9 ms·

When General MIDI standard sounds became widespread in early-mid 90s I already wet my feet with synthesizers, samplers and the Amiga .MOD scene, so I was eager

When General MIDI standard sounds became widespread in early-mid 90s I already wet my feet with synthesizers, samplers and the Amiga .MOD scene, so I was eager to try this new format and its standard library of sounds, but was surprised how absolutely awful they sounded compared to pretty much everything I used, cheap keyboards included. No way I would swap any of my cheap synthesizers with a MT32 or any similar expander. I may have a very unpopular opinion, but hated those sounds since day one, and still hate them. The demos linked sound just terrible to my ears; you can't make a general purpose sound and expect it to fit any song in any genre as much as you can't have a single type of cheese and expect it to be good in all meals. I completely understand the reason why they existed, but no, I don't feel any nostalgia.

ElectricBoogie 2y ago
It's a common misconception that GM has to sound bad. Consumer GM units used the smallest sound ROMs they could get away with, lower quality DACs, etc. But you could fire up GM on your Kurzweil K2000, your Quadrasynth, your Roland, or Yamaha professional level synthesizers and workstations and the same GM programs would sound amazing. For less than a higher end Sound Canvas, you can get a real professional synth with a much bigger and better sound ROM, better DACs, better effects, etc.
- brudgers 2y ago
  Right. General Midi specified a set of instruments and standard program values to select them. For example 0 (or one depending on where you start counting) is will be a piano. Just as pianos vary in timbre, so can the instruments among various GM devices.
- jasomill 2y ago
  Not just "could"; e.g., Yamaha's latest workstations, with gigabytes of samples, still support General MIDI[1]. [1] https://usa.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/7/2172427/MONTAGE-M_DL_En_D0_web.pdf#page=208 https://usa.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/7/2172427...
- bzzzt 2y ago
  The problem you get replacing the instrument sounds with those from a better synth is they will sound different and often out of balance (certain instruments too quiet or loud or the timbre not fitting in). I believe there were a few projects trying to create a "sound font" to give optimal MIDI sound to early 90s DOS games.
  - klodolph 2y ago
    Yes, that’s a problem. Working from the other direction… one of the big things about General MIDI is that if you want to write a song, you know which sounds are available so you can compose a GM track and then take it to some nicer gear and fine-tune it there. Maybe you write your track on a MT-32 or SC-88 at home, and then bring the MIDI file into a studio where they’ve got a JV-1080. Your music won’t be balanced, but it will at least be intelligible, with the correct instruments playing in the correct octave.
  - ElectricBoogie 2y ago
    Game composers usually composed their music on a MIDI workstation keyboard, sometimes only preparing a final mix on a Sound Canvas (or GUS etc). So it may be that using a higher end synthesizer is closer to the way the developer intended the music to be. I don't think this is a huge problem though, waveforms on sound ROMs are normalized so their peak loudness is as loud as she goes, no matter what the synthesizer. Even Sound Canvas models have different sound ROMs over time, and Gravis (and later, Creative et al) shipped enhanced GM sound fonts as well. I just like instruments to sound more authentic. I understand though if people want that Roland Sound Canvas sound too, or MT32 even. MT32 still can't be properly emulated. I own the real deal and it sounds much better than MUNT. Hats off to the MUNT team but like most (all?) software emulations of hardware synthesizers, something is missing.
- an-unknown 2y ago
  If you need some real world examples, here is a recording of "One Stop" from a few different professional synthesizers (Roland JV-1080, XV-5080, INTEGRA-7, and KORG X5DR) to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wRCvWLm2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wRCvWLm2o
- aidenn0 2y ago
  My sister's a musician and when I bought the adapter to hook her keyboard-synth to my Sound Blaster and fired up Wing Commander II, I was blown away by the sound track. It didn't hurt that the speakers on the keyboard were far better than the 5W speakers that I originally got with my Sound Blaster 2.0
Max-q 2y ago
I totally agree with you. I hated them from day one. Sounds to clean and polished.
jader201 2y ago
I think things changed a bit with MIDI with the introduction of Soundfonts, and even more with dedicated MIDI sound cards. I bought a Roland SCC-1 [1], and fell in love with MIDI. It was basically a CM-300 in a PCI card. I could program music that sounded like it was coming from a Roland keyboard. Such good memories. But like you, I also was not a fan of FM produced MIDI, and that was only exacerbated by the SCC-1. Soundfonts made it possible for games like FF7 to sound identical to the PS1, which was miles ahead of FM MIDI. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_SC-55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_SC-55
- emchammer 2y ago
  FM synthesis on consumer MIDI sound cards only sounded dull because it had fewer operators than a professional synthesizer.
- alisonatwork 2y ago
  From my perspective it was exactly the opposite. FM synths were great because they sounded like synths. Some of the most memorable game soundtracks of the era were that precisely because they had such a characteristic sound to them. When high-quality sampled sounds became the norm, there was nothing unique about game music any more, it just sounded like any other soundtrack. Might as well just play a CD at that point. The MT-32, from what I understand, was based on the D-50 series, which means in theory it should have had access to unique patches like DigitalNativeDance. The problem with General MIDI is that it limited patches to the lowest common denominator, so even if a ROMpler had the potential to make interesting sounds, composers would stick to the generic ones for compatibility. I think it's no surprise the Sound Blaster (with CD-ROM interface) won over General MIDI in the end, because that way composers could record on professional equipment and everyone would hear it the same. It's too bad that it also ushered in the era of "game music" just being orchestral scores, pop music etc.
  - bzzzt 2y ago
    I think the move to 'plain' digital audio has been liberating. It still is possible to create a game soundtrack on an FM synthesizer, so there's nothing lost except the headaches of incompatible sound card implementations. If a game really needs to have a 'true' synthesizer it's easy enough to make use of a good software emulation now.
yellowapple 2y ago
> as much as you can't have a single type of cheese and expect it to be good in all meals You clearly haven't tried Kerrygold's Dubliner cheese, then ;)
- lproven 2y ago
  That's what I thought! Compared to how many people, in many countries, use cheese, this sounds like an audiophile complaint. Sure, yes, for tens or hundreds of millions of people, cheese is just cheese and a medium cheddar type cheese is interchangeable with any other in any recipe. Similarly massive world-famous tracks, and entire music genres, have been built upon the built-in preprogrammed rhythm tracks of a few cheap 1970s Japanese home keyboards. Whole types of music where nobody involved can read notation, or play a chord, or possibly play an instrument at all. In the light of this, I found this comment elitist and snooty and patronising in the extreme, TBH. Of course you can make good music around super limited basic sound samples. To deny this is to deny arguably a double-digit percentage of all popular music since the 1960s or '70s.
noizejoy 2y ago
Agreed, the MT32 sounded very bad, but it inspired a scene of MIDI enthusiasts and companies making countless MIDI song files for popular and classical music that travelled via floppy discs and bulletin board systems. And the MT32 was kind of GM before GM - and its drum note assignments can still be found in the bones of some of the most recent and ambitious beat making plugins. So I value the MT32 as an historic technology culture enabler, rather than as a sonic treasure. That being said, I should run mine through my guitar pedalboard and see if it can be made to sound cool. :-)
bambax 2y ago
I don't feel any nostalgia either but I do remember you could find specific soundfonts for specific sounds, and some of those sounded very good.
YawHawHawn 2y ago
Isn't General MIDI simply the mapping of certain instruments to certain numeric IDs? It doesn't dictate the actual sounds or samples that are used, does it? Given that, why would it sound worse than any other means of triggering the same instruments?

ElectricBoogie 2y ago

It's a common misconception that GM has to sound bad. Consumer GM units used the smallest sound ROMs they could get away with, lower quality DACs, etc. But you could fire up GM on your Kurzweil K2000, your Quadrasynth, your Roland, or Yamaha professional level synthesizers and workstations and the same GM programs would sound amazing. For less than a higher end Sound Canvas, you can get a real professional synth with a much bigger and better sound ROM, better DACs, better effects, etc.

brudgers 2y ago
Right. General Midi specified a set of instruments and standard program values to select them. For example 0 (or one depending on where you start counting) is will be a piano. Just as pianos vary in timbre, so can the instruments among various GM devices.
jasomill 2y ago
Not just "could"; e.g., Yamaha's latest workstations, with gigabytes of samples, still support General MIDI[1]. [1] https://usa.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/7/2172427/MONTAGE-M_DL_En_D0_web.pdf#page=208 https://usa.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/7/2172427...
bzzzt 2y ago
The problem you get replacing the instrument sounds with those from a better synth is they will sound different and often out of balance (certain instruments too quiet or loud or the timbre not fitting in). I believe there were a few projects trying to create a "sound font" to give optimal MIDI sound to early 90s DOS games.
- klodolph 2y ago
  Yes, that’s a problem. Working from the other direction… one of the big things about General MIDI is that if you want to write a song, you know which sounds are available so you can compose a GM track and then take it to some nicer gear and fine-tune it there. Maybe you write your track on a MT-32 or SC-88 at home, and then bring the MIDI file into a studio where they’ve got a JV-1080. Your music won’t be balanced, but it will at least be intelligible, with the correct instruments playing in the correct octave.
- ElectricBoogie 2y ago
  Game composers usually composed their music on a MIDI workstation keyboard, sometimes only preparing a final mix on a Sound Canvas (or GUS etc). So it may be that using a higher end synthesizer is closer to the way the developer intended the music to be. I don't think this is a huge problem though, waveforms on sound ROMs are normalized so their peak loudness is as loud as she goes, no matter what the synthesizer. Even Sound Canvas models have different sound ROMs over time, and Gravis (and later, Creative et al) shipped enhanced GM sound fonts as well. I just like instruments to sound more authentic. I understand though if people want that Roland Sound Canvas sound too, or MT32 even. MT32 still can't be properly emulated. I own the real deal and it sounds much better than MUNT. Hats off to the MUNT team but like most (all?) software emulations of hardware synthesizers, something is missing.
an-unknown 2y ago
If you need some real world examples, here is a recording of "One Stop" from a few different professional synthesizers (Roland JV-1080, XV-5080, INTEGRA-7, and KORG X5DR) to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wRCvWLm2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wRCvWLm2o
aidenn0 2y ago
My sister's a musician and when I bought the adapter to hook her keyboard-synth to my Sound Blaster and fired up Wing Commander II, I was blown away by the sound track. It didn't hurt that the speakers on the keyboard were far better than the 5W speakers that I originally got with my Sound Blaster 2.0

Max-q 2y ago

I totally agree with you. I hated them from day one. Sounds to clean and polished.

jader201 2y ago

I think things changed a bit with MIDI with the introduction of Soundfonts, and even more with dedicated MIDI sound cards. I bought a Roland SCC-1 [1], and fell in love with MIDI. It was basically a CM-300 in a PCI card. I could program music that sounded like it was coming from a Roland keyboard. Such good memories. But like you, I also was not a fan of FM produced MIDI, and that was only exacerbated by the SCC-1. Soundfonts made it possible for games like FF7 to sound identical to the PS1, which was miles ahead of FM MIDI. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_SC-55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_SC-55

emchammer 2y ago
FM synthesis on consumer MIDI sound cards only sounded dull because it had fewer operators than a professional synthesizer.
alisonatwork 2y ago
From my perspective it was exactly the opposite. FM synths were great because they sounded like synths. Some of the most memorable game soundtracks of the era were that precisely because they had such a characteristic sound to them. When high-quality sampled sounds became the norm, there was nothing unique about game music any more, it just sounded like any other soundtrack. Might as well just play a CD at that point. The MT-32, from what I understand, was based on the D-50 series, which means in theory it should have had access to unique patches like DigitalNativeDance. The problem with General MIDI is that it limited patches to the lowest common denominator, so even if a ROMpler had the potential to make interesting sounds, composers would stick to the generic ones for compatibility. I think it's no surprise the Sound Blaster (with CD-ROM interface) won over General MIDI in the end, because that way composers could record on professional equipment and everyone would hear it the same. It's too bad that it also ushered in the era of "game music" just being orchestral scores, pop music etc.
- bzzzt 2y ago
  I think the move to 'plain' digital audio has been liberating. It still is possible to create a game soundtrack on an FM synthesizer, so there's nothing lost except the headaches of incompatible sound card implementations. If a game really needs to have a 'true' synthesizer it's easy enough to make use of a good software emulation now.

yellowapple 2y ago

> as much as you can't have a single type of cheese and expect it to be good in all meals You clearly haven't tried Kerrygold's Dubliner cheese, then ;)

lproven 2y ago
That's what I thought! Compared to how many people, in many countries, use cheese, this sounds like an audiophile complaint. Sure, yes, for tens or hundreds of millions of people, cheese is just cheese and a medium cheddar type cheese is interchangeable with any other in any recipe. Similarly massive world-famous tracks, and entire music genres, have been built upon the built-in preprogrammed rhythm tracks of a few cheap 1970s Japanese home keyboards. Whole types of music where nobody involved can read notation, or play a chord, or possibly play an instrument at all. In the light of this, I found this comment elitist and snooty and patronising in the extreme, TBH. Of course you can make good music around super limited basic sound samples. To deny this is to deny arguably a double-digit percentage of all popular music since the 1960s or '70s.

noizejoy 2y ago

Agreed, the MT32 sounded very bad, but it inspired a scene of MIDI enthusiasts and companies making countless MIDI song files for popular and classical music that travelled via floppy discs and bulletin board systems. And the MT32 was kind of GM before GM - and its drum note assignments can still be found in the bones of some of the most recent and ambitious beat making plugins. So I value the MT32 as an historic technology culture enabler, rather than as a sonic treasure. That being said, I should run mine through my guitar pedalboard and see if it can be made to sound cool. :-)

bambax 2y ago

I don't feel any nostalgia either but I do remember you could find specific soundfonts for specific sounds, and some of those sounded very good.

YawHawHawn 2y ago

Isn't General MIDI simply the mapping of certain instruments to certain numeric IDs? It doesn't dictate the actual sounds or samples that are used, does it? Given that, why would it sound worse than any other means of triggering the same instruments?