From: arthurem+@CS.CMU.EDU (Arthur E McNair) Subject: Re: Roland Sound Canvas Date: 9 Jul 91 19:18:04 GMT I just bought a Roland Sound Canvas within the last week, and I am extremely impressed with it. Don't let the small box fool you into thinking that it doesn't do much (it is a half-rack module). The Sound Canvas has 128 standard instruments, has a mode for emulating an MT-32, has about 5 variations on a drum kit (where each key on your keyboard plays a different percussion sound), and one set of special effects (car starting, dog barking, footsteps, etc.). It has 24 note polyphony, and can simultaneously play a separate instrument for each of the 16 midi channels (only one channel gets used to play all the percussion sounds). It has reverb, pan, transposition, volume, and chorus, adjustable for all the midi channels, and for each individually. I can go on, but I don't know everything about it yet. Suffice it to say that I am very pleased. Beware of paying list price anywhere if you can help it. Unfortunately, since this unit is so new, places can get away with charging ridiculous prices. I got mine for $556.50 here at Pianos 'n Stuff in Pittsburgh, PA. Check the Roland Sound Canvas out. It still may seem expensive for such a small box, but it's worth it. I have the Sound Canvas attached to a Roland A-80 midi controller board, and I can control everything on the Sound Canvas from the main keyboard controls. Arthur E. McNair Research Programmer No, I don't have any association with Roland. I am just a very satisfied person who payed THEM lots of money! From: mfontana@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mark A Fontana) Subject: Roland Sound Canvas (SC55) - want your advice Date: 12 Aug 91 21:42:54 GMT I'm thinking about buying a Roland Sound Canvas (SC55) and would appreciate any comments from my fellow netters. I do mostly light composition work and sequencing. Most of my work is related to accompaniment, and the SC would be used primarily in a home setting as opposed to live gigs. I'd probably find myself using it often to arrange music by ear, things along the lines of film scores. Features on the SC that I find attractive: Excellent sound - The SC sounds very good in my opinion, esp. for the price ($556). I esp. like the acoustic grand piano (one of the first samples, #1?) Great percussion 10 drum kits Digital reverb - sounds very nice, and I can't afford separate effects modules at this time! MT-32 emulation - can handle most MT32 sequences without modification Question: this means just the 128 internal MT32 patches, correct? As I understand it, SC is PCM samples, while MT32 is synthesis, so the SC won't accept patch dumps etc. (sysex?) LAPC-1 emulation Includes a bunch of sampled sound effects, etc. Things I don't like: Audio In's on the back: misleading, thought you could do something with the incoming signal (add reverb at least??) Remote control : kind of a gimmick, I think Limited expandibility : Would I be stuck with the 315 internal sounds, or is there any way to add more? Salespeople haven't been too clear on this. Though I'm not really into games, I was also curious how the Sound Canvas performs on games designed for the MT-32. All comments are welcome. I'll summarize to the net if there's interest. Thanks in advance for your advice. Mark From: jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220) Subject: Re: Request for recommendations for < $500 multi-timbre synth/module/ra Date: 30 Sep 91 15:47:29 GMT In article <149.28E59855@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Kurt.Misar@p12.f54.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Misar) writes: >>from: mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) > >Regarding the Roland Sound Canvas..... > AM>But reverb and chorus modes must be the same for ALL patches. > AM>No way of having a panning delay for one part and a simple reverb > AM>for another part. > >I got mine last week and each of the 16 channels has seperate control of pan, >reverb and chorus. I don't understand why Adam's seems to be for all patches. >Whatever patch is assigned to one of the 16 channels, it can be individually >controlled. You can only receive sound from those patches assigned to a midi >channel so it works as if each patch, upon assignment, has it's own effects >control. > >Furthermore, according to page 50 of the User's Manual, you can store the >sound settings to your sequencer - so you don't have to change the setup for >the musical piece, it will do it for you. This storing function covers 8 >overall part settings and 24 sound and control elements PER channel, including >reverb, chorus, pan and volume. > >One last note.... > >There are 7 seperate drum kits, with some, but not all, overlapping sounds! > Well I got mine 3 weeks ago so I've had longer to study the manual:):) Actually your both right;-) What is true is that you have two effects processors and you can assign varying amounts of each to each 'part' (not quite the same as channels, as you can assign all 16 parts to channel 3 if you want to layer 16 different mono sounds;-):) Back to effects, what this means is that if you want to have chorus on the strings, reverb on the drums, and echo on the flute, you can't do it!!! you only get TWO basic effects patches. BUT you can have TONSS of reverb on the strings, alittle on the piano and none on the bass (if that's your fancy). You can also do the same type of thing with the chorus. Now additionally, within the drum patches, you can control the amount of effects on each 'drum' ie tons on the tomss, a taste on the snare and none on the kick (default settings:). Now if you set the reverb effect to be a slapback effect on the flute, you now have slapback on EVERYthing else that has reverb set.. that is limitting. POCKET REVIEW: Now that I've had it for a few weeks, if I had to do it all over again, I would:) It's a killer sound unit for what I do (which is basically a guitarist pretending to be a keybordist:) It has GREAT natural Sounds (ie sax, violin, strings and the reason I bought it Killer Piano adn drums!) IT IS very limited in the control department, it's designed more to be of a sequencer playback unit as apposed to a solo voice(??):) (Like an Oberhiem:):) Having only stereo outs, it is difficult to run any one paticular sound through an external effects device;-() For that I'll have to get s U-220;-) BTW: I Finally discovered how to turn on the after TOUCH!!!! (both poly and channel) First press both 'part' switches at the same time, then press the 'all' and 'mute' switches at the same time TWICE (real quick now:) You now have access to all the wonderful HEX paramaters that are listed in the back of the manual.. you can make after touch control just about anything:):) All in all, it's a cool box for the money. Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...) Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA ..!uunet!wyse!jvb jvb@wyse.com From: ajlijnse@cs.ruu.nl (Bart Lijnse) Subject: Re: Roland Sound Canvas: Comments? Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1991 13:10:54 GMT In <1991Oct1.020348.22370@panix.com> kmorton@panix.com (Ken Morton) writes: > I'm also interested in hearing what people think about the Sound >Canvas. I'd like to hear how it compares to the Proteus. I'd like to >create an integrated MIDI system that has a bit less emphasis on sound >synthesis (Just for now). I need complete MIDI control though. Panning, >individual volume, etc. How does it stack up? > > > Regards, > > Ken In my opinion the PROTEUS is the better one of the two, because : 1) Both modules are sampleplayers but the quality of the samples of the PROTEUS is much better. The SOUNDCANVAS sounds (like all ROLAND synth's based on RS-PCM ) a little thin and flat but very clean and brite. The PROTEUS sounds however have much more "power", you can "feel" the sounds. Also the sounds are very thick but still sound very brite. When you listen carefully you can determine the 'loop-points' of the sounds in the SOUNDCANVAS. From that point on the sound doesn't sound 'real' any more. The loop-points in the PROTEUS samples are better and longer and therefore the PROTEUS sounds more realistic. 2) THe PROTEUS has more edeting -facilities than the SOUNDCANVAS. The soundcanvas has only the basic stuf like a LFO, E.G., effectmodes. The PROTEUS has much more options to change the sound and much more MIDI-options (like special controller-functions). 3) THe soundcanvas has 24 voices , the PROTEUS has 32 voices. 4) One disadvantage, the SOUNDCANVAS has reverb and chorus, the PROTEUS only a chorus. 5) The PROTEUS has more samples/presets (soundcanvas 128, PROTEUS1 192 , PROTEUS1xr 384) 6) Listen to the demos and you will hear what i mean. For more detailed answers you can send your questions by mail to me : ajlijnse@.cs.ruu.nl -- + _____ ______ ______ _______-----ajlijnse@cs.ruu.nl - Bart Lijnse --------+ | / __ // __ //__ __//_ __/|==============================================| / __ // __ // _ \ / / | " ja hallo he !!!" Silja Renooij (1972-1991) | /____//_/ /_//_/ /_/ /_/ |----------------------------------------------+ From: ralph@prosun.first.gmd.de (Ralph Berg) Subject: Re: Roland Sound Canvas Date: 4 Oct 91 09:26:55 GMT hi ken, The Roland Sound Canvas is totally remote controlable by using the NRPN ( non registered controlling numbers[around this]). I don't have in time the Midi Implementation on my desk, but these control codes are the Midi Controller changes codes, where Roland uses the numbers within the 98-99 (i could be wrong). The SC is separated in 16 tracks(parts) each with own volume, pan, reverb, chorus, midi-chn, keyshift. These variables are accessable through the normal midi controller numbers. Only if you want to program the vca's for a new ADSR you have to use the NRPN codes. There is one thing i don't like, what is you can't define separate reverb or chorus programs to each part. These definitions will set the reverb and chorus type to all parts at once. But you can program the amount for each part separatly. I think its a great little fine box and i'm very satisfied. Ok, don't forget, at this price you can't compare it to real samplers, but it's great enough. ----------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Berg D-1000 Berlin Germany tel: +49 30 25499151 German National Research Center for Computer Science, FIRST ralph@prosun.first.gmd.de ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ajlijnse@cs.ruu.nl (Bart Lijnse) Subject: Re: Sound canvas vs U220 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 10:32:41 GMT In <91288.143603JCROMWEL@UMAB.BITNET> JCROMWEL@UMAB.BITNET writes: >Can anyone compare these two for me. Is one substantially >better than the other. Any info is appreciated. Thanks. Both modules are based on PCM samples from the Roland SN-U110 soundcard library. The difference is that the U220 includes a few cards completely and the SoundCanvas includes from every existing card only 6 (or 8 , i don't remember the exact number) samples. Which means that the SoundCanvas is more 'general purpose' and the U220 is more 'specialized'. Both modules include 128 multisamples (or tones) and several drumsets. The U220 can be expanded with extra cards. As far as i know then Soundcanvas cannot be expanded. The effect-unit in the U220 has more parameters than the effect-unit in the SoundCanvas. The U220 has 30 voices , the Soundcanvas only has 24, but the SoundCanvas has 16 parts , the U220 only has 7 of them. The U220 is much more flexible in editing sounds. There are many options included and you can really make 'new' sounds. The Soundcanvas is very limited in this aspect. The U220 has more 'MIDI-options' such as more cotroller-options, MIDI-dumps, MIDI-monitors, etc For more detailed questions/answers : mail me ! los ballos, -- + _____ ______ ______ _______-----ajlijnse@cs.ruu.nl - Bart Lijnse --------+ | / __ // __ //__ __//_ __/|==============================================| / __ // __ // _ \ / / | " ja hallo he !!!" Silja Renooij (1972-1991) | /____//_/ /_//_/ /_/ /_/ |----------------------------------------------+ From: jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220) Subject: Re: Sound canvas vs U220 Date: 16 Oct 91 16:22:41 GMT In article <91288.143603JCROMWEL@UMAB.BITNET> JCROMWEL@UMAB.BITNET writes: >Can anyone compare these two for me. Is one substantially >better than the other. Any info is appreciated. Thanks. Another fellow netter posted some of the main diffs betweent the two, (he missed that the SC only has one stereo pair of outputs, the U-220 has 3 pairs) Basically, if you like the sounds of the SC (and I did) and you don't expect to want any others (and I don't) you should buy one (I did ) as they are generally cheaper (or should be:) If you don't like the sounds exactly like they are and you want to tweak them get the U-220. I was primarilly looking for piano, drums and sax (the three sounds that suck on my SQ-80;-) and out or the box the SC 'sounded' better to me than the u-220 (I wasn't aware that the SC sounds were available on cards for the u-220;-() I have some fuzzy recollection that the SC effects were more versitile.. but I've been wrong before:) The U-220 piano IS stereo though, the SC's isn't-( It all comes down to what you need.. if you're just looking for the 'standard' keyboard/orchestra/sound-FX sounds for songwriting, the SC is probably your best bet... If you want to be more creative in your tonalities... go for the U-220.. But Remember... Your ears are going to have to live with your choice so GO LISTEN TO THEM!!!! Good Luck Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...) Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA ..!uunet!wyse!jvb jvb@wyse.com From: daveh@xtenk.asd.sgi.com (David Higgen) Subject: Re: Sound canvas vs U220 Date: 16 Oct 91 23:11:44 GMT In article <3428@wyse.wyse.com>, jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220) writes: > The U-220 piano IS stereo though, the SC's isn't-( Actually the way the U220 does "stereo" on its piano patch is to split the range into 6 sections using a separate part for each, and pan each one sucessively from far left at the low end to far right at the high end. Fine if you're just using the unit for piano, but of course it eats parts. If you want other sounds simultaneously, you're back to mono piano. (Darn, have I got "parts" and "patches" the wrong way round there? Stupid Roland terminology... but you get the idea). You could possibly get the same effect on the SC, but I don't know anything about its programming capabilities. Actually, the trick might be more useful there since it has more parts ("parts"? "patches"? oh hell, "sounds that can play simultaneously") so you could stereo-ize the piano & still have some sounds left over. Dave Higgen (daveh@xtenk.asd.sgi.com) From: ajlijnse@cs.ruu.nl (Bart Lijnse) Subject: Re: Sound canvas vs U220 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 10:48:52 GMT In <102240015@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com.> bw@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com. (Bill Wilhelmi) writes: >Hmmm....it seems that Roland does some mixing and matching. What >machine carries ALL the sounds? Where does the JD-800 fit into >the picture? Are some of the SC and U220 sound in the JD-800, etc.? >Can some Roland expert enlighten us on how Roland distributes is >synth sounds across its product line? > > >Thanks, > > >Bill Wilhelmi >Hewlett-Packard Company Roland synths use 2 different ways of making sounds : 1) LA-synthesis uses short samples and synthetic generated sounds which can be combined in several ways. 2) RS-PCM uses longer samples and sounds more realistic than LA but the ways to change the sound are very limited. The RS-PCM sounds are organised in a library containing several cards. Originally they could only be used on the U110, thats the reason why they are named SNU110-xx soundcards. U110 : PCM sounds, several cards completely + noise U220 : PCM sounds, several cards completely. D70 : PCM sounds, several cards completely. Soundcanvas : PCM sounds, uses GS-standard which means that from every card 6 multisamples are taken and organized (the presets) in such a way that every machine using the GS-standard has the same sound in the same preset. E-15,E35,E70 : PCM sounds, GS-standard D10/D20/D50 : LA synthsesis MT-32/D110 : LA CM32 : LA? CM64 : LA+PCM? JD800 : something with PCM samples, but i don't know what exactly. (maybe something for a fellow-netter to explain?) I can't give you the names of the cards because i don't remember them. (i'll have to loop them up) I hope i satisfied your curiosity, -- + _____ ______ ______ _______-----ajlijnse@cs.ruu.nl - Bart Lijnse --------+ | / __ // __ //__ __//_ __/|==============================================| / __ // __ // _ \ / / | " ja hallo he !!!" Silja Renooij (1972-1991) | /____//_/ /_//_/ /_/ /_/ |----------------------------------------------+ From: archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Benny the Bump) Subject: Re: Sound Canvas Date: 13 Dec 91 22:56:01 GMT In <7780045@hpfcdc.fc.hp.com> gates@hpfcdc.fc.hp.com (Bill Gates) writes: *I, too, would be interested in comments about this module. I played around *with a Sound Canvas last weekend and liked a lot of the sounds. The salesman *told me that it contains ALL the sounds from ALL the U220 sounds cards. Is *this true? * *One drawback I noticed is that the thing doesn't accept cards or other *outboard enhancements, so you're basically stuck with what you get. * *Thanks for any info, * It has an MT-32 mode, which may or may not be of interest. It is basically general MIDI, which again, may or may not be of interest. Its really small (fits nicely on top of my Indigo). The piano sounds are ok. The string sounds are wretched. It doesn't have very many interesting sounds, and there is no way to significantly modify the sounds that are there. It has 24 part polyphony and is also 16 part multitimbral, which is pretty good for the money. Bottom line: if what you want is a module that has the bread and butter sounds, and you never want to program, the Soundcanvas is worth looking at. If you want a "real synthesizer" (tm), look elsewhere. Archer Sully "Pretty soon we're all gonna get it Its time to buy some stuff on credit." -- Alex Chilton From: fontana@cypress.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Fontana) Subject: Re: Best piano sound - A Kurzweil? No, a Roland! Date: 17 Jan 92 22:59:09 GMT lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes: >I walked into an instrument shop a week ago to give a long listen to >the Emu Proteus 1 and Proformance modules, which I'd tried briefly a >while before. The old A/B comparison (the same very fine monitor >speakers in both cases, and no effects other than those built into the >boxes) led me directly to Roland! The Sound Canvas (less than $700) >made the Pro's "Dark" and "Grand" sound artificial, and with really >nice woodwind sounds, multiple drum sets, channel-by-channel reverb, >and 24-note polyphony it was worth the extra couple hundred over the >Proformance. I agree with you completely. For a nice, solid piano sound, the first patch in the Sound Canvas (#1: Ac. Piano 1) is surprisingly good. After making a similar comparison with Emu's Proteus and Proformance modules, I liked the SC's piano sound much better and decided on the SC. (the Proteus/2 will probably be my next purchase. :) Besides the first piano patch, there are two additional acoustic piano patches. The first (#2) is somewhat brighter and perhaps more suitable for hard, repetitive type styles (sounds nice playing the title song from "Little Shop of Horrors" etc.). The third sounds really artificial, though, and I can't see myself ever using it for anything. But I think Roland must be pretty proud of that first patch, as they make extensive use of it in most of the GS standard demo sequences that come on a disk with the Sound Brush. If anyone else has a Sound Canvas, I'd be happy to mail you a copy of these demos. (they're standard MIDI files) >Why isn't there more discussion of the Sound Canvas? Is it so >inexpensive that the emusic connoisseurs can't believe it can be >any good? I'm not sure. For people like me, who deal primarily with acoustic-type sounds and don't need [or have time] to program synths, it's a great deal. I like the idea of having this much power in one unit, because I can give sequences to someone else that sound quite nice- using no additional hardware. When I do this, I know that the sequence will play exactly as I intended it. (Not unlike the "designed for MT-32" sequences of recent years.) But this is my opinion; I'm not out to make recordings, just arrange pieces by ear, do some composing, and serve as an accompanist for my friends or local theatre companies. So for me, the fact that it has only 1 pair of mixed stereo outputs (as RCA plugs) doesn't bother me. Originally, I was thinking about getting the U-220, but I found the SC's sounds to be just as good (they're exactly the same, I'm told), and the SC is not limited to some of the constraints of the U-220 (ie. the U-220 seems to require "patches" to be set up to determine the multitimbral configuration. (Isn't it limited to 6 simultaneous timbres?) The SC is more straightforward. 16 timbres, receiving on 16 channels (or more than one on the same channel), channel 10 for drums, of course. Having only 24 voice polyphony is a *little* tight, but I think I'll be able to work around it. (Imagine making such a statement in the 70s :) One thing to note is that the Sound Canvas would be a pain in the butt without either a computer or a smart controller. It has lots of parameters and they're easy, but not fun, to set using the front panel. Each of the 16 parts has its own settings, plus there are a ton of "global" settings related to aftertouch, etc. that are difficult to access. These are best set through SYSEX. Note that these settings remain after the power is turned off, but there is no way to return to a value once you modify it. That is, there are no "patches" for the module's configuration. I'm working on a program to put together custom SYSEX messages automatically for later use in sequences. For example, you won't have to do a bulk dump just to change the global reverb type. The program will be for IBM /w MPU and will be freeware. BTW, I'm using the SC with a Roland A-80 weighted controller and a MusicQuest MQX-16s interface. Mark Fontana From: Mike.Rivers@f440.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Mike Rivers) Subject: Re: Best piano sound - A Kurzweil? No, a Roland! Date: 25 Jan 92 22:24:20 GMT To: fontana@cypress.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Fontana) >One thing to note is that the Sound Canvas would be a pain in the butt >without either a computer or a smart controller. It has lots of parameters >and they're easy, but not fun, to set using the front panel. Now that you're happy with your SC-55, Roland's come out with the SC-155, which is an SC-55 with a bank of sliders on the front panel that allow you to adjust level and pan of a multi-timbral setup, and control sound parameters such as modulation, reverb, chorus, filter cutoff prarmeters, resonance, and envelope characteristcs, just like a "real" synthesizer. Since you said you generally use straight acoustic sounds and didn't do much programming, this may not be important to you, but just when you think you've found Nirvana, here comes a new model . . . . I expect that SC-55 editor/librarian programs will be hitting the streets shortly, too. Thanks for the nice comparison with the Proteus modules. I've thought that the Proformance had the best piano for the buck for a while now, but I guess I should listen to a Sound Canvas someplace where it's not as noisy as a music store or a trade show floor. -- Via Opus Msg Kit v1.11 * Origin: ENIAC 109/440 * 301/460-9134 - read.MATT.10:22 (1:109/440.0) From: cowles@convex.com (John Cowles) Subject: Roland SC-55 (Sound Canvas) Date: 31 Jan 92 00:58:42 GMT I have a Roland SC-55 that I use with Cakewalk Professional 4.0E. I have discovered that although I can send SysEx dumps from the SC to my pc (using a Voyetra ST24sm interface board in mpu401 mode), I must turn off the timer on the midi out before I can upload SysExes to the SC. The midi spec says (I think) that timer info can be intermixed with any other kind of midi event. How else could one do SysEx 'on the fly'? Anyway, my question is, could other people who have this configuration please try to upload some SysEx info to the SC with the mpu timer enabled, and if they are successful (no check-sum errors) it will mean that I have a flawed SC-55; if they are NOT successful, it will mean that the SC-55 has a design flaw. To my (incomplete) knowledge, other Roland synths don't have this problem. Thanks!! -- John Cowles cowles@hydra.convex.com Convex Computer Corp. 214 497 4375 3000 Waterview Pkwy Richardson, Tx. 75080 From: cowles@convex.com (John Cowles) Subject: Re: Roland SC-55 (Sound Canvas) Date: 31 Jan 92 04:12:17 GMT Well - I just answered my own question! The SC-55 doesn't understand (or need) real-time clock at all. If I turn off the real-time clock in the cakepro settings menu, everything works great! (Why didn't I look harder at the midi implementation chart in the first place :-( ) -- John Cowles cowles@hydra.convex.com Convex Computer Corp. 214 497 4375 3000 Waterview Pkwy Richardson, Tx. 75080 From: jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220) Subject: Re: Roland MIDI Thru on Sound Canvas Date: 6 Feb 92 05:43:07 GMT In article <1992Feb5.212900.2747@ncsu.edu> doogie@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Jeff House) writes: >I have recently obtained the need to use MIDI Thru on my Sound Canvas to >discover that, hey, nothing is sent "thru"! It appears that only the REAR MIDI-IN (midi in 1:) is connected to the midi-thru jacks;-() -- Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...) Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA ...!uunet!wyse!jvb jvb@wyse.com From: greco@sun.lclark.edu (Peter Greco) Subject: Roland GS Sound Card (SCC-1) Date: 17 Feb 92 22:25:17 GMT I posted a note last week asking about Roland's GS Sound Card (SCC-1), which is apparently a new item. I got no answers, but was asked to post what I found out: * doubles as a sound card and MIDI Interface (redundant...but that's what the box says) for IBM/compatibles. * 317 built-in sounds (128 main sounds, many with variations). * 9 complete drum sets. * 1 sound effects set * 24 voice polyphony and 16 part multitimbral capacity. * Built in reverb and chorus. * MIDI adapter cable, two rca-to-standard cables included. * retails for $499. IMHO, a set of decent samples for a decent price. I bought it for the drum sets, and now realize that I have a Yamaha RX-17 for sale for $100. ...any takers? :-) -- Peter Greco | "There once upon a time was a man who was ------------------------------- partly Dave - he had a mission in life. 'I'm partly Dave' he would growm in the morning which was half the battle." -John Lennon from In His Own Write From: ed@duino.sybase.com Subject: Roland SC-55 (Sound Canvas) Date: 18 Feb 92 23:44:55 GMT I recently purchased a Roland SC-55 (aka Sound Canvas) and have a number of comments, many of them negative. I bought the Sound Canvas because it was the only unit that I could find that provided both piano sounds as well as orchestral sounds and drums at a reasonable price. I spent a lot of time listening to many different products and decided that, while not perfect, that the SC would do the job for a while. When I finally got the unit home, my troubles began. The first thing I noticed was that there was a notable amount of noise (hissssssssss) when the unit is merely switched on, not even producing a sound. It's like listening to an FM Radio broadcast on a budget receiver. Then, when one makes a sound with the unit, one is treated to an exaggeration of the noise which persists even after the decay of the sound. This is particularly noticeable with the piano sound, mostly since the decay is so long. I didn't notice this in the store where I bought it and even went back there to check it out on another unit - the fact is that the ambient noise in the store, which consisted of a bunch of amplifiers etc. turned on effectively masked the sound. My home studio is much quieter but the hiss that I am referring to is by no means subtle to anyone whose ears have not been damaged by high volume sound. If one reduces the output level from about 50% to about 25%, the noise level is almost tolerable, but then the level of the actual sound is too low. There is one nice feature that makes things almost workable, and that is that one can increase the sensitivity of the unit to midi velocities so that, for example, a velocity of 64 will be interpreted as a velocity like 80 or 85. Once I set things up this way the problem is almost tolerable, but with the side effect being that the increase in velocity sensitivity also causes the brightness of the sounds to change since the attack is more pronounced. Another problem is with the piano sound in general - a number of the samples were clearly made with a piano that was out of tune - there is a distinct 'beating' sound on many of the keys. This is totally unacceptable for a musical instrument, particularly one on which it is impossible to change the 'in-tuneness' of a sample... In addition to this, the voicing changes very markedly below D in the octave above middle C, becoming much brighter. It's extremely annoying at best. By the way, the same sorts of problem occur on the FP8, a new model digital piano from Roland. I understand that Roland is aware of this problem and is working on getting it fixed. We'll see. On the plus side, some of the sounds on the SC are not too bad - I particularly like the flute, clarinet, pipe organ, classical guitar and trumpet to name a few. If only they could get this thing right they would have a real winner. I would also like to come to the defense of the guy at Roland USA whose name is Ed. He apparently gets about 300 calls a day and he was very understanding and apologetic about the problems that I was having. The poor guy is swamped and he is not the one who is in a position to actually see to it that the problems get fixed. Anyway, I hope that this is not too boring and thought that perhaps if there are other SC or FP8 owners out there we could get together and put a little more pressure on Roland Corporate. Maybe even a little expose in a national magazine perhaps? Anyone else out there having problems like this? Regards, Ed Archibald ed@sybase.com From: mvcjp@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (charles.j.pouliot) Subject: Roland Sound Canvas - I LOVE IT!!! Date: 20 Feb 92 18:14:59 GMT Hi - I've been reading, with complete interest, all of the comments that have been posted to the net on the Sound Canvas. As we all know, there have been NUMEROUS good comments and bad comments. I was blown away by the press releases preceeding the SC-55's introduction, and couldn't wait to get one. When I finally did - ALL of the sounds that use square waves (i.e. Brass, Organs, Saxes etc) made this GOD_AWFUL breaking up sound that was seemingly UNrelated to the sound, but was certainly a part of that patch. The clean patches were really nice. I returned the slug unit and got a new one. This one sounds better than I could have ever expected. NOTE: You get incredible sound variations by altering the velocity scaling. The "rhodes" sound #6 gets incredible when the scaling is increased - clear as a bell too! I also have a Proteus 1 with Cesium sound libraries in it, a D50, a DX7, a TX7, and a DR550 (Dr Rhythm) using Sequencer Plus Gold on a 386/25 Swan PC. To print out my midi files, I've recently ordered "Showtune", a midi file print utility from Thoughtprocessors in New York, to get the files into music notation. I suspect that there are a LOT of slug Sound Canvas's out in the general public because all the gripes I hear relate to the same problems I had with my first one. Maybe Roland should do a recall. If you have a "bad" Sound Canvas, you owe it to yourself to try an exchange for another one. - Charlie From: Don.Brahms@p7.f402.n273.z1.fidonet.org (Don Brahms) Subject: Re: Roland SC-55 (Sound Canvas) Date: 27 Feb 92 14:13:23 GMT DB> SUBJ: Re: Roland SC-55 (Sound Canvas) DB> From: daveb@neocad.com (Dave Blevins) DB> Maybe my hearing's been damaged by high volumes (HUH?); my wife certainly DB> thinks so. But I've been doing a lot of sequencing lately, using the SC DB> almost exclusively, and I don't hear the stuff you're talking about. DB> Now, the MT32 I sold to get the SC had both the "turned on" noise as well DB> as a sort of gated noise on playback (probably the output VCAs) and it DB> drove me crazy. DB> DB> I'm pretty impressed by the SC overall. Some of the natural horn sounds are DB> pretty disappointing, but I really like the GM Standard setup and the DB> various drum sets that can be called up. I love the extra set of RCA DB> inputs on the back, which means I don't have to have a mixer to bring my DB> K4 into the picture. DB> I think it's pretty funny that there are some companies selling patches for DB> DB> sample playback box! DB> DB> Regarding the out of tune pianos: can this be addressed by an OS ROM swap, DB> or would the sample ROMs have to be changed (sounds expensive)? DB> DB> dave Blevins daveb@neocad.com Here's something that you guys might not have even realized with the Sound Canvas and the _GS_ Standard. I saw this when taking a look at the sound brush (sequence playback). Using SYSEX ifno, the display on the Sound Canvas can display graphics !!!! For instance, durring the fanfare in the beginning of one of the songs, I glance down at the Sound Brush and what do I see??????.....a space ship taking off !!!!!!! Curde graphics-with the bars at pixels, but a unique feature...I think someone on this net had mentioned that they were writing a program that would allow the creation of such graphics and simplify other SYSEX info....if that person is there...please let me know by email how it is comming along. DB> I think it's pretty funny that there are some companies selling patches for DB> DB> sample playback box! Just wondering.....are there companies that are actually selling other patches/sounds for the canvas...I was under the impression that the sounds were locked into memory and there was no way to edit (other than face features documented) and no way to get new sounds/samples inside via the computer for example? Is there a way to do this? -thanks -Don Brahms -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!273!402.7!Don.Brahms Internet: Don.Brahms@p7.f402.n273.z1.fidonet.org From: fontana@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Fontana) Subject: Re: Roland SC-55 (Sound Canvas) Date: 29 Feb 92 19:42:39 GMT In article <13933.29ACF38C@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Don.Brahms@p7.f402.n273.z1.fidonet.org (Don Brahms) writes: >Here's something that you guys might not have even realized with the Sound >Canvas and the _GS_ Standard. I saw this when taking a look at the sound >brush (sequence playback). Using SYSEX ifno, the display on the Sound Canvas >can display graphics !!!! For instance, durring the fanfare in the beginning >of one of the songs, I glance down at the Sound Brush and what do I >see??????.....a space ship taking off !!!!!!! Curde graphics-with the bars at >pixels, but a unique feature...I think someone on this net had mentioned that >they were writing a program that would allow the creation of such graphics and >simplify other SYSEX info....if that person is there...please let me know >how it is comming along. Hey, that's me! My programs for the SC are about 2/3 done at this point. (Actually, I've been working on them in bursts... I hope to be able to finish them up and release them over spring break (last week of March). The animation editor works great so far. You can have up to 32,000 frames, which would be 12 minutes at 24 frames per second, but probably longer, since I can't seem to get more than about 16 fps due to MIDI limitations. Each frame requires a 73-byte SYSEX sequence, since Roland was amazingly inefficient in implementing this feature. The editor is complete, so I can save, edit, save, and load sequences. Now I'm just working on the routines to overlay graphics on an existing MIDI file. These shouldn't take too long. The other program will be an exhaustive SYSEX message editor (with the option to tweak SC parameters in real time.) It will cover every adjustable parameter, including those normally accessible only in "micro-edit" mode (such as aftertouch parameters, etc.) Does anyone know if the SCC-1 has the same device ID codes as the SC-55? Mark Subject: Re: Roland SCC-1 (was Re: SoundBlaster Pro - CD ROM packadge --SUMMARY--) Date: 11 Mar 92 03:45:48 GMT Here, reproduced without permission (I don't think they'll care) is an add for the SCC-1 from the "Roland User's Group" magazine. I posted this for purposes of information only and have no affiliation with Roland. ---------------8<------------------8<------------------------------- SCC-1 GS Sound Card The new SCC-1 GS Sound Card is a sound synthesizer and MIDI interface for IBM compatible personal computers, incorporating new Roland digital sound sampling technology. The SCC-1 provides a great selection of high-quality musical instrument sounds and sound effects that you can use with multimedia and other computer music applications such as games, education and interactive listening, as well as professional business applications. The SCC-1 contains 317 incredibly realistic acoustic and electronic instrument sounds, plus nine separate drum sets and a set of exhilarating sound effects. On-board digital reverb/delay and chorus help recreate naturally occurring room ambience for each instrument. The SCC-1 can simultaneously produce the sounds of up to sixteen different individual and ensemble instruments. With twenty-four voice polyphony, you can now easily create rich, full orchestrations with your PC in virtually any musical style. To ensure compatibility with the widest variety of applications, the SCC-1 supports Roland's GS format for musical performance data. This format, which standardizes tone mapping and other sound source parameters, is a superset of the General MIDI Standard, endorsed by Microsoft for Windows and MPC applications. These standards make it possible for the SCC-1 to consistently and accurately play back music created by any compatible system. What's more, the SCC-1 includes 128 sounds that simulate the factory presets of the Roland MT-32, providing limited compatibility with song data and MIDI authored for the MT-32, CM-32L, and LAPC-1. The SCC-1 is very easy to set up and use. Just insert the SCC-1 sound card in your computer and connect it to your stereo, audio system or headphones. MIDI and audio cables are already included in the SCC-1 package, along with a utility disk which will check your system for proper operation and allow you to play the included demo songs. Since the SCC-1 also features an MPU-401 compatible MIDI interface, you can immediately use all available MPU-401 compatible software. Expand the possibilities of your PC or compatible with the new SCC-1 GS Sound Card - the perfect combination of state-of-the-art sounds along with an intelligent MIDI interface in a single easy-to-install circuit board that fits invisibly inside your computer. From: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Mark O'Bryan) Subject: Re: Sound Canvas Demo Date: 19 Mar 92 18:33:15 GMT In article CSHEW@SNYESCVA.BITNET writes: > (Mark Fontana) Writes: > > >These "new patches" for the Sound Canvas, I would guess, are basically > >just configurations of the existing samples and parameters. This is correct. > there are a lot of musicians in the world who don't want to be bothered with > "tweaking" the sounds in the sound modules they buy and would rather pay > to have someone else spend the time so they can make music with them. This is true too. > The reason that the Sound Canvas is a good candidate for mixing the > samples is that it offers quite a few parameters to be "tweaked" for > each part. Have you ever heard of "Wavetable Synthesis"? This is > essentially the same process except that in the SC the two or three > Parts that make up the sound are assigned to the same MIDI channel > which then becomes analogous to what is usually called a "Patch" on > other synths. The Sound Canvas is 16-Part multitimbral, with each Part assigned to one of the 16 channels. Each uses either 1 or 2 "partials" out of the 24 total available, for 12-24 note polyphony. > Other companies have been selling patches for other Synths for years > with great success and respect from the musical community. What makes > you think this form of sound synthesis deserves any less respect??? What may have set Mark's shorts on fire is that, unlike many other programmable synths, the Canvas doesn't really have many *sound* parameters. For each Part, you pick a sample, and modify it with the following set of Tone parameters: - vibrato (rate, depth, delay) - filter (cutoff, resonance) - envelope (attack, decay, release) - TVA & TVF That's it. There are a lot of other Part parameters, like detuning, level, key range, etc. But they're not Tone parameters. On the other hand, I can think of a number of reasons that what the Canvas "sound" developers are offering (actually "setups") could be very useful to a lot of musicians: (1) there *are* a lot of parameters available (not all *sound* parameters), independent for each of the 16 Parts. That's a lot of stuff to have to set up by hand, especially if you are working from the front panel of the Canvas. This involves a lot of button-pushing (and non-obvious multibutton pushing) to access and set all the parameters. Obviously, those with computer-based Canvas editors have things a lot easier, but many (most?) Canvas owners are going to be "stuck" with the front panel. (2) not all of the parameters for each Part are available from the front panel. This includes things like the Tuning scaling, and a rather extensive set of modulation control parameters (which all default to OFF, or a middle setting). This includes modu- lation control from the following sources: - mod wheel - pitch bend - channel aftertouch - poly aftertouch - two user-assignable continuous controllers which most Canvas owners, who won't read the micro fine print in the sys/ex part of the manual won't even know is available to them. For each of these control sources, you can set: - pitch depth - amplitude depth - TVF cutoff - LFO1 and LFO2 (rate, pitch/TVA/TVF depth) But then, as most musicians could tell you, flexible modulation control adds little to the musical usefulness of an instrument (right Metlay? B-). (3) the Sound Canvas (unlike some of Roland's newer offerings) is limited to an internal memory which holds a *single* multi- timbral setup. So having a bunch of these setups pre-created, stored externally, and easily downloadable comes in very handy. The bottom line, I think, is that even though most people could certainly manage to understand and create all of the multitimbral setups they'd need all by themselves... it's a lot of work, and having a number of musically useful ones available pre-fab is going to help you get more out of your investment with a lot less effort. It's up to each musician whether or not s/he feels this service is something worth $$$ to them. Companies offering such services might avoid some animosity from the "pros" if they advertised their wares as "setups", rather than "sounds". But then, maybe they do. I haven't really been paying attention. I'd be remiss if after all this blathering (assuming you've made it this far), I didn't mention that our Omni-Banker universal librarian for the Atari ST provides full support for the Sound Canvas, including the ability to independently load & save patch Common data, the patch Parts, and the Drum Maps. Plus, you can shuffle the 16 patch Parts around within a multi-setup, and move them between setups to splice together custom combinations. But it's not an editor, nor do we offer any pre-fab "setups" to make things easy for you. You'll have to buy those from somebody else ;-) -- Mark T. O'Bryan Internet: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008 From: echuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ernest Y. Chuang) Subject: Re: SCC-1 Problem with ALL GAMES!!!!! Date: 27 Mar 92 02:08:15 GMT In article <1992Mar26.183333.22025@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mek4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Kern) writes: > I hat to tell you this, but most games will not work with the SCC-1. >The SCC-1 has a fundamentally different sound architecture than does the >LAPC-1(and MT-32) which most games are programmed for. Game programs >attempt to upload custom sound information to the SCC-1, which does not >understand. So, you get at best all the wrong sounds, at worse, a lockup. > But they told you the SCC-1 had a MT-32 compatability mode... Every game I have that is meant to work with the MT-32/LAPC-1 sounds great on my SCC-1 in MT-32 emulation mode. The problem, like you said, is that the SCC-1 cannot load custom sounds from each game, so that you lose a lot of the intended sound effects. But as far as the music, I've never had any problems yet. > Yes, it does, but it should be called "limited compatability." The >SCC-1 has a band of sounds that sound just like the default settings on the >MT-32. Any program which plays raw MIDI data through the SCC-1 will be >fine. However, games and some other programs also send sysex or system >exclusive data to the card/module (like those custom sounds). As said before, >the SCC-1 cannot interpret this information intended for the MT-32. So, >I'm afraid you won't be able to hear most games on your SCC-1. Like I said before, I hear all of my games on my SCC-1 just fine. Your analysis of the incompatibilities is correct, but I think you're assuming that these cause more problems than they actually do (or maybe I'm just misinterpreting your statements). Certain sounds don't come out correctly on the SCC-1, but these comprise a very small minority of the sound in each game. I'm pretty sure I'm getting all or nearly all of the music in the game -- it's the sound effects which come out funny. If you mainly want to use a Roland card for games, get the MT-32 or LAPC-1. But it's no great tragedy to have the SCC-1 for these uses either. - Ernest Chuang echuang@cory.berkeley.edu From: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Mark O'Bryan) Subject: Re: SC-155 Date: 7 Apr 92 01:48:27 GMT In article <1992Apr3@smsc.sony.com> dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: > > As I understand it, the line is: > > SC-55 Original Sound Canvas module > SC-155 Sound Canvas module with sliders > SCC-1 Sound Canvas on an AT board > JV-30 Sound Canvas in a keyboard > JV-50(?) JV-30 with aftertouch and other improvements This is a good summary, although the last item is the JW-50, which includes a built-in sequencer and floppy disk drive. Both keyboard units also add 128 Sound memories to the basic Canvas, and the JV-30 adds 8 Performance memories. The SC-155 also has User Sets for instrument assignments, vol- ume, and pan settings. The family also includes: E-15 Sound Canvas in a keyboard CM-300 Sound Canvas in a plain white box CM-500 CM-300 + MT-32 in a white box While the entire family provides a sound set that corresponds to the MT-32, none of them except the CM-500 is fully MT-32 compatible, including the sys/ex commands. Roland has always been fairly careful not to make ex- cessive claims regarding MT-32 compatibility (if you read things carefully), but their most recent literature explicitly disclaims full compatibility on the SCC-1, SC-155, etc. The CM-500 is actually two sound modules in one: a 24-voice GS module, and a 32-voice LA module. The original MT-32 family includes the following fully compatible units: MT-32 "the standard" CM-32L MT-32 in a plain white box CM-64 CM-32L + a CM-32P PCM module in white box LAPC-1 MT-32 on a PC card MT-100 MT-32 packaged with a PR-100 sequencer RA-50 MT-32 plus Intelligent Arranger E-20? MT-32 with a keyboard The E-20 is the only one I'm not sure supports the full MT-32 sys/ex capabilities (it may have fewer memories?). Of course, then there's the D-family: D-5, D-10, D-20, D-110, and GR-50, which have some overlap in MT-32 sys/ex compatibility, but different sound ROMs. Hopefully, this will help to clear up some confusion, and eliminate some speculation about Roland's infinitely repackaged technology. -- Mark T. O'Bryan Internet: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008 From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) Subject: MT32/SC55 (was Re: UPDATE: Gravis Ultrasound) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:36:39 GMT >>>>> lotter@cc.und.ac.za (Eddie Lotter) (EL) writes: EL> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes: >So now that I'm totally confused, can anyone tell me how many >channels/voices/whoknowswhat does the Roland LAPC-1/MT32/SCC-1 have? THANKS!!! EL> The LAPC-I and MT32 accept midi information via 9 midi channels, but EL> allows up to 32 individual *voices* (or *notes* if you like). EL> The SC-55 and SCC-1 accept midi info on 16 midi channels, but allows EL> up to 24 individual voices. The "voices" are a bit misleading. In the LA/MT a note being played can actually use 1-4 voices, depending on the patch. I think most would use at least 2. In the SC's most notes use 1, and some use 2. So the overall polyphony of the SC's is generally better, even if the number of voices is less. This is because the LA/MT uses a method where a patch usually consists of a sampled attack followed (or overlapped) by a synthesized decay/sustain part (a filtered square wave/sawtooth), or two of these. The SC's use filtered samples for the whole patch. -- Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') From: mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) Subject: Re: UPDATE: Gravis Ultrasound Date: 15 Apr 92 18:29:11 GMT In article <1992Apr14.025921.65777@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes: %% %% >The LAPC-I and MT32 accept midi information via 9 midi channels, but %% >allows up to 32 individual *voices* (or *notes* if you like). %% > %% >The SC-55 and SCC-1 accept midi info on 16 midi channels, but allows %% >up to 24 individual voices. %% %% So which is more important for better sound? The MT/LA* has 9 channels and 32 %% voices. The SC* has _16_ channels but only 24 voices. I heard that the SC* is %% better, so does that mean more channels=better sound? Of course the SB has %% twice the voices of the SB and so it's better...AAARRRGGGHHH!!! Help! The term "voice" is too simple to express what instruments can do. Roland uses the "partials" term. The MT-32 has 32 partials and SC-55 has 24 partials. Each sound (or patch) needs a specific number of partials. On the SC-55 (I have one) 1 or 2 partials(*) are needed for each note played. "Piano1" needs 1 partial, "SynStrings2" needs 2 (that is a "stereo" patch). On the MT-32, I have heard, up to 4 partials were sometimes needed to make a sound, because they were simpler than SC-55's partials. The piano patch, I believe, needed 4 partials, whereas on the SC-55 it needs only 1. So, on a MT-32 you could sustain only 8 notes and on the SC-55 up to 24 piano notes. Because of simpler partials, the MT-32 was probably (never heard one) much more programmable and flexible... The SC-55 plays entire samples from memory instead of constructing sounds from more basic components (attack sample, sustain, etc.) BTW, I would like to know if it is possible on the SC-55 to choose partials for a sound (or to mute one of the partials if 2 are used for a sound). Does anybody have an answer? (*) - the "Scream" patch description indicates that it uses 11 (!) partials, but that must be a typographical error. -- Adam Mirowski, mir@chorus.fr (FRANCE), tel. +33 (1) 30-64-82-00 or 74 Chorus systemes, 6, av.Gustave Eiffel, 78182 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEX From: geert@ccsds.ahold.nl (Geert W.T. Jonkheer CCS/TS) Subject: Re: Sound Canvas Editor/Librarian Wanted Date: 13 May 92 06:47:32 GMT In article <1992May12.204516.14856@ncsu.edu>, doogie@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Jeff House) writes: > > Hello ! > > I am looking for an editor/librarian for the Sound Canvas that is able > to run on an IBM Compatable with an MPU-401 interface. > > Anybody got one? > There is just one out for the Atari-St serie. It is available from James B. International. The software house who made the program is the german firm EMC. The software and the manual comes in english, so you don't have to worry about that. Because Roland, James B. International and EMC works together, you always get an editor/manager/librarian which is complete. There also an D70 editor/manager available >from them as for the other synths of the D serie. I thought that they were working on an IBM (MS-DOS) version also. Geert. -- ================================================================================ ============ Geert W.T. Jonkheer. ============= ========== Ahold N.V. The Netherlands geert@ccsds.ahold.nl ========== =================================================================== From: mir@chorus.chorus.fr (Adam MIROWSKI) Subject: Re: Roland MT-32/LAPC-1/Sound Canvas info sought Date: 3 Sep 92 12:04:46 GMT jayward@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Jay Ward) writes: : Hi! : I am looking for some information regarding the Roland PC music cards : listed in to subject line. Can someone tell me the differences between : these three cards, and which is better for game music as well as : occaisionally dabbling in composition. I am totally in the dark about : any of these cards and ANY information will be greatly appreciated.o : First of all, MT-32 is not a card, but a tone module you connect to your machine through a MIDI interface card. Sierra used to sell the MT-32 bundled with a MIDI interface card and a simple composition software named EASE. The MT-32 can be compared to Roland D-5/D-10/D-20/D-110 synths, except that is has fewer samples and no card slots. It uses the LA synthesis, which consists in mixing samples of real instruments with synthesizer type tones. The sample is used for the attack portion of the sound mainly. LAPC1 is a CM-32L on a MIDI interface card. A CM-32L is basically an MT-32 plus 33 sound effects, minus electrical noise due to the MT-32, and minus any external controls except for the volume knob. The LAPC1 is probably more noisy than the CM-32L. Sound Canvas SC-55 is a completely new sound module, which can under certain conditions play sequences composed for the MT-32, but doesn't accept any of the commands of the MT-32 otherwise. It is a simple sample player, not a synthesizer, which means you cannot alter the sounds. Some people will tell you that a Sound Canvas can replace a MT-32 for games, but having both of them I can say that this is wrong. The MT-32 is most of the time reprogrammed by the game and those reprogramming commands are not recognized by the SC, so instead of for example gun shots you get simple notes. Of course, future games will support the Sound Canvas itself. If you have a Sound Canvas and a SoundBlaster card, you will probably have better luck with games that support the MT-32+SB combination, because in such situation most of the sound effects are played using the SB (you cannot download new samples into an MT, so for more convincing and longer effects game makers use the SB). Some people will tell you too that you can alter the sounds of a Sound Canvas, but please laugh at them. Obviously, they have never manipulated a true synthesizer. Roland also sells the CM-300 which is a Sound Canvas without any external controls except for the volume know, a SC-155 which is a Sound Canvas with additional external controls, SCC-1 which is a Sound Canvas on a PC card - just like the LAPC1, and a JV-30 which is a Sound Canvas with a keyboard. There is also a CM-500, which is a Sound Canvas plus a CM-32L in a single box, without any external controls except for the volume knob and a cooperation-mode switch. BTW, the MT-32/... series can be put into General MIDI emulation mode. I have been told the appropriate configuration is available on the MIDI forum of Compu$erve. -- Adam Mirowski, mir@chorus.fr (FRANCE), tel. +33 (1) 30-64-82-00 or 74 Chorus systemes, 6, av.Gustave Eiffel, 78182 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEX From: jbmbens@cs.vu.nl (Benschop JBM) Subject: Boss DS 330 specs wanted Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:22:00 GMT When I went to a store in Holland to get some more information about the Roland SoundCanvas SC-55 or equivalent modules, the guy helping me pointed me at the Boss DS 330. He said, that except for the MT-32 mode the SC-55 has, the two module are very much the same (but not in price). Unfortunately he said the module has just yet been introduced in Holland so there is no information about it. The only thing I know about this module is, it is compatible with Roland GS-Midi. Can anyone tell me what the specs of the Boss DS 330 are? Is Boss just an other name for Roland? How does the Boss DS 330 sound in comparision to the SoundCanvas? Jeroen Benschop, Holland email: JBMBENS@DRAAK.CS.VU.NL From: ap@jyu.fi (Patrick Aalto) Subject: Re: Information on Roland sound cards Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 07:47:46 GMT In article <1c1qc9INNa3v@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ewoo@unixg.ubc.ca (Emile Woo) writes: > >1) What is the SCC-1 GS? Does it come with MIDI connectors? Roland SCC-1 is the 'Sound Canvas Card'. It has an MPU-401 -compatible MIDI interface card and a 24 voice polyphonic sample-playing 'synth' on a half-length XT slot card. Connectors are MIDI out, MIDI in, RCA L+R out and miniplug for phones. >2) Does the SCC-1 GS come as an internal or external card? (What is an external card?) >3) Can the SCC-1 play roland sounds on current games? ie/ is it LAPC/MT32 compatible? It can be used with all the current games, but the sounds are not the same. Also, as it doesn't respond to MT-32 sysex commands, all games that send sysexes to MT-32 will play terribly wrong with SCC-1 (for instance, when fire lasers on Wing Commander II, SCC-1 uses piano sound). SCC-1 can be used to play MT-32 midifiles quite nicely, though. >4) What is the soundcanvas? Is it the same as the SCC-1 GS but different > in the name? Yes, sort of. Roland SC-55 Sound Canvas is an external module (like the MT-32 compared to LAPC) that has the same architecture as SCC-1. >5) What is the better sounding card? LAPC or SCC-1. Are both stereo? SCC-1 has far superior sound quality (IMHO). I have had both. Both are stereo and both have reverb effects, but SCC-1 has an additional chorus effect and it is much more versatile in using the effects. >6) Are there other soundcards available from Roland? Not that I know of. >7) What is the difference between GS MIDI and MPU-401? Hmm.. Those are two different things. MPU-401 is a MIDI interface card standard, GS MIDI is a standard for allocating a certain sound to a certain ProgramChange number. >Thanks alot! Don't mention it. I hope someone will correct my possible mistakes. >Emile Woo >ewoo@unixg.ubc.ca Patrick Aalto ap@jyu.fi Ps. Someone mentioned sometime ago that as SCC-1 has only 24 voices and MT-32 has 32, SCC-1 could not play as many notes simultaneously. This is not correct. In MT-32 all notes are composed of 1-4 voices (most of the instruments use at least 2 voices), where they are composed of 1-2 voices in SCC-1 (most use only 1 voice). So, generally both can play about 16 notes simultaneously, depending on the instruments. From: davecole@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David Cole) Subject: Re: Information on Roland sound cards Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 11:56:41 GMT In article <1992Oct21.074746.8878@jyu.fi> ap@jyu.fi (Patrick Aalto) writes: >In article <1c1qc9INNa3v@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ewoo@unixg.ubc.ca (Emile Woo) writes: >> [lots of useful stuff deleted] > >>4) What is the soundcanvas? Is it the same as the SCC-1 GS but different >> in the name? > >Yes, sort of. Roland SC-55 Sound Canvas is an external module (like the >MT-32 compared to LAPC) that has the same architecture as SCC-1. Roland makes synthesizers. Lots of models. Most are modules and keyboards. Many of these share the same "architecture" = soundmaking electronics. The Sound Canvas model SC-55 is a module introduced mid 1991, and was first with the SC architecture. Then the SCC-1 came at the very end of 1991. Then came both the SC-155 (module with sliders) and the JV-30 (keyboard model). There is a sense in which all of these are "Sound Canvases", but for mysterious reaonss of its own, the JV-30 is not treated by Roland as part of the Sound Canvas family. > >>5) What is the better sounding card? LAPC or SCC-1. Are both stereo? > >SCC-1 has far superior sound quality (IMHO). I have had both. Both are >stereo and both have reverb effects, but SCC-1 has an additional chorus >effect and it is much more versatile in using the effects. The SCC-1 has 3 megs of sample ROM; the LAPC has half-a-meg. But the LAPC is reportedly the much more versatile synth. > >>7) What is the difference between GS MIDI and MPU-401? > >Hmm.. Those are two different things. MPU-401 is a MIDI interface card >standard, GS MIDI is a standard for allocating a certain sound to a certain >ProgramChange number. GS Midi is Roland's proprietary superset of General Midi, which is the standard that Microsoft, Korg, Yamaha, and others have adopted. I _think_ Roland adds some soundeffects, percussion, and controllers. MPU-401 has nothing directly to do with sounds, it is a Roland originated standard for interfacing a pc to midi that included a processor that took some of the processing load off the computers CPU. These "smart" features are sometimes bypassed these days. Some software will only work with MPU401 midi ports. But (IMHO) it will become less important with the move to Windows, etc, operating systems that include drivers for various hardware. In short, composers intending to use these products need to know about GS midi, but don't need to know the details of MPU-401. > >>Thanks alot! > >Don't mention it. I hope someone will correct my possible mistakes. > ditto, although recently I only make actual mistakes >>Emile Woo >>ewoo@unixg.ubc.ca > >Patrick Aalto >ap@jyu.fi > Dave Cole davecole@casbah.acns.nwu.edu From: rjt2@bnr.co.uk () Subject: Re:How about SC? (was Re: WaveStation opinions wanted...) Date: 19 Jan 1993 11:59:42 GMT > I'm looking for a "only-synth-in-a-setup" and was considering the Roland > Sound Canvas. I have a MPU-401/Yamaha Clav/Yamaha PSR-500 but would like > to use Band-in-the-Box with a sound module. > > I was looking at the WS and noticed it can take PCM cards for more sounds > whereas the SC is fixed at 400 (450?) static sounds. I'm not really into > experimenting with sampling and sound manipulation so: > > 1) is the Sound Canvas a good deal (even though you can't expand it much)? > > 2) there is a half-rackmount version and a PC interface card version. Which > model numbers are which? (SC-55, SC-155, SCC-1). I'd like to get the > half-rackmount version, but don't know what the model is? > > Thanks in advance for any info! > - Cliff To answer (2) first, I think the following are the models: SC-55 Rack Module SC-155 Desktop version of Rack Module SCC-1 PC Interface Card For (1): Whether the Sound Canvas is a good deal for the money depends on what you want. For the money it has some good preset sounds, especially things like piano, acoustic bass, organs and trumpet. These can be modified with basic amplitude envelope shaping, filters (with resonance) and vibrato. Number of Voices: Presets (128) + Variations (61?), User (128) (For modified versions of presets), 8 Drum set variations, MT-32 Voice set (100 ?). The SC is a General MIDI device if that interests you. If you have the funds to buy a wavestation, you can probably get something a lot better than the Sound Canvas though. If you already have a PSR-500, the SC would probably just give you improvement on sounds you already have (being AWM sampled voices on the PSR-500, I wonder how great an improvement you are expecting). The ultimate decision must be made by auditioning the modules you are interested in. Another module you may be interested in auditioning is the Roland U220 which is probably only available second-hand now. That has less voices, but can have voices added with plug in cards. Hope this is helpful! I have a Roland JV-30 (read Sound Canvas + Keyboard) which I am very happy with. Feel free to E-mail if you have any other questions. Richard. ***DISCLAIMER - I will accept no responsiblity for errors. All my own views and nothing to do with my employer, etc. etc. *** From rtaylor@hns (Randy Taylor) Wed May 12 13:57:50 1993 Newsgroups: comp.music Originator: rtaylor@rtaylor Message-ID: <1993May11.193835.756@hns.com> Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. Keywords: General MIDI Lines: 75 From: rtaylor@hns.com (Randy Taylor) Subject: GM/GS synth summary Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 19:38:35 GMT Fellow netters ! Many thanks for your advice and comments on GM/GS compatible synths. Far too many people responded to list individually here, but you know who you are, so THANKS ! Here's a basic summary: 1) If you want in on the ground floor of GS compatibility, check out the Yamaha TG100 and the Boss DS-330. Both can be had in the $400 (U.S.) range. 2) If you want true GM/GS compatibility, stick with Roland. Here's what I did: I auditioned the TG100 and the Roland SC-55. I was impressed by both units. I could get the TG for $395 and the Roland for $500. I auditioned every patch on both units (yes, I was in the store for about 2 hours). I went with the Roland SC-55 for these reasons: 1) The utter absence of noise. There was none - period. Even with reverb and chorus cranked. The TG100 was clean too, but I was so used to my MT-32's hisses that the complete lack of that in the SC-55 just floored me. 2) There were only a handful of cheesy sounds out of 317 patches. The bass patches were very good. Especially the fretless bass. (Yeah, I'm a bass player...) 3) The horns and strings were very good - especially in sequences. 4) The available drum kits were on par with my Alesis SR-16. 5) The friendly amber display was great. The peak-hold feature was really nice. 6) MT-32 compatibilty mode - a real must for me. I have a *ton* of sequences designed for that venerable beastie. It was a shame that my MT-32 patches won't be portable, but I'll live with it. 7) I demo'ed it for my wife and she thought I had my Proteus cooking instead. She thought I had dropped 500 clams on a cheesy synth - she was *really* surprised - her quote, "It sounds like I'm listening to a CD !" Not to mention that she liked the warmth of the SC-55's "Piano 1" patch more than the Proteus's "Winston Grand" (she's the keyboardist in the family - I sequence and thump the bass) 8) True GM/GS compatibility. After all, Roland developed it in the first place... 9) It was easier to get to everything on the SC-55. Parts, levels, reverb, chorus, and pan settings (0-127 for chorus and reverb and -64 to +64 for pan if I remember right, each in single step increments) Well - there you have it. Yamaha fans, please don't flame me - the TG100 is a good unit. I just liked the SC-55 best, and it fit my needs (the remote control is cool - my sequencer and synths are an unavoidable-tad more than a arm's length apart). Thanks to everyone again. Randy Taylor rtaylor@hns.com (last day at this address is 5/13) 73750.3557@compuserve.com (always) From: henrik@avs.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: An SCC-1 question of effects... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: 12 Tone Systems Cakewalk List Richard wrote: > Is there a difference between effects noted in the Canvas > manual (i.e. plate, room, hall, etc...) and the effects available > via the controller numbers (i.e. 1 to 127 on the effects depth > channel)? I don't own a Canvas module but a Roland E-36 synth which contains most of the same features, and I believe that the controllers are the same. According to the MIDI Implementation Chart (and what I have verified using SYSEX myself), the reverb macros (and chorus for that matter) are merely a quick way to set a whole bunch of settings for reverb with only one SYSEX command. The effects generator in the synth contains many tunable effects for reverb, such as delay time, feedback volume, preemphasis, etc. You can modify these settings individually using several SYSEX. But all the settings for the most 'common' 8 reverb effects (hall, plate, etc.) have been put together in what Roland refers to as macros (you might think of these as combo SYSEX), which can be invoked by just one SYSEX command. If you really wanna go off and create wild reverb effects (and indeed you can make some nasty sounding effects!) you must adjust the individual settings. Your MIDI Implementation Chart will list the details for the SYSEX to use. The controllers 0-127 doesen't have a linear relationship to anything within the reverb macro.