Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music Software News Your Rights Online

Roland Backs Down On MT-32 Emulator 161

Posted by timothy from the better-part-of-valor dept.
canadacow writes "This is a follow up to the cease and desist letter the MT-32 project received (Original Story). Roland, unable to find documentationg establishing a copyright on the MT-32's ROM, has yielded to the project and allowed distribution of the emulator to continue. On my page www.artworxinn.com/alex I've again posted the emulator along with the legal developments as they happened after the receipt of the initial C&D letter. This development was largely due in part to the legal support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roland Backs Down On MT-32 Emulator More

Roland Backs Down On MT-32 Emulator

Comments Filter:

  • Not a win for OSS (Score:5, Informative)

    by molafson ( 716807 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:38PM (#7720494)
    Before you all get excited about this, note that this is not a win for OSS -- not really. Notice that no legality was established. Roland simply gave up because they have not been able to find their documentation establishing copyright.

    • Re:Not a win for OSS (Score:5, Funny)

      by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:42PM (#7720518) Journal
      Is a loss for head up their ass corporation who cant be bothered to see if they actually own something before they start harassing people a win of everyone else? I say YES SIR!

    • Re:Not a win for OSS (Score:5, Informative)

      by lostchicken ( 226656 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:43PM (#7720529)
      Also, you need the ROM image from an MT-32 for this to work at all. If I remember correctly, this wasn't needed before.

      • Re:Not a win for OSS (Score:4, Interesting)

        by pla ( 258480 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @08:45PM (#7721239) Journal
        Also, you need the ROM image from an MT-32 for this to work at all. If I remember correctly, this wasn't needed before.

        Of course, due to the lack of a copyright, anyone can freely distribute that ROM. For example, you can currently get a copy of it from their page at sourceforge.

        I suspect they made it external to the core program just in case the lawyers succeeded in making life difficult - Using a home-made (and thus non-copyrighted) version would get around any objections Roland might raise. And, more importantly, for those lucky enough to have an MT-32 to rip the ROM from (or the 99% of us who don't particularly give a damn about the legality of grabing one off the internet), a user could run with that one rather than the home-brew one, with no liability for the emulator's authors.

    • Roland v. SCO (Score:5, Funny)

      by MuParadigm ( 687680 ) <jgabriel66@yahoo.com> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:54PM (#7720596) Homepage Journal
      "Roland, unable to find documentation establishing a copyright on the MT-32's ROM, has yielded to the project and allowed distribution of the emulator to continue."

      That wouldn't stop SCO. I mean, at this point, can you really imagine the following sentence appearing anywhere:

      SCO unable to find any code in Linux that matches code in Unixware or System V, has yielded to IBM and the Linux community and will no longer threaten Linux users with suing. "We goofed," Darl McBride, SCO CEO, admitted. "Sorry about that guys. No hard feelings, right?"

    • Re:Not a win for OSS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CaptKilljoy ( 687808 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @08:38PM (#7721203)
      Before you all get excited about this, note that this is not a win for OSS -- not really. Notice that no legality was established. Roland simply gave up because they have not been able to find their documentation establishing copyright.

      Agreed. There's no question that Roland should own the copyright; they designed and manufactured the MT-32 after all. From what I've read on the site, they may lose their copyright only based on not being able to find the correct documentation to satisfy the requirements of a technicality invoked by omitting the copyright notice on the original ROM.

      (Before any of you chime in saying that losing documentation is stupid, how many of you who work in IT would be hard pressed to provide licenses to all of the software you use if the BSA knocked on your door today, hm?)

      I'm not celebrating this as a victory because it seems to me that obscure loopholes can just as easily be legal land mines for OSS developers, most of which can't afford to keep legal counsel on retainer.
      • What's amazing is the number of Slashdotters who think that Roland is a "villan" in this case:

        "Are they even SELLing that machine anymore? Or are they just being ***s?"

        "(But I do hope that Roland can't come up with the required evidence -- free beer is fine by me ;-))"

        "When [Roland] say they are sorry, then we can begin to think about being nice to them again."

        If this were the other way around [utexas.edu], the same users (likely not innovators themselves) would be outraged.

        Mind-boggling.

      • No, see (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:56PM (#7722314)
        This was back in the day when copyright was NOT an inherant thing. You had to actually file for it. IF you failed to do so, you had no copyright. The law was later changed so that copyright was inherant, at the moment of creation. All you had to do was make something and you had the copyright.

        Since the MT-32 was made before that date and since Roland didn't file, they have no copyright.

    • The Roland MT-32 is not so hot anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @08:54PM (#7721303)
      I recently pulled a Roland MT-32 that I paid way too much money for back in the early 1990's out of the closet and played for a while.

      What a disappointment. The instruments are mediocre and very noisy. The MIDI implementation is unnecessarily difficult and poorly documented. The editor programs still available are awkward to use and impossible to alter (no source code anywhere for MT-32 editors).

      The unit has no backup battery inside. All modifications to any sounds are lost at power-down. The internal firmware writes the mediocre internal voices over whatever is in RAM so just adding a battery to the RAM's VCC won't save your work.

      The internal synthesizer is just a square wave and a sawtooth with a gritty filter, amplitude envelope, and pitch tweeker (fire engine siren generator). So-so reverb and precussion patches. That's the whole thing.

      Of all the synthesizers to select to emulate, this would be my last pick. Fifteen years ago, when it was released, it might have been impressive. But not now.

      In fact, of all the synth tone modules from that period, the MT-32 sells for the least amount of money on Ebay. Someone is always trying to unload one for $40-$50 US.

      The only thing cheaper is the Yamaha FB-01. In my opinion, the FB-01 is a 'better' synth because you can at least get some really metallic industial sounds out of it, along with fair orchestral instruments. For a $50 Ebay synth, get a Yamaha TX-81Z. It's the same price as a Roland MT-32, but far more fun and flexable to play with.

      • I had one too - I can't recall, was it $400 or $300? Maybe it was $495 ... still, I remember that it was incredible, particularly in comparrison to an Ad-Lib card or the like. Sierra games supported it ... really put some pizzaz in the Liesure Suite Lary soundtrack. And I can't even estimate how many hours I spent playing Wing-Commander getting all hyped with the great background music. Of course, I didn't use it to make music with - just for games.

        I would bet that the people doing this are doing it fo

        • Re:The Roland MT-32 is not so hot anyway (Score:4, Interesting)

          by lostchicken ( 226656 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:32PM (#7721854)
          Sierra games supported it

          And this is exactly why the emulation project exists. There are many of us who are still die hard adventure gamers, and for us, old Sierra games (and LucasArts) are all that's left, for the most part. So, I run the MT-32 emulator to make the most of that experience. More than I could when I ran the games when they were new.

      • It's not being emulated because it's good (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:51PM (#7722294)
        If you want a good synth, these days they are cheap and plentful the cheapest and most flexable for the money I can think of is the SoundBlaster Live. It's a real, no-shit, sample based MIDI playback device. Now it doesn't sound all that impressive with the included samples (better than the MT-32 but not great) but the cool thing is that you can find free and commercial samples in Creative Labs' Sound Font format all over the net. Get yourself a better one, and you are rocking. Along those lines, you aren't limited by the orignal GM spec. You can load your own instruments at your own locations to your hearts content. Quite a powerful editor for Sound Fonts too. Now, given that SBLives have be had for as little as $30 brand new, the MT-32 in no way competes.

        This isn't even to mention the new synthesizers that Roland offers (under the name Edirol now) or more professional versions of the Live/Audigy hardware that Emu sells (Proteus).

        The point of emulating the MT-32 is vintage sound. Many games were composed to it's unique sound. Hence if you want the true sound of old games, it's desirable to have one. So the emulator is for enthusiasts, not professionals.

        • Links (Score:2)

          by phorm ( 591458 )
          I find a lot of links for SoundFont drivers, problems, etc, on google - as well as some non-free soundfonts. Any links to some of the better free ones?
          • Let's see here. Haven't really made much use of my Audigy for awhile.

            Personally, I recommend buying one. The Synergi GS soundfont is a really well balanced and great sounding font. Plus it comes with lots of cool extras. It's only $18 so not bad at all. www.samplebanks.com.

            Now, as for free ones. I've never found any I like. Most of them have good points and some deceant instruments, but I find none of them have proper tonal or amplitude balance as per the GM standard. So they play some songs good, but may
      • I disagree. Perhaps you are using the stock sounds? True, those sound pretty lame. You have to use a patch editor. All of the sierra games use custom instruments. There an amazingly wide variety of possibilities with the LA synthesis. check out the editors at http://www.queststudios.com/roland/utilities.html . Also, the reverb is pretty good on this unit, for something from the 80's. This machine was intended to be used with a PC, so that's where you store your patches, so no battery needed.

      • RE: You miss the point (Score:3, Interesting)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 )
        The MT-32 was the synth of choice all the older Sierra games (and others) supported. When you ran their setup program, it was quite common to get choices such as EGA or VGA display, followed by the sound selections of "Internal Speaker", "None", "Adlib", "Soundblaster" or "MT-32".

        Eventually, they started offering "General MIDI" as a selection - which was ultimately more useful and better sounding on the right hardware.... but before that, MT-32 was the one to have.

        As strictly a music synth though, no, t
    • Every time I read a story like this, I think of a three year old screaming "mine" and throwing a tantrum when they see thier sibling playing with a toy they weren't even paying attention to.

      This is 80's technology, and just because a few enthusiasts adopted the platform and decided to breath new life into it does not mean there's a market you can exploit. Roland would have done *much* better to just put that ROM into the public domain and reap the rewards of being a progressive company in the eyes of thes

  • the scene... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:38PM (#7720502)
    Company Lawyer: "You're violating our copyrights! We order you to cease and desist distribution now, or face your utter doom through further legal action!"

    Corporate underling, walking in, sullen looking...

    Corporate Underling: "Uh, sir, we may have a problem, uh, here, sir. We can't find the copyright information, uh, on our rom, uh, sir..."

    Company Lawyer's face suddenly shows his confusion, wonder, and amazement about having to completely retract his previous statement...

    Company Lawyer: "Okay. We'll continue to allow you to distribute this time, but be warned, young project, that we'll meet again, Oh yes, we'll meet again!"

    • Re:the scene... (Score:4, Informative)

      by CaptKilljoy ( 687808 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @08:09PM (#7721036)
      Truer than you think

      From the Dec. 9 entry of the news section:
      Also note that it's more of a reprieve, Roland, on failing to find to any substantial documentation, yields to the publication of the MT-32 emulator. It should be noted their offer is without prejudice, meaning that if any evidence does surface, Roland will request that this site be taken down again. (
      Offer.pdf [artworxinn.com])
      • So we should all think very kind thoughts about Roland? Not.

        It's getting difficult to figure out who to buy equipment from, so many companies have proven to be villians. Now it's down to selecting between those I haven't heard anything bad about *yet*, and don't look for evidence.

        Once upon a time I just bought the best equipment around (price/performance being part of the cirteria). Things were so much simpler then.

        Are they even SELLing that machine anymore? Or are they just being ***s?
  • Rolands Lawyer imitating terminator: We'll be back!.

  • great, now we can all freely emulate MT32s.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ahm.. what's a MT32?

    • Re:great, now we can all freely emulate MT32s.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fancia ( 710007 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:58PM (#7720619)
      A professional synthesizer module produced by Roland during the mid to late 1980s. It had 128 built-in samples, but could also store custom samples using LA synthesis based on the existing samples. It's most desired by fans of older computer games; many games, especially adventure games, prior to about 1992 were written specifically for the MT-32. Since no other devices (other than a few devices based on the MT-32, also by roland) can play MT-32 MIDIs properly, they're quite desirable especially to fans of Sierra and Lucasarts adventure games, as well as fans of the Ultima RPGs.
      • A Gravis Ultrasound is a good alternative to the MT-32. It has a Dos-based MT-32 emulator, and can emulate a Soundblaster too, so you can get the best of both worlds for older games.

        It worked great with Band-in-a-Box.
        • Does its MT-32 emulator support custom patches? If not, it's useless for almost all Sierra games and the Ultima games, among others. Very, very few games use only the default patches, and all of the "MT-32 compatible" devices I've seen support only the MT-32's default patches.
          • That's the very point of this emulator. It implementes the MT-32 sysex and is not simply a MT-32 patch set. The emulator works exactly as the original hardware did, combining analogue waves with PCM sounds. In otherwords, yes, it supports custom patches and on playing any of the games you'll hear the real sounds, not the "incorrect patch" being played instead.

    • what's a MT32? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      32 , after its been used.

  • A Victory for People (Score:5, Interesting)

    by patricksevenlee ( 679708 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:44PM (#7720534)
    In a world where companies are always trying to squeeze every last marginal penny out of us "consumers", they usually want to do so by abandoning valid and proven technologies in order to force us to upgrade to the latest doo-hickey for the sake of upgrading. Musicians generally don't need "the lastest thing", much to the chagrin of big companies who are trying to get us to go digital. Tube guitar amps, transistor-based effects pedals, well designed classic style guitars from the 50/60's (Fender Stratocasters, Telecasters, Gibson Les Pauls, Martin acoustics), class A discrete mic preamps, pre-World War 2 German microphones, these items are still in use today and still built this way because quite simply, they work. Not to mention the quality factor. If companies had their way, they'd be making wood *veneer* electronics guitars a la IKEA instead of with solid ash/mahogany bodies. But oh, since it doesn't sound as good, they'll make up for it by putting in digital pickups and then running it through a mock tube circuit which really is just a little light show to trick the plebs. As a synthesizer player, I still like my old analog synths (Roland Jupiter, ARP 2600, Oberheim Matrix). Yet it's funny because these days, companies make these digital synths to emulate what was already done and call it "progress".
    • I would think that the digtial synths would cost a lot less than analog whatnot. Most musicians I know don't have that much money.
    • This comment brought to you by the "Bah-in-my-days-we-walked-barefoot-and-loved-it" Dept

      :)

    • As much as I like the old analog gear (still have a Roland JX-8P I got with PG-800 programmer), the newest generation of analog-modelling DSP-based synths are really so good that it's not as important now to have a real 'antique'. I'm certainly not the greatest patch programmer but the newer instruments are so much easier to use and in most respects, more capable -- I have managed to make nearly all the sounds on my Virus KB that the JX-8P could do. I would collect more old gear if it wasn't so overpriced a

    • Re:A Victory for People (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jkantola ( 84776 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @07:53PM (#7720931)
      Errr....

      i think you're confused. What you're saying is pretty much true as far as computer software & hardware goes -- i believe we really don't need every latest version that's being offered.

      But musicians at the forefront have always been quick to adopt the newest technology and the most advanced instruments. B.B. King picked up his Lucille. Jimi Hendrix didn't settle for an old acoustic, he stomped the wah-wah. Pink Floyd and the tape delays, Keith Emerson, Bernie Worrel & Jarre with their synthesizers, and I won't even begin with hiphop, electro etc. that's using ANYTHING available. Do you think the present day fragmentation in musical genres would've ever occured if everyone had sticked with the cembalo?? Or think of the Stradivarius violins, or the Hohner piano. They were all THE technological advancements back in their days. Or shall I remind you of the revolution that computers have caused in the recording industry? You can have a top-notch digital home recording environment these days for the price of the ticket you had to pay in the seventies to fly to Abbey Road ...

      Technologies DO mature. That's why there's still the Shure SM58, and the Les Paul, and Floyd Rose tremolo. That's why we get updated versions of synthesizers that 'only' mimic the vintage sound better (never mind that the racks needed in the seventies would fill a small truck...)

      In my opinion, Roland has played a significant part in the evolution of musical instruments. Like you say, the old instruments ARE being actively used to create new music, and in this regard I can see why Roland would want to be precise when their property is under consideration. Yet while they can't find a direct evidence of a problem, they happily let the emulator continue its existence. Wish all companies were as level-headed and fair.

      (But I do hope that Roland can't come up with the required evidence -- free beer is fine by me ;-))
      • Roland (and their offspring, Boss) have always made excellent instruments. I have an SH-3 (not even an "a") that has been through the wringer and then some, but all it needs right now is a cleaning...it still sounds as sweet as the day I traded a copy of the Principia Discordia for it in the 1980s. I've had many a piece of Roland equipment over the years, and have always been happy about their quality and sounds...their Boss stomp pedals practally owned the market for many years...and with on exception, all

    • Re:A Victory for People (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Teach ( 29386 ) *

      Musicians generally don't need "the lastest thing", much to the chagrin of big companies who are trying to get us to go digital.

      However, keep in mind that this is a double-edged sword, and sometimes it cuts the way of the manufacturers. One benefit about musicians accepting older tech is that the companies can have higher profit margins selling that stuff. Don't you think Shure paid off their R&D budgets on the SM-58 a few years back? And don't you think their factories are still cranking those a

    • Dude listen to yourself. I will take my Supernova II over your Analog synths any day :) "Progress" is getting the same sound from a reliable digital synth that you got from an analog synth -- and you never have to repair a broken oscilator.

  • Win the battle, lose the war (Score:5, Interesting)

    by j0hndoe ( 677869 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @06:47PM (#7720553) Journal
    The sad thing is, this depends on so many technicalities, it is not likely there will be another "victory" like this for a long time to come, becuase the relevant laws have all been strengthened in the last 20 years. In the US, Copyright lasts (practically) forever now, with no registration or renewal requirements. Unless there is a major shift in the laws, there is nothing being produced today that will come this close to becoming public domain in 20-30 years.

    So, while I'm glad the MT-32 emulation project can continue, I don't see much chance of any other more cheerful stories like this coming out.

    • Actually, there are lots of companies that don't bother to register their copyrights until they need them for court. For instance, the copyrights IBM alleges that SCO violated weren't registered until August 2003.

      Given that smaller companies may be more likely to lose the materials they need to register copyrights later, we may see more outcomes like this if the individuals involved are persistent in their demands that companies claiing rights in such projects back it up with evidence.

      • The thing is registering copyright is irellevant in most cases, and WOULD HAVE in this case too if the product had been newer. Registering copyright is now practically only an issue if you wish to claim damages in a trial. Not registering your copyright is pointless if a) there is clear documentation available that you authored the work in question and b) you only intend to prevent further distribution in the case of infringement, not seek damages.

        ObDisclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice,

  • The emulator won't work unless you have a copy of the required ROM file, mt32_pcm.rom

    So, don't slaughter their bandwidth/server by downloading the emulator unless you've got this file. Since I already made this mistake, I thought I might try to spread the word and cushion their Slashdotting, if only a little. :-)

  • Before reading this story, I had never heard of Roland's MT-32. So this was initially quite confusing. But I have perused the site and can inform those who would still be in the dark. Never fear, all has been made clear.

    The MT-32 is a product sold by Roland. It was originally sold in Japan and, some time after that, was also sold in the US. It contains some software which seems to also contain sound files. Of some kind. Oh, and it is probably quite an old model in its line of products. I think. From what

    • There was a sound card for PCs that used the MT32 for MIDI sounds.

    • Re:About the MT-32 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fancia ( 710007 )
      It was a synthesizer module, not a keyboard. It can be attached to anything that can communicate via MIDI; I have it connected to my AmigaOne right now, but it would work just as well with a MIDI keyboard. As the above poster points out, there was also the LAPC-1, which was basically a Roland MPU-401 MIDI port and a Roland MT-32 in one ISA card. (They used the same idea later with the SCC-1, which is an MPU-401 and an SC-55 in one ISA card.)

    • Re:About the MT-32 (Score:5, Informative)

      by codebunny ( 310383 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @07:20PM (#7720748)
      It's not a keyboard, it's a sound-module. i.e. it's the part which generates the sounds but doesn't have any keys on it to play and is controlled by another MIDI device.

      It was an important product in it's day since it was the first multi-timbral (hence MT) synth meaning it could play more than one instrument at a time (e.g. piano and trumpet). The 32 refers to the maximum simultanous voices of the device. Each instrument uses between 1 and 4 voices, so the actual polyphony was between 8 and 32 depending on the instruments you were using. If you had two MT32s you could daisy chain so overflow notes go to the second device.

      As others have mentioned they were supported in various games, like the Sierra adventures. My personal fave was X-wing with the MT32 (music) + Soundblaster (effects) setting.

      MT32s are pre-GM (General MIDI) so the instrument mappings are non-standard (luckily the drums are the same). Various MIDI devices will have a MT32 mapping mode, so MIDI files will sound about right but for the real effect you'd need the real device.

      The tone generators were a hybrid of FM generation (i.e. sawtooth waveform etc.) plus a limited amount of sampled data.
      • Various MIDI devices will have a MT32 mapping mode, so MIDI files will sound about right but for the real effect you'd need the real device.
        Not really; none of those devices support the MT-32's custom instruments, so any songs using instruments other than the MT-32's default 128 patches won't sound right at all.
      • It was an important product in it's day since it was the first multi-timbral (hence MT) synth meaning it could play more than one instrument at a time (e.g. piano and trumpet)

        First cheap multitimbral synth. There were other synths available at the time that were multitimbral, just not many that were affordable. Also, the MT-32 wasn't an FM synth - it used wavetables for the attacks/releases and subtractive synthesis for the sustain, just like the D50 (love my D550) did only with a *lot* less memory and
      • "The tone generators were a hybrid of FM generation (i.e. sawtooth waveform etc.) plus a limited amount of sampled data."

        No, the MT-32 most certainly did NOT use FM synthesis, which is tech that is solely owned by Yamaha. It was a combination of pure analog synthesis and digital waveforms.

    • Re:About the MT-32 (Score:5, Informative)

      by rcastro0 ( 241450 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @07:21PM (#7720755) Homepage
      Actually, an early-days PC sound card. Check this out:

      " Serious game music for the mainstream user on the PC started with Sierra back in 1988. Before this, PC's were only equipped with a tiny beeping speaker. Sierra prepared to change all this by creating games that contained serious, high quality musical compositions drawing on add-on hardware. Sierra struck a deal with two companies, Roland and Adlib. Sierra adopted the Roland MT-32 and the Adlib Music Synthesizer. They would compose music for these units starting with King's Quest 4. Sierra would also become a reseller for these units.


      The Roland MT-32 was the higher end of these music devices. In today's terminology, it would be labeled a "Wavetable Synthesizer". A wavetable synthesizer usually implies that real instrument sounds are recorded into the hardware of the device. This device can then manipulate them to play them back at the various notes you need. This may not be the most accurate description as the MT-32 had the ability to manipulate parts of its built in sounds using something called "Linear Arithmetic (LA)" synthesis. Technobabble aside, it was a very good device that can rival even today's sound cards (though Tom and other MT-32 users will be quick to point out the lack of a built-in piano patch). It was also a very expensive sound card, costing $550 through Sierra. " (quoting an article by Eric Wing [queststudios.com])
      I saw one of these things, in the beginning of the 90s, at a friend's house. It was really high end... and he used "Leisure Suit Larry" to demo it (!). Anyway, this MT-32 emulation effort will probably be interesting for running the golden DOS-era games (many abandoware, check Home of The Underdogs [the-underdogs.org]).

      • Re:About the MT-32 (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Serious game music for the mainstream user on the PC started with Sierra back in 1988. Before this, PC's were only equipped with a tiny beeping speaker.
        ... Which is bullshit of course. PCs in 1985-6 had out-of-the-box 4 voice stereo digital sound. The author of the article you quote apparently never played any Amiga games in the mid 80's with kickass sound effects (and yes, that was a Personal Computer).
        • The author of the article you quote apparently never played any Amiga games in the mid 80's with kickass sound effects (and yes, that was a Personal Computer).

          Oh come on! PC means IBM compatible and we all know it.

          • My PC-jr had 3 voice sound, as did my Tandy 1000 HX. The Tandy even came with music composition software for Deskmate. Thexder and Leisure Suite Larry really rocked on those machines.

            The only problem was the crappy filters used on the headphone amplifier that allowed all sorts of CPU and disk drive noise to come through.
        • Don't try and claim that an Amiga is a PC (note capitals), a PC is a personal computer built on the 8086 and onwards to i386 and beyond up to Opteron and Xeon architecture.

          You know, just like the majority of people mean when they say PC these days.

          An Amiga, Commodore, Crapstrad PCW, BBC, TRS-80, Dragon 32, ZX-81, Archimedes or other pre-8086 machine would be termed a microcomputer. Play fair and don't confuse the kids.
      • The MT-32 was hardly a "high-end" device, nor was it the beginning of PC music, certainly by 1988. 1984 saw the Amiga which had extraordinary sound. I had one and by 1988 I had it jacked into a Korg M1, which was, to greatly understate things, slightly "higher-end" than the MT-32, which was never marketed as anything but a toy.

        As for being a rival to today's sound cards, there simply is no comparison. For less than $150, you can get a SB Audigy with eight-channel Dolby Surround output, 10hz-46khz range, 64

  • international issues, though ? (Score:4, Informative)

    by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @07:03PM (#7720648)

    This is interesting. Note that restored works are only an issue in the United States, and the original copyright gained in Japan by way of Berne should still be legitimate not only in Japan, but in just about every other Berne signatory (the restored work issue results from US non-compliance with Berne).

    This would mean an interesting situation that you could be considered in infringing copyright if you take your work outside the USA, or if anyone downloads your work from outside the USA (many of the similar ITAR issues).
    • the original copyright gained in Japan by way of Berne should still be legitimate not only in Japan, but in just about every other Berne signatory

      Not all of them; many countries have a rule wherein an Fooish work that is no longer protected by copyright in Foo is no longer protected in that country. Since the US registration requirement only applied American works (actually, it applied to all works, but non-US works were retroactively granted copyright), this is a US work not protected by US copyright and

  • Three cheers for EFF (Score:4, Informative)

    by psifishdot ( 699920 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @07:05PM (#7720654) Homepage
    "This development was largely due in part to the legal support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation."

    Let's hear it for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Without the EFF, there'd be much more doom and gloom on Slashdot than there already is.

    Although, "largely due in part" is an odd statement.
  • Does anyone know if there are plans for a Linux port of the emulator?

    • Re:No Linux version? (Score:2, Informative)

      by canadacow ( 715256 )
      Yes... a port is planned. Right now I'm just working to get the audio perfected before I work on seriously porting the code myself. If anyone else wants to help, let me know.
    • DOSBox does have a Linux port; I've used it for Quest for Glory II using my actual MT-32 under Debian. Presumeably, the author of the MT-32 emulator hasn't contributed his code to the main DOSBox project yet because he wishes to wait until his emulator is finished to a more fully-functional stage.
      • Up to this point I've been using DosBox as a springboard. Its easier to tweak emulation parameters from inside DosBox than it is in a Windows or Linux driver. Ultimately this code will be separate from DosBox and only in driver form. This way other projects like Exult and ScummVM will be able to use the MT-32 emulation as well.

  • Why you should be nice to Roland (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Roland is the Nintendo of musical instruments.
    Not "hi-tech flashy" like Yamaha, but they
    understand what "play value" means in the same
    way Nintendo does, in a way that transcends
    language and cultures. They designed the
    drum machines (808, etc) that put the raw
    sonic tools behind a lot of cool music, written
    in cultures far away from .jp that they could
    never understand except sonically. I honestly
    think if the right (non-lawyer) types spoke to
    them, they would get what was really going on
    here and be cool ...

    • No. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      No. They are responsible for what their lawyers do. When they say they are sorry, then we can begin to think about being nice to them again.

    • Re:Why you should be nice to Roland (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bzzzt. Sorry, you're wrong.

      Sure, they put the raw sonic tools behind the musician, but you have to remember that the products that hold status nowadays (TR808, 909 and TB303) were all product failures in their original time. The 808 makes boom-shhhhh noises because it has analog circuitry, the 303 was originally supposed to make bass guitar sounds. Musicians took these tools and utilised them in genres like acid house because they were unwanted by 'proper' musicians, and they were cheap.

      Korg, Yamaha and a
    • Whereas Yamaha designed serious, well balanced hardware intended more for adults than kids? Is that the logical conclusion of the Roland:Nintendo::Yamaha:Sony play?

  • SCUMM VM? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Could this get rolled into the SCUMM VM for our auditory pleasure?

  • donate! (Score:2, Informative)

    by BinaryJono ( 546830 )
    just a friendly reminder to toss some extra change towards the EFF...thanks to them alex and others are able to stand up against this sort of corporate legal pressure.

    donate here:
    https://secure.eff.org/
  • Okay, I've now got a soft MT-32 available on my PC. Has anyone got a link to any archives of old MT-32 tunes? I used to have a LAPC-1, so I know there's some sweet stuff out there...

    • Quest Studios [queststudios.com] has lots of MT-32 MIDI sequences from classic Sierra On-Line adventure games, and a few MP3s as well so you can compare the softsynth's sound to the Real Thing. I think they used to have sequences from Lucas(Film|Arts) games as well, but I can't find any there now... maybe I'm thinking of some other site. Argh.

  • Failed legal system at work again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @09:02PM (#7721353)
    I wish I could say this is a cheerfull story for me. I am certainly happy that the MT-32 project was able to go on its merry way. I am certainly happy that the author was able to continue using his spare time to make a positive contribution to both the culture and humanity. I am really not happy this played out in the usual way.

    Consider the general case of legal intimidation.

    1. The little guy undertakes a project/enterprise/undertaking that somehow threatens/annoys/provides a scapegoat for someone at a large company.

    2. The large companies officers/representatives/agents meet with their legal representation and proceed to formulate an attack via the legal system.

    3. If the activity isn't sufficiently profitable or the defendant doesn't have sufficient disposable personal resources, they either have to obtain pro-bono legal representation or face judgements that may economically devastate them.

    4. Even if the defendant can defend themselves there is no assurance a victory ends the matter.

    5. Even if a final victory is obtained by the defendant it is in only the most loose sense of the terms a victory. The only thing they have gained is the right to proceed in their business unmolested, they have lost a great deal of time, energy and usually financial resources to have things restored to status quo ante bellum.

    I know its been said before, but the legal system is a cruel joke. To expect a class of people to place the pursuit of justice ahead of their personal profit is insane. Too allow anyone with a hair up their rear to bring suit indefinitely without the presumption of their being wrong and the built in provision for compensation is insane.
  • All this hoo-haa about "Intellectual Property Rights" has gone on with the casual obfuscation of Salvage Rights [freeadvice.com] .

    To wit, if on the high seas - if not yet on the High Internet - anyone coming across something abandoned, has rights to claim it, if the original owner has disappeared, or if the original owner has lost interest [nwrain.net] in it, or a significant portion of its value if the original owner has lost control of it.

    We've heard an awful lot about "Property Rights" as applied to software - I think we need to

  • Roland should be forced to give a LARGE contribution to the EFF for bringing out this "fishing expedition" attacking innocent users! Behavior such as theirs deserves punishment. Maybe, just maybe, if a few companies got punished for harassment, it might make others think twice before doing so.

  • The MT-32 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by statusbar ( 314703 ) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:32PM (#7722178) Homepage Journal
    I developed an Patch Editor for the Roland MT-32 [jdkoftinoff.com], and know it quite intimately.

    I believe that the MT-32 Emulator is a worth while project - But I am confused as to why the ROM needs to be copied at all. Why not record your own samples instead? It is not like those original samples are that great anyways. If the open source community (me included) recorded and processed our OWN samples, then none of these issues would have come up. The copyright on the originals would not be an issue at all.

    --jeff++

    • Does your patch editor work with the CM32 (an MT32 without the patch buttons on the front)? A friend gave me his CM32 a while ago, and I started writing a patch editor for it. Unfortunately, NetBSD doesn't appear to send and receive SysEx messages properly so I gave up. I do have an ST in storage, so I'm wondering if it's worth firing it up and running your editor on it.

      Chris

    • Vintage sound. The point of the project is to have something that sounds just like an MT-32. If I wanted to improve on the sound, the easiest way would be to make a set of GM patches or a map to GM/GM2/GS/XG or the like. I mean I'm willing to bet you could write a simple mapper that would map MT-32 instruments to one of the GM or extended standards and get good results. Better yet, just make a SoundFont that has MT-32 instrumentation instead of GM instrumentation. The MT-32 speaks MIDI, just not General MID
    • You know what would be great?

      How about somebody goes and converts the old patchset from the Gravis UltraSound series of cards (into something usable with today's cards)? Honestly - it's the best I've heard so far, and certainly better than anything SoundBlaster has come up with.

      Unfortunately I think they still restrict distribution of the files, although I do still have a copy of them saved (even though I can no longer use the card, since it's ISA).
    • Why even bother with emulating obsolete hardware at all then? Why not just use your own samples with a plain MIDI interface? The whole point of having the emulator is to have an authentic-sounding experience in old games, so of course you need the original samples. To do otherwise would be like writing an emulator for Pac-Man but then rewriting the ROMs from scratch for copyright reasons - you might as well have just made a clone in C++ and saved yourself the bother.
      • You don't need the original samples to make it sound as good or better. As I said before, the original samples are not that great. Back then the typical person at home was not able to even get equivalent quality samples. Now we can do so much better.

        Tell me, does the mt-32 emulator emulate the DSP chip in the mt-32? Does it require the system rom (non-sample data) of the mt-32? Why not?

        --jeff++

  • How come something that emulates the MT-32 [vintagesynth.org] 1987 sound module that most people haven't heard of gets into trouble, yet programs like Propellerheads [soundonsound.com]'s Rebirth [soundonsound.com], which emulates three much-sought after pices of Roland gear, seems to have no trouble? Did they pay royalties or something? What about Native Instruments [nativeinstruments.de] cloning Yamaha's DX-7 synthesiser and Sequential Circuits's Prophet 5 [soundonsound.com]?

    • Last year I received notice of a Rebirth clone for Linux called Reborn. The programmer sent me a copy (no source, but he was planning to release it), I tested it, it was great sounding and great fun. Within days he received a C&D from Propellerheads claiming copyright infringement of their interface. I thought that was pretty outrageous, since P-heads software had copied the Roland interface. However, the programmer informed me that in fact P-heads *did* pay Roland for the right to use their interface d

  • You know if Roland was smart (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday December 15, 2003 @09:52AM (#7724433)
    They'd just capatalise on this sort of thing. They should make a peice of software for vintage gamers. Make it a MIDI software synthesizer that emulates classic Roland hardware. I'd give it an MT-32 mode, a CM-64 mode and an SC-55 mode. That covers basically all old MIDI games. Thing is, it'd take very little development on their part. The only thing they'd really have to write is the MT-32 engine. They already have a number of software synthesizers, who's engines would work quite well.

    The problem is that Roland seems to think that the hardware market is where it's at and deliberatly cripples their software. They don't seem to realise the future is software synthesis. I say this as the owner of two hardware synthesizers, one Roland.

    They have a program caled Virtual Sound Canvas that is supposed to be an emulation of a number of their SoundCanvas products like the SC-55 and SC-88. Ya, except it sounds nowhere NEAR as good as the real hardware it's supposed to emulate. This is NOT a limitation of software, as there are software synths that sound as good or better than anything done in hardware. Same goes for their newer programs and synths. Their GM2 Hypercanvas software sounds like a software version of their new GM2 synths.... Except it has less than a third of the instruments, and the ones it does have are of inferior quality. Silly, given that it's only about $50 cheaper than their SD-20.

    Siller still that the main reason for the inferior sound and lack of instruments is the small sample set. Well one of the main advantages of software synths is their ability to handle huge samples. It's not uncommon to have a PC with over a gig of RAM, and with streaming from disk (which good softsynths do) you can play sample banks larger than the system RAM. It's not uncommon to see single instruments for soft synths that are over 100MB. The Hypercanvas software, on the other hand, has only 26MB for all its samples.

    Well since it's clear from what we know about software synthesizers that you can have large sample banks, and it's clear form other software synthesizers that Roland makes that don't directly compete with their hardware that they know how to make high quality ones, why not have high quality implementations of their hardware? Only reason seems to be because they are afraid of hurting hardware sales.

    It's a pity, really, because I think there would be a large enthusiast market for a GOOD software emulation of their old hardware like the SC-55 and MT-32. I know I'd like it. GM devices don't play old MT-32 games right and even my SD-20 doesn't sound quite right for old GM games. I'd like to have the sound of an MT-32 and an SC-55 but it's both expensive and inconvienent to buy the real sound modules. I'd certianly buy a softsynth if one existed though (and do use this free MT-32 emulator).
  • Wow, there's a lot of uncalled-for Roland-bashing going on here. Read the project history [artworxinn.com] - early in development, the author anticipated the legal issues and explicitly sought permission from Roland, who somewhat predictably denied it. The author then realized that the ROM may actually not be copyrighted due to a technicality and asked for Roland to produce evidence to the contrary, which this story shows they've been unable to produce. There was a mistaken C&D letter issued but that's only part of the

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close