Listen To (And Watch!) The Wing Commander Roland MT-32 Difference (May 26, 2016)

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Space Game Junkie recently managed to score one of the legendary Roland MT-32 sound modules, and he's put together a new video to provide a comparison and show off how he got it working. While it's possible to emulate and tweak your way to some pretty great sounding music in Wing Commander games, this is the real deal. An especially cool feature here is that Brian points an embedded camera at the device while firing up some classic space games. If you haven't seen one of these in action, it's something you've got to check out. The little display that shows off game and music information ("Origin Sound System!") is just awesome. You can jump forward to 7:30 for the Wing Commander part, but it's worth checking out the full video. He's got it working with the GOG version of WC1&2, so just about anyone (with the right hardware) can make this happen.



Hey friends! If you follow me at all on social media, you know I recently got a vintage (i.e. 1988-1989) Roland MT-32 Midi Sound Module. Why did I get this? Blame Joe at the Upper Memory Block Podcast (http://umbcast.com/). Also, massive thanks to Joe for helping me get it to work. :) Anyway, he showed off one for his Day of the Tentacle show, and once I saw it was supported by TIE Fighter and the first two Wing Commanders, I had to have it. After a ton of work getting it to properly run, I've been running it in a variety of games. I'm so giddy about it I wanted to share it with y'all, so I hope you enjoy this little jaunt to the past. :) Thanks for watching!

--
Original update published on May 26, 2016
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really cool video! Wing Commander 2 sounds stellar with the Roland. I always wanted one as a kid but went with Sound blaster for some reason.
 
Really cool video! Wing Commander 2 sounds stellar with the Roland. I always wanted one as a kid but went with Sound blaster for some reason.

Sound Blaster was the standard... The Rolands were harder to find, more expensive and had somewhat less universal support. I don't recall ever actually seeing one in a store. Or perhaps I did, and didn't even realize what it was at the time, because Sound Blasters were synonymous with sound cards at the time.
 
Sound Blaster was the standard... The Rolands were harder to find, more expensive and had somewhat less universal support. I don't recall ever actually seeing one in a store. Or perhaps I did, and didn't even realize what it was at the time, because Sound Blasters were synonymous with sound cards at the time.

Yeah I don't think I ever saw one of those in stores either. Just in magazines and me always wondering about it in the setup screen in these dos games. Lol.
I do remember a lot of hype about how good it sounds though. This video finally proved it. Only problem with the demo here was the volume cut of the roland. Can trick people to think the soundblaster was better cuz it was louder lol. But i could hear those awesome roland virtual instruments and they sound great. Really cool video.
 
Sound Blaster was the standard... The Rolands were harder to find, more expensive and had somewhat less universal support. I don't recall ever actually seeing one in a store. Or perhaps I did, and didn't even realize what it was at the time, because Sound Blasters were synonymous with sound cards at the time.

I wouldn't say they didn't have universal support; if anything, they actually were more universal than the wavetable sound cards battling it out circa 1990 (Sound Blaster, SoundScape, Game Blaster, AdLib, etc.) All of those cards supported MIDI music the same way because Roland set that standard (... and produced the only consumer PC devices...), and then they had vast differences in how they did regular sound. But there are several reasons why you don't remember seeing them!

- Functionality. The MT-32 played incredible music (and a few cool sound effects)... but it wasn't a sound card. It lacked the capacity for FM synthesis, which meant you could never play a game that had its own unique sounds (or, most important to people at the time, speech.) While that wasn't common in the age of single diskette titles, storage technology moved quickly and allowed developers to do great things with their own sounds instead of a pre-stocked library. We also tend to forget that you didn't just buy a Sound Blaster because it played sounds... they were veritable swiss army cards, giving you a game port and (especially early on) a disk controller (needed to add hard drives, CD-ROMs, etc. to your computer.) In fact, you needed to have either a Sound Blaster equivalent or a dedicated game port card in order to use an MT-32 in the first place! (Though not for the internal Roland LAPC-I card version.)

- Cost. The Roland devices cost 2-3x the price of a Sound Blaster. The MT-32 was $550 and the LAPC-I was $425... which equates to $900-$1200 in today's dollars! One of the ways Sound Blaster took the market share early was lowering their price to kill the competition. By the time Wing Commander came out, a new Sound Blaster was $150, which was insanely cheap for what you got! (The game controller card you'd need to buy to use the MT-32 itself without additional sounds would have been half that.)

- Availability/promotion. Roland is not a game company and did not promote their products to game players. You mentioned not remembering seeing them in stores, and you almost certainly wouldn't. They were stocked at music stores and high end computer stores... and they wouldn't have stood out at all. Where the Sound Blaster packaging was a hip blue (later blue and yellow) package with callouts and graphics, Roland items came in simple white boxes with their model number stenciled on. What really made Roland tech accessible to gamers in the late 80s that we remember today was Sierra On-Line doing the legwork themselves for their adventure games. They opted to support LA MIDI and promoted it heavily with their games... even sending out tapes like this video that showed players the difference! And then you could order your MT-32 or LAPC-I directly through InterAction magazine.

- And finally, age. The MT-32 premiered in 1987 and the Sound Blaster in 1989 (though it didn't stand out from the pack until 1990.) That seems like the same time to us, but you have to remember that personal computing was evolving at light speed at the time. Product cycles were measured in months instead of years like they are today... so by the time Wing Commander came out, LA MIDI was in a sharp decline (GS MIDI would replace it entirely the next year.)

Also important to remember that it generally wasn't a choice, either: the Roland equipment was an add-on to an existing sound card that would play some stock effects and amazing music. But if you wanted both cool sounds/speech and Roland music, you needed two devices (and you generally needed two devices to use a Roland synth in the first place.) So it's not so much you had to choose between a cheap Sound Blaster and an expensive MIDI device... you had to get a Sound Blaster and then consider upgrading to better music for a LOT of money. (This is exactly why games in the late 80s and early 90s ask you to select your sound card and your music card separately, if you ever wondered about that!)
 
- And finally, age. The MT-32 premiered in 1987 and the Sound Blaster in 1989 (though it didn't stand out from the pack until 1990.) That seems like the same time to us, but you have to remember that personal computing was evolving at light speed at the time. Product cycles were measured in months instead of years like they are today... so by the time Wing Commander came out, LA MIDI was in a sharp decline (GS MIDI would replace it entirely the next year.)
Yep! That's something so easy to overlook today. Just think about it in terms of WC games, though: the timespan from WC1's release in 1990 to the release of Secret Ops in 1998 is eight years (minus two weeks): which is almost exactly the timespan from the launch of the Xbox 360 to the launch of Xbox One. Hypothetically, had WC1 been a launch title for Xbox 360, all the other WC games would have been released within that same console generation. We went from 2D bitmaps to hardware-accelerated 3D in the time it today takes to go from high-poly graphics to slightly-higher-poly graphics (...but now with a share button!). How incredibly quickly things moved back then!
 
Yup. And now sadly those consoles are slowing down the pc end. Back then pc and console were much more separated when it comes to games, how they look, how they sound, media type, etc. now its just a slight graphical boost on pc vs the console. Faster framerate too. But nothing hige and drastic like the good old days.
Suddenly i miss boot disks........
 
Yup. And now sadly those consoles are slowing down the pc end. Back then pc and console were much more separated when it comes to games, how they look, how they sound, media type, etc. now its just a slight graphical boost on pc vs the console. Faster framerate too. But nothing hige and drastic like the good old days. Suddenly i miss boot disks........

That's not the game consoles' fault exactly. Throughout different technology formats, you see crazy bursts of growth and then a plateau as the economics/innovation curve naturally levels out. You can think of it as the the late '80s and the '90s as the PCs' time of lightning advancement, as we can see in our main series of WC games. Then the 2000s saw consoles catch up, plus add lots of usability benefits from the PS2/XBox through PS3/Xbox 360 eras. The PS4/XB1 aren't nearly as big a leap, but it's easy to see that mobile/tablets have gone through their own incredible growth spurt since about 2010. You can look back and see similar parallels in aerospace and other industries. It's not really practical for a single industry to incredibly innovate for multiple successive decades, because at some point, to truly innovate means to change to something else entirely. And that's not to suggest a platform has one time in the limelight and then it's dull forever. After many decades of stagnation, I think we're now entering a phase where you'll see cars truly transform with self driving electrical vehicles all over the place 5-10 years from now. But there has to be a reason to go back. Technological advancement isn't really about faster processors and higher resolution graphics. It's about what can deliver a better experience. Hunching over a desktop computer monitor, configuring complex settings, and shelling out $1000s of dollars for constant hardware upgrades may have a certain following forever, but it's never going to be the way most people want to play games. You can't beat the appeal of being able to play virtually the same game from your couch in front of your giant TV without any configuration. I can imagine a scenario where PCs make a really strong comeback in the form of compact and easy-to-use little plug-ins you hook up to your TV... but at that point, there'll be no difference between a PC and console... :)
 
Awesome video and sound! I never heard the Roland at work before and certainly never had the opportunity to get one (or know what excatly it was, I just thought it to be a different sound card). You could almost forgive Space Game Junkie for not having a WC titel in his Top 3...almost. :)
 
Yup. And now sadly those consoles are slowing down the pc end. Back then pc and console were much more separated when it comes to games, how they look, how they sound, media type, etc. now its just a slight graphical boost on pc vs the console. Faster framerate too. But nothing hige and drastic like the good old days.
Suddenly i miss boot disks........

If anything I think consoles may push the technology forward this generation. As Quarto says, the gains from increased horse power have been nowhere near as impressive as they were in the 90's. Hardware has definitely stopped moving at the same pace due to technical and economical reasons, but more than that - to the average consumer the 14 year difference between Halo and Halo 5 hasn't led to drastically different play experiences.
If VR takes off (I still remain somewhat skeptical, even though I'm a VR owner and developer - but it is amazing for space combat) it could really push for better hardware, or at the very least more affordable. Despite its teething troubles it offers a new and unique experience.
Right now PC VR capable hardware isn't cheap, Sony is definitely banking on VR and the NEO mid-gen upgrade looks primarily a response to the high demands of those titles, and I wouldn't be surprised given Microsofts own mid-gen upgrade supported Oculus.
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping VR stays around for a long time as well. But i am skeptical and haven't bought one yet because the high price and not enough content yet. I'm just scared of another Wii U situation where suddenly i got all this hardware just collecting dust cuz I don't have enough games to play with said hardware.
 
I'm hoping VR stays around for a long time as well. But i am skeptical and haven't bought one yet because the high price and not enough content yet. I'm just scared of another Wii U situation where suddenly i got all this hardware just collecting dust cuz I don't have enough games to play with said hardware.

If you want my 2cents:
The Oculus
3rd person games work suprisingly well. Lucky's Tale is a very comfortable natural experience. It just feels like a natural improvement.
Eve Valkyrie proves that this is how I want to play space combat games. It's just so natural looking around the cockpit, and they've completely solved the aiming problems that Elite Dangerous has. I don't have any time to make demos, but next company internal prototyping session you can be sure I'll be adding a space combat title.
I don't think you have to worry about Wii syndrome here - there's no forcing in new gimmicks, just placing you into the world. The worry is FPSs make me queezy, and thats why you don't see any on the offical store I imagine. Given how important that genre is it could be the death of it.

The Vive
Room VR is breathtaking - definitely try it, fantastic contraption in particular is a fun game that really absorbs you in the world. But it's a sandbox.
That said I can't fit the Vive sensors anywhere in my house except for the kids room (fortunately I didn't pay for it, I got a Pre for development), so it's all but useless to me.
I think Vive style room VR could revive the arcade market, I wouldn't suggest any consumers buy into it.
I could more easily imagine a working FPS control scheme for room scale VR - there hasn't been one yet (I don't think highly of teleportation) but I can think of a few methods I'd like to try.

It's definitely too early for me to recommended anyone buying into this generation. It's a blast, you should try it, but it's the first step to something bigger. Eye tracking is looking possible, the Vive has poor peripheral vision, the Oculus has lower FOV and some light streaking. You'd really want 4k and I can imagine a time coming when 90Hz is deemed unacceptable and 120Hz is sought after.
 
Back
Top