Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    The trouble with the MT-32 is that you can't diddle with anything
    without some sort of computer. I recently bought an MT-32 & really
    like it. I don't find it *that* noisy & have done a few things in
    my home studio with it with positive results. If you have the cash
    the DS-110 is a better choice, since you have better control of
    the environment, but for me, $600 was all that I wanted to spend.
    
    I'm using it in an FM/PD/LA environment also (Yamaha/Casio/Roland),
    and it sound's mighty good for live work.
    
    The big thing that I like in the MT-32 are the drum sounds (30 of
    them). While not as good as an HR-16, they are plenty good for me
    and my work. I decided that an onboard sequencer was more trouble
    than it's worth, since each sequencer has it's pluses and minuses,
    and you have to keep re-learning them over and over. I'd rather
    spend more time making music. From the recent complaints about the
    on-board HR-16 sequencer, in this notes file, I suspect that my
    choice wasn't all that bad.
    
    The MT-32 will fit in a Rack with little difficulty, and it appears
    that there are numerous computer programs popping up for it.  It
    sounds as good as a D-50 to me.
    
    Once I get a computer set up that will handle it, I'll try to put
    some patches for the MT-32 in here.
    
    						Jens

    I was at Daddy's the other day, and tried out a bunch of keyboards.
    I tried some FM ones like the new DX7-S-II-FD or whatever it was,
    the new Korg FM synth, Ensoniq's SQ-80 and ESQ-1, and the Roland
    D-50. I really don't like Roland's stuff too much (I guess I'm really
    sick of the analog sounds of their JX-series synths etc.), but in my 
    opinion the D-50, with its LA method of synthesis blew all the other 
    synths away. Period! The sounds were bright, crisp, and very useable.
    Yes I know it's not really a good idea to judge all these synths
    on their factory presets, but I really don't have a lot of time
    to screw around with them, and I'm usually looking for a synth
    that has some good sounding presets that I can use right away without
    having to tweek them or worse yet spend money on someone else's
    Cartridge of Killer Sounds. That's why I liked the Roland D-50 so
    much. Even the factory presets sound GREAT! 
    When I have the time I can usually come up with the sounds I
    need/want, and don't have rely on great factory
    presets, but starting next week I'll be playing out almost every weekend
    until January. With a schedule that full, I need the D-50 and its
    great sounds.  OK the justification is already there...Hmmm... now if
    I only had $1595 (Daddy's price...not too bad). 
    
    Mike D.

    Thanks, Jens.  They had a couple of MT-32's at the Wurlygig, too.
    In the store I couldn't hear much noise, either.  I'm mostly leaning
    on the KEYBOARD review as far as noise goes.  I've gotten kind of
    sensitive to noise lately.  I hope to be able to get a D-110 eventually
    for about $800, so for $200 more than the MT-32 I hope to get less
    noise and access to its parameters from the front panel.  My 
    understanding and hope is that I will be able to access all parameters
    this way, even though it will be very tedious in comparision with hooking
    up a PG-10.
    
    I saw a posting recently on usenet where a noter was looking for
    something to fatten the sound of his system which included a TZ
    and a D-50 (!).  He listened to some Oberheim stuff which still
    sounded 'thin' to him (!!).  I'd sure hate to shell out $800 and
    down the road feel that my system still sounds thin.  The LA stuff
    at the Wurlygig didn't sound at all thin to me.  Is that because
    I'm still wet behind/inside the ears? Or, was this noter a little
    off?  Jens, are you or anybody else out there with LA stuff finding
    that you're getting tired of/frustrated with it already?  I'm hoping 
    that the PD/FM/LA combo will provide long-lasting (more than a couple 
    of years) satisfaction ...
    
    
    Steve

    I play in a duo (which is an instant opporitunity to sound thin,
    no matter what you are playing), composed of a Keyboard person &
    a mostly Guitar person (me). We do cheat & use some pre-recorded
    stuff that we play along with (how else can you put together a killer
    SOUL or CHICAGO horn section) for areound 20% of the songs. The
    keyboard player is running off of a Yamaha & loves the sounds that
    he can get with FM/LA alone. When you throw in the PD (often with
    a Chorus vocal patch - Angels, as we call them) we sound pretty
    full, but not overbearing. I heard the D-50 & decided that those
    sounds would carry me for a long time. I have done radio commercials
    in the past & hope to do some more. This stuff has potential. The
    MT-32's main noise problem is in the Reverb (I read the same review
    in Keyboard Magazine), however if you don't set te reverb to too
    long (the default preset is in the middle of it's range), it's not
    bad. For the price of a MicroVerb, you can set the MT-32's reverb
    short enough so it doesn't bother you with the noise. 
    
    Before I bought the MT-32, I had the people a ProSound (not PROFOUND)
    connect up an SP-80 (ensoniq), D-50 (Rolland) and DX-7II, along
    with an HR-16 that I listened to to compare the MT-32's drum sounds,
    up & the LA really complemented the factory Presets on both the
    SP-80 and DX-7II, much more so than the FB01 (Yamaha sound generator).
    
    I tend never to get rid of my gear, and as such won't buy anything
    that won't have a long life. I really like the LA approach, it sounds
    very full.
    
    							Jens

    So, if I can stand to do patch changes via sysex on my QX5 (tedious,
    but possible) and I stick to pretty much outboard effects, I should
    be able to get by with an MT-32 for $600.  Hmmm...  Looks like maybe
    I ought to change my shopping list ...  db, you've got an MT-32,
    dontcha?  Any comments?  

    
    Steve

    Hmm maybe the D-50 I played with was broke..it sounded exceptionally
    clean but exceptionally thin...I didn't care for it at all...
    
    maybe I'm too analog and obsolete...
    
    dave
    

>   db, you've got an MT-32 dontcha?  Any comments?

    Yes.
    
    I've been reluctant to comment on it recently as my opinions have
    changed somewhat and I don't wish to appear inconsistent.
    
    What the MT-32 provides is incredible bang for the buck, mostly
    for folks who are trying to build a modest system.   It gives you 
    usable sounds, usable drums, multi-timbrality, useable  reverb
    and the 32 quasi-voices (more like 16-24 in practice) gives you
    incredible flexibility with patch layering and creating lush
    soundscapes.
    
    All for about $500 (that seems to be the standard good price).
    That's pretty cheap.
    
    I don't think it's noisey.  The reverb DOES indeed add some
    very digital-sounding noise, and some patches have some of that
    same noise (it almost a non-harmonic overtone).  However, in the
    context of the usual mix, it's not noticeable.
    
    However, I'd be surprised if anyone plugged one in and listened
    to any one particular sound and said "Wow!".  I look at it as a
    backup instrument.   It what you get when you can't afford enough
    ESQ's, DX's, Kurzweil's, Alesis's, to do what the MT-32 does.
    
    I don't expect to have mine for very long.  I'm hoping to be able
    to add things that gradually mitigate the need to use the MT.  But
    in the mean time, it's very valuable.
    
    	db

    Um, db, does that mean that some time in the not-too-distant future
    you might con$ider parting with it (hint, hint)?  What other stuff
    are you considering?  Other LA stuff, or are you disenchanted? 
    
    Steve

    re: .6
    
    Dave,
    
    You mentioned the t-word about the D-50.  Have you had a chance
    to hear a Matrix-1000 and can you tell whether it (or something
    like a Matrix-6) would be a better choice than LA for a nice, 
    fat sound?
    
    
    Steve

>    Um, db, does that mean that some time in the not-too-distant future
>    you might con$ider parting with it (hint, hint)?  What other stuff
>    are you considering?  
    
    Yeah, I'll trade it for a Kurzweil.  ;-)
    
>    Other LA stuff, or are you disenchanted?
    
    I'm not sure if I ever was "enchanted", perhaps I was.  I dunno.

    I guess it's just that sometimes I listen to it now and hear something
    that's slightly cheesey sounding.
    
    I'm very impressed with the Kurzweil.  I really want one,  but it's 
    very expensive.
    
    But I think the next tone generator I'm likely to buy is gonna be
    a sampler.  I'm hoping that someone will come up with one of those
    products that I feel is a major step forward in both price and 
    performance.  I generally buy stuff on that basis.  I feel the ESQ-1 
    and the HR-16 fall squarely into that catagory for example.  The
    Kurzweil is great, but it's not a great deal.
    
    Sure, I could wait forever, but I'm prepared to do that.  I'm in
    no hurry.  I guess that makes me a "recovering" MIDIholic right?
    I sorta feel like I haven't done enough with what I have to justify
    getting more.

	db

    re .6 - I'd have to say that with a Roland Super Jupiter and a JX-10,
    I'm kind of biased towards that old fashioned analog sound, and
    I'm looking forward to the arrival of a D-550 (rackmount D-50) in
    a few weeks.  When I auditioned the D-50 in the store, I was quite
    impressed by the presets, which is unusual for me (I usually trash
    or modify most of the factory sounds in my synths).
    
    As for the guy who thought the Oberheims sounded "thin", well the
    cheap Oberheims do have a sort of "flabby" quality, a sort of sloppy
    fatness rather than a tight fatness, if you know what I mean?
    
    len.
    

    Maybe this isn't the right note to discuss this in, but can some
    of you dudes who were at the Wulygig enlighten me on the new LA
    synths?
    
    Is the D-20 a superset of the D-50, a subset, or a little of both?
    If it's a subset, what is it missing?  If it's a superset, how much
    extra is this costing me?
    
    I have at best $2000 to spend on a new keyboard and would like to
    get the most bang for my buck. I really need a good piano and the
    LA piano sound I thought was bogus at best (better than my Juno
    106 but that's not saying much) so I am thinking about the SQ-80
    since the ESQ-1's pianos are probably acceptable for playing out
    live in a rock band.

    Boy, this stuff is hard!
    
    		Derek
    

    Well, Derek, the D-20/D-10/D-110 seem to be whacked down from the
    D-50 in that it looks like the keyboards have no aftertouch, there's
    not as much effects (just reverb), and there are apparently fewer
    parameters to diddle with (PG-10 instead of the PG-1000 to program).
    The D-110 is the rack-mount.  D-10 is bottom of the line keys. The
    D-20 looks like it goes for about the same price as the D-50 because
    it includes a disk and sequencer on board.  The MT-32 and the D-110
    are kind of rivals.  Looks to me like the biggest differences are
    that the D-110 gives the user (limited) access to parameters from
    the front panel and the (patches?) effects are (hopefully) not as noisy.
    How's that?
    
    Steve

    Re:  Len
    > I usually trash the presets.
    
    It seems to me like those days are gone.  Todays synths (at least
    most of the ``rich, wonderful, fat'' sounding ones) have too many
    parameters for that.  I have made many a custom sound for my DX7,
    but not a single one for my K5m--and not for lack of trying.
    
    Custom sounds, yes, but from scratch?  You have to be made of pretty
    stern stuff.
    
    Steph

    I'm not familiar withthe matrix synths so I really can't comment
    on them, sorry. I was real unimpressed with the D-50, both the factory
    patches and some that the keybord guys at Freindly River had come
    up with...too sterile sounding.
    
    dave

RE: < Note 1242.11 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >
>    I'm looking forward to the arrival of a D-550 (rackmount D-50) in
>    a few weeks.

Where are you getting your D-550?  Wurly in Worcester had four of them at
the Wurlygig.  Can't imagine they sold them all.  Go there, you won't have
to look forward...impulse buy!!! :-)

Dan

    After much consideration, I've decided not to go with LA, but with
    a sampler.  Mostly, I think that LA is being sold on the great presets
    and ease of programming versus FM.  Another noter mentioned that
    it *is* possible to get great, fat sounds from FM, but it's lots
    of work.  Another noter mentioned that the DX11 that just came
    out has some very nice TZ patches built in.  So, I have to believe
    that it is possible to get comparable sounds out of LA and FM. 
    The comment about dumping the MT-32 for a sampler really stuck in
    my head.  A sampler is the most flexible as far as being able to 
    generate/recreate sounds, in my opinion.  
    
    Eddie is blowing out two S-10's, so I put a deposit down on one.
    He's selling them for $795.  Not bad, especially considering that
    I'll get a much better keyboard controller along with sampling technology
    in my system.  This will also give me access to all the free Roland
    samples (cost is really about $2 per sample if you include the cost
    of the quick disks).  Gee, maybe down the road Roland will provide
    some LA samples in their library?
    
    
    Steve

>Gee, maybe down the road Roland will provide some LA samples in their library?

    I've already got 7 Emax flops chock full of LA (D-50) sounds. All the
    'breathy bottles' 'native dance' and 'farting bell' sounds I can
    eat. These flops are official releases from E-Mu Systems !
    
    karl    

    FWIW (again) - Eddie was wrong about the S-10 having aftertouch,
    but that didn't have any impact on my decision to get the thing.
    Down the road I'll probably sample some LA sounds on my own, unless
    Roland provides some samples.
    
    Steve

    I have the MT32, and I think it's the best piece of gear to come
    along in a long while. I agree it's really noisy with the reverb
    cranked up, so I set it pretty low. I'm not into ultra ambience
    anyway. I have a patch program on order ( Dr T's ), so I will be
    able to play around with the patches. Alot of the presets are useless
    to me, especially the strings ( with the exception of the bass ).
    
    For $550, the MT32 is pretty hard to beat. I can't wait to get the
    patch program so I can diddle with all the parameters. Wa-hoo!
    
    						John.

    re .20:  John, when you do start working up your own patches, please
    let us know how that goes and how flexible the MT-32 really is for
    building your own sounds.
    
    	Eirikur
    

    I disagree. I've tried the Fb01 & while it is similar, it is lacking
    the drum aspect. To me, the largest asset is the ability to set
    up 8 different events, as well as drums from one small box (about
    the size of an Encyclopaedia Brittanica - such as the A-Am volume).
    
    The sounds are pretty good, straight from the presets (unlike a
    lot of other products - the CZ-101 for example). I'd say that 80
    or so out of the 128 that are available (to all 8 channels, at any
    time - with a few restrictions) are very usable.
    
    At the moment, It's being driven from a Yamaha FM synth (SHS-10),
    and the thru channel goes to the CZ-101. The combination sounds
    very good to me.
    
    The Fb01 is a similar item, but does not have the capability.
    If you are interested in sequencing your backup parts & driving
    them off of a computer or a sequencer, and you only wanted to buy
    one piece of MIDI hardware to do all of the work, you'd be hard
    pressed to beat the MT-32. 
    
    I don't think the MIDI implementation is any worse (or better for
    that matter) than the majority of any of the better quality Synth
    equipment.
    
    I like the LA sounds that I've heard. They sound very thick to me
    (where intended). I don't know what you plan on playing thru (if
    its your sterio, make sure that you aren't going into a phono 
    channel with RIAA equalization - nothing but a phono cartridge will
    sound good out of it), but, the amplifier/speaker combination can
    be important also. My Twin Reverb (good old Tube technologies, from
    the 1950's) is a guitar amplifier & not a keyboard amp. The PA
    system is great for the Synths, as is my studio amplifier.
                      
    I guess it all depends on what you have in mind. I probably
    won't be buying much more MIDI stuff, beyond a computer to
    control everything. the MT-32 tries, and does it pretty successfully,
    to be everything to everybody (a D-50 on a stick). That's a tough
    requisite for any product.
          
    As a side note....
    I have a friend who just bought a Mirage Rack Mount, as well as
    editing software (on a c64) that borrowed the MT-32 to grab some
    of the patchs. He also has an SQ-80 and a KORG (1000 something
    or other), and KORG DDD (drum machine). Lots of the sounds were
    better than he expected when we tried a bunch of things together.
    If you want, contact me & I'll let you know what LA patches that he
    has for the Mirage (ie. send me mail).
    
    							Jens 

    Well, the only thing I might take exception to is the "D-50 
    on a stick".
    
    I finally got an opportunity to sit in a fairly quiet store and
    play with one, side by side with a MT-32.
    
    The D-50 sounded much better, even on the D-50 patches that the
    MT-32 has.  The salesman wasn't able to understandably characterize
    the difference between the MT-32 and the D-50 (LA, like everything
    else, has its own nomenclature which I didn't understand (LA 
    "partials", FM "operators", etc.)).  While the MT-32 does use
    the same basic process, it is NOT the box version of the D-50.
    
    In fact, I was told that the D-550 is not strictly the boxed version
    of the D-50 (it was somewhat more flexible).
    
    	db - MT-32 owner

    I'm sure there are substantial differences. I also listened to a
    D-50 and an MT-32, side by side (at ProSound). There was some
    difference, but I didn't find it to be major in tone or quality.
    I suppose that Roland had to compromise the MT-32 in one way or
    another, so that you would consider the other Roland offerings.
    It did sound as if the equalization was different. Other than that,
    I couldn't say what the difference was. Since I tend to re-equalize
    everything when I mix down, and during live performances (all rooms
    are different), I don't think that it will be a problem. It's all
    in what you plan to do.
        
    Since none of us are privy to the goings on in any of the Synth
    companies, we may never know what the true difference between any
    of the competing products are. My guess is that the guts are pretty
    much the same, or were the previous unreleased model (saving R&D
    costs) chip set. It looks to me that all of the parameters are
    set up in the same way. (To me, it looks like a 'D-50 on a stick'
    concept - if you can't sell them all of the hardware, sell them
    what you can!)
    			   			Jens

    As far as the MIDI implimentation goes, I looked over the specs
    and it seems pretty thorough. Of course, how easy it is to program
    is a function of what you want to do and what the software will
    do for you. I here Dr T's is pretty good, and I already have the
    KCS sequencer ( which I am happy with ), which allows you to load
    in other Dr T stuff ( which would theoretically allow me to do patching
    and sequencing simultaneously ), hence my decision. It's really
    hard to do patching in a vacuum.
    
    When I get a little experience with the patches, I'll post a summary.
    
    						John.

    
    Re; base note
    
    Anyone care to discuss LA itself??
    
    I'm interested in how it works and how it's programmed.  Is it as
    arcane as FM????
    
    I'm still having trouble with PD  8^)  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    It seems each synthesis method has some real strong points.  For
    instance, in PD you get incredible envelope control (how many CZ
    patches have you seen using all eight stages of all six EGs??).
    What kind of manipulations is LA really good for???
    
    
    
    

    The biggest defect of the MT-32's MIDI implementation is the static
    assignment of the voices in multitimbral mode to channels 1-8. 
    Apparently you can't even change the base channel (e.g., make it
    3-10 or 5-12) (even the lowly CZ-101 in its 4-timbre mode allows
    this!).  This used to be typical but it is no longer the
    case for most other multitimbral synths, which allow you to specify
    each voice's channel independently.
    
    I'm not an MT-32 owner, so I may have got this wrong, but if this
    is true I'd consider this a major restriction.  I even get annoyed
    that my Super Jupiter in bitimbral mode requires the use of adjacent
    channels.
    
    len.
    

    FWIW - the Feb. '88 KEYBOARD review says:
    
    	By pressing the master volume button in conjunction with the
    button for part 5, you can shift the channel assignements down by
    one, so that parts 1 through 8 correspond to channels 1 through
    8, with the rhythm part on channel 9.  (This information isn't in
    the owner's manual.)  The default channel assignments return, however,
    each time you turn the machine on.  Channels 11 through 16 can't
    be used...
    
    
    Steve

    re: .29

    It's in my owner's manual!
    
    re: .28
    
    So far the static channel assignment is not likely to be much of
    a restriction for the vast majority of MT-32 owners.  You still 
    have 7 channels to play with.  Anyone with 8 or more other things 
    on a MIDI network probably isn't gonna buy something like an MT-32.  
    The MT-32 is intended as a sorta budget thing for more modest 
    MIDI systems.
    
    As I've said, as I start adding more to my system (makes it sound
    inevitable huh?) I will be using it less and less.  Eventually I'll
    sell it cause I don't need it (no insulting offers please!!! ;-)
  
    re: .27
    
    That's interesting.  I found the D-50 to be significantly better
    (I want one) in almost every respect, and didn't have that
    annoying "aliasing" (for lack of a better term) noise that is
    present in most MT-32 patches.

    	db

    
    For those who still are in the dark about L/A....

    The May 1988 issue of Electronic Musician has a pretty decent article
    on L/A synths.
    
    They discuss the internals of the D-50 and MT-32, talk a bit about
    available patch editors and also discuss the upcoming D-110,D-10,
    D-20 machines.

    It cleared up a lot of questions that I had.

    Yeah, I read the referenced article, but it didn't tell me anything
    I didn't already know about these synths.  In particular it didn't
    say anything about what's Linear or Arithmetic about the sound
    generation method.  What the article describes is how these synths
    look to the programmer, not how they actually generate sounds.
    I.e., it described the "architecture" of these synths, but not their
    implementation.
    
    len.