SC-88 Pro or MU80?

[Daniel E. Schaerer]

Hello all,

I plan to buy a General MIDI sound module to replace my aging Roland SC-55
which I'll sell to a neighbour's kid. Currently I'm focusing on the Roland
SC-88 Pro and the Yamaha MU80. Can anyone help me decide which one I
should choose?

- Sounds: I need a good assortment of naturalistic as well as synth
sounds, but no subtle specialties. A good piano is a must (the SC-55's
piano wasn't too bad at that time). I expect good if not excellent sound
quality (the SC-55 is noisy, and quite a few sounds have audible loops or
other artifacts).

- Effects: I expect flexible and good-quality effects, both for subtle and
brute sound modifications (the latter for my kids...). I'm fascinated with
having per-part ("insert") effects available. How do the two devices
compare?

- Analog Input: The MU80 treats the analog input like another pair of
parts that can be routed through the effects. This sounds interesting, but
is it a toy or is it useful? How good is the A/D converter?

- Computer interface: The sound module will go attached to a Macintosh,
with OMS 2.3.1 installed. Both devices are 32-part multitimbral and have
two MIDI inputs, both have an additional computer connector, and both
promise that they can serve as MIDI interfaces. Will I have trouble-free
access to all 32 parts of either device, as well as to other devices
attached to its MIDI connectors?

- User Interface: At first glance, the MU80's user interface seems more
intuitive. Any opinions and experiences?

- Software: Is there any free or cheap software to control either device
from a Macintosh? This could compensate for a poor user interface at the
device itself.

- General MIDI Extensions: Any opinions on XG v. GS? (I don't plan to play
lots of canned MIDI files, therefore this probly isn't a top priority
question.)

Thanks in advance for any help!

Daniel Schaerer
University of Zurich, Computer Science Department
scha...@ifi.unizh.ch

[Mike Overlin]

>- Sounds: I need a good assortment of naturalistic as well as synth
>sounds, but no subtle specialties. A good piano is a must (the SC-55's
>piano wasn't too bad at that time). I expect good if not excellent sound
>quality (the SC-55 is noisy, and quite a few sounds have audible loops or
>other artifacts).
>

You will find that the MU80 has a huge number of sounds, but the main
thing you will gain with it over any other module is the fact that it
is an XG module. XG is an extended General Midi format that allows an
unprecedented amount of control when it comes to the creation of
music. This is literally a matter of hearing is believing. I would
encourage you to take a listen to the MU80 not only on GM files, but
also on the XG files that really make it kick! You will be amazed.

>- Effects: I expect flexible and good-quality effects, both for subtle and
>brute sound modifications (the latter for my kids...). I'm fascinated with
>having per-part ("insert") effects available. How do the two devices
>compare?

The MU80 has 5 dedicated DSPs. Reverb, Chorus, a variation effect that
can be run either globallyor as an insertion, a fourht insertion only
effect and a five band parametric eq on the main outs.

>
>- Analog Input: The MU80 treats the analog input like another pair of
>parts that can be routed through the effects. This sounds interesting, but
>is it a toy or is it useful? How good is the A/D converter?

The MU80's AD convertors are very good and the device can actually be
used as a mini mixer, running your vocal and guitar through the inputs
with seperate gain structures and effects on each!

>
>- Computer interface: The sound module will go attached to a Macintosh,
>with OMS 2.3.1 installed. Both devices are 32-part multitimbral and have
>two MIDI inputs, both have an additional computer connector, and both
>promise that they can serve as MIDI interfaces. Will I have trouble-free
>access to all 32 parts of either device, as well as to other devices
>attached to its MIDI connectors?

The MU80 will actually show up as a 3 port device on the mac allowing
access to 48 midi channels. 32 on board and an additional 16 by way of
the midi out.

>
>- User Interface: At first glance, the MU80's user interface seems more
>intuitive. Any opinions and experiences?

The MU80 is very intuitive to use.

>
>- Software: Is there any free or cheap software to control either device
>from a Macintosh? This could compensate for a poor user interface at the
>device itself.

All of the top sequencers have XG environments with which to edit the
module. Another big advantage of XG is that any standard midi file you
author on the MU80 will sound exactly the way you intended it on any
other XG device.

>
>- General MIDI Extensions: Any opinions on XG v. GS? (I don't plan to play
>lots of canned MIDI files, therefore this probly isn't a top priority
>question.)

GS was a really good standard beating GM by a long shot. XG goes light
years beyond that however. XG is %100 GM compatible and %100 GS
compatible ( except for where Roland did their bank switching
differently) , but then adds substantial power on top of that. It is
an incredible control format that Yamaha and much of the industry is
embracing because of it's power and flexibility..

I tried to leave a lot of the subjective stuff out and give you a
pretty clear look at XG and what the MU80 offers. Listen to what it
can do and you will be convinced.

``````````````````````````````````````````````
MIKE OVERLIN

XG Evangelist
YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA

``````````````````````````````````````````````

[KeybdWizrd]

move...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Overlin) wrote:

>I would encourage you to take a listen to the MU80 not only on
>GM files, but also on the XG files that really make it kick! You will
>be amazed.

I agree 100%.

>The MU80 has 5 dedicated DSPs. Reverb, Chorus, a variation effect that
>can be run either globallyor as an insertion, a fourht insertion only
>effect and a five band parametric eq on the main outs.

The effects alone in the MU80 are practically worth the price of the box.
Yamaha has made great effects units for years, and they really shine in
the XG instruments like the MU80.

>The MU80 is very intuitive to use.

I don't think I've ever even cracked open the manual. :)

>Another big advantage of XG is that any standard midi file you
>author on the MU80 will sound exactly the way you intended it on any
>other XG device.

This is a *major* plus for composers like myself.

Truthfully, I have to agree with everything that Mike Overlin wrote about
the MU80. I've had one for over a year, and it's definitely the coolest
module I've ever owned.

-
Michael Walthius
THE MUSIC OF CYBERSPACE
http://www.keybdwizrd.com
-

[David Simmons]

Why get a General MIDI module at all?! GM, no matter what is incarnation
may be( GS, XG, etc.) is very limiting. Sure, maybe a dedicated GM
device like an MU80 can play back MIDI files well, but why bother? Why
not buy a CD or download a wave file and hear the music exactly as was
intended without spending $600 for some module. For making music,
GM/XG's limitations on everything cause serious headaches and de-inspire
the musician. My setup includes an Alesis QS6 and a Roland JV1080 and I
have never touched the General MIDI banks on either.

[bx]

How about the DB50XG/SW60XG/MU10 ? they are all XG compatible,
As far as sound quality is concerned, are they comparable to MU80 ?
what makes the huge price difference then ?

Bin

[KeybdWizrd]

David Simmons <dhsi...@uiuc.edu> wrote:

>Why get a General MIDI module at all?!

Because lots of musicians composers (like me), like to distribute their
music via the 'Net, and GM, GS and XG help make this possible.
Additionally, all of the MIDI files used in games and multimedia software
are GM, and a nice module can enhance the experience (in the same way that
a killer 17" monitor can).

>GM, no matter what is incarnation may be( GS, XG, etc.) is very limiting.

I prefer to view it as *challenging* as opposed to limiting. IMHO, it's a
poor artist who blames his tools.

>Sure, maybe a dedicated GM device like an MU80 can play back MIDI files
well, >but why bother?

See above.

>Why not buy a CD or download a wave file and hear the music exactly as
>was intended without spending $600 for some module.

Once again, for the listener, lots of music isn't available on CD. Also,
a five minute stereo wav file sampled at 44.1KHz runs about 50 megs.
Lastly, if you're a composer and you want to create music that you can
share with hundreds of thousands of people globally, GM/XG sequencing
(using a nice module) is the way to go. If this is not something you want
to do, then a GM or XG instrument would probably not be a priority.

>For making music, GM/XG's limitations on everything cause serious
>headaches and de-inspire the musician.

That's an overly broad statement with no basis in fact. I do not fault
you, however, if GM/XG composing gives you headaches and de-inspires you.
To each his own.

>My setup includes an Alesis QS6 and a Roland JV1080 and I have never
>touched the General MIDI banks on either.

That is certainly your perogative, and you have every right to your point
of view. Please understand, however, that no one's point of view is
universal, especially mine. :)

[Wilf Tonsmann]

I have an MU-80, and find the analog in terrific for vocal effects.
The sounds are of good quality and the unit is versatile, one
disappointment is that you cannot layer mulitple timbres on one
channel. There is a performance mode where you can do this, but
unfortunately it cuts off the analog in when you do. Overall I am
happy with it.

Wilf Tonsmann

scha...@ifi.unizh.ch (Daniel E. Schaerer) wrote:

>Hello all,

>I plan to buy a General MIDI sound module to replace my aging Roland SC-55
>which I'll sell to a neighbour's kid. Currently I'm focusing on the Roland
>SC-88 Pro and the Yamaha MU80. Can anyone help me decide which one I
>should choose?

>- Sounds: I need a good assortment of naturalistic as well as synth

>sounds, but no subtle specialties. A good piano is a must (the SC-55's
>piano wasn't too bad at that time). I expect good if not excellent sound
>quality (the SC-55 is noisy, and quite a few sounds have audible loops or
>other artifacts).

>- Effects: I expect flexible and good-quality effects, both for subtle and

>brute sound modifications (the latter for my kids...). I'm fascinated with
>having per-part ("insert") effects available. How do the two devices
>compare?

>- Analog Input: The MU80 treats the analog input like another pair of

>parts that can be routed through the effects. This sounds interesting, but
>is it a toy or is it useful? How good is the A/D converter?

>- Computer interface: The sound module will go attached to a Macintosh,

>with OMS 2.3.1 installed. Both devices are 32-part multitimbral and have
>two MIDI inputs, both have an additional computer connector, and both
>promise that they can serve as MIDI interfaces. Will I have trouble-free
>access to all 32 parts of either device, as well as to other devices
>attached to its MIDI connectors?

>- User Interface: At first glance, the MU80's user interface seems more

>intuitive. Any opinions and experiences?

>- Software: Is there any free or cheap software to control either device

>from a Macintosh? This could compensate for a poor user interface at the
>device itself.

>- General MIDI Extensions: Any opinions on XG v. GS? (I don't plan to play

>lots of canned MIDI files, therefore this probly isn't a top priority
>question.)

>Thanks in advance for any help!