the MU80 to the SC-88 or SC88Pro, I’d like
to point out that Yahama subsequently released a number of cut-down versions
of the MU80: the consumer-level MU50, and the DB50XG wavetable add-on card
aimed at computer enthusiasts. As far as I’m aware, these modules sound very
close or maybe even identical to each other in GS compatibility mode, so the
comparison to the SC-55 is very much valid. ↩︎Many synths and samplers, especially from the 90s, feature
both analog and digital SPDIF output connections, and quite a few people
prefer the sound of their analog output. The digital signal often sounds a
lot colder and thinner in comparison without those euphonic non-linearities
imparted by the analog output stages. This is something I have personally
noticed between the analog and digital outputs of the Sound Blaster AWE32.
People in studio circles have been using various analog equipment as subtle
(and sometimes not so subtle) distortion boxes for decades because they
simply make everything you send through them more exciting in a
larger-than-life manner (“a caricature is always more interesting than
reality”). “Pegging the meters”, and “driving things into the red” are
staple music production techniques in pretty much all popular musical genres
going back to the 60s, except for some more “pure” forms of acoustic music
perhaps (and classical, but that’s hardly popular). ↩︎CommentsPlease enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.comments powered by Disqus

The author of this piece conducts a detailed examination and comparison of General MIDI music in MS-DOS retro gaming, focusing primarily on the Roland Sound Canvas SC-55 module and its competitor, the Yamaha MU80, alongside their software recreations. The central theme is to move beyond anecdotal information and provide empirically derived conclusions based on high-quality, losslessly recorded soundtracks from numerous classic DOS games, demonstrating the recordings across seven different MIDI modules.

The text introduces the context of the modular MIDI landscape, noting that sound quality in DOS games depends critically on the support for General MIDI (GM) and the extended General Standard (GS) features, which allow for instrument variations and effect control. The author posits that achieving the intended musical experience requires GS-compatible devices. The comparison highlights the historical development of the modules, noting the Roland Sound Canvas SC-55 was released in 1991, whereas the Yamaha MU80 was introduced in 1994 as a competitive alternative. While the SC-55 was aimed at the computer hobbyist market, the MU80 is presented as a superior piece of studio equipment, boasting better build quality, a wider range of instruments, and higher overall quality, particularly in terms of features like the XG standard support.

The investigation involves testing the modules against various game soundtracks, performing rigorous A/B comparisons. The methodology for capturing the data involved recording the game's MIDI output through loopMIDI into REAPER, capturing the stream, and feeding it simultaneously to the different MIDI hardware modules, which were then routed through an analog mixer. This setup allowed the author to control signal levels at the hardware outputs and perform post-processing, including non-destructive volume adjustments and noise-shaped dithering, which is essential for accurate assessment.

The qualitative results reveal nuanced differences in sound signature, which vary depending on the specific piece of music. For instance, in tracks like Discworld, the Yamaha MU80 provided a fuller sound with superior reverb, whereas the SC-55 was perceived as tinny. In contrast, tracks like System Shock and Shadow Warrior suggested the Yamaha MU80 provided a more exciting, spacious, and "hi-fi" rendition, while the SC-55 created a more intimate feel. The author notes specific issues, such as the Roland SC-55’s inability to properly handle cymbal chokes in some tracks, and the subtle differences in reverb algorithms, suggesting the hardware routing and signal processing play a significant role in the final perceived atmosphere.

Regarding software emulation, the Roland Sound Canvas VA plugin was tested, which, while not a direct emulation of the SC-55, effectively uses the settings of the later SC-8820 module for compatibility. The author concludes that while the SCVA is a good substitute for casual gaming, the real hardware offers distinct sonic advantages, particularly in terms of the analog output stage, which imparts a more three-dimensional sound with improved low-end weight and stereo imaging. The Yamaha MU80 is generally favored for DOS gaming due to its superior sample quality, lower noise floor, and overall "CD quality" sound, although some compositions specifically written for the SC-55 exhibit a slight imbalance on the MU80. Ultimately, the comparison favors the Yamaha MU80, which offers improvements in dynamic range and tonal balance across a wider spectrum of game music.