Brief comment on the IBM MFC vs. the Roland LAPC-I

[per]

In 1988, there were two main MIDI hardware synthesizers for the PC, the Roland LAPC-I (Roland CM-32L) and the IBM Music feature card (Yamaha FB-01). As we all know today, the LAPC-I outran IBM's option after only a coupple of months on the market for various reasons. I have now been able to test both cards, and I'm therefore able to say a little about what I think these 'various reasons' are.

Interface:

• IBM's card has a unique interface designed by IBM. Commands are sent/received as 8+1 bits per byte, and timer/interrupt cirquits are provided for timing. A large degree of hardware-controll is provided, which makes the interface flexible, but somewhat complicated to program. Any commands sent externally has to go through the internal MIDI interface, which is a part of the synth engine itself.
• The Roland LAPC provides the MPU-401 interface which can be either put into "intelligent" or "UART" mode. In "intelligent" mode, the card's hardware does all the timing and the host computer only has to send data on interrupr, but in "UART" mode the timing has to be done by the host. In difference compated to the IBM card, the entire synth is separate from the MIDI interface, which limits the low-level controll as the MIDI interface is the only way to communicate with the synth.

Both cards provides a fully MIDI 1.0 compatible controller with 8 voices and the option for external MIDI I/O using breakout boxes. The actuall internal I/O interface differs, but both provides some degree of freedom.

Sound Engine:

• IBM's card uses 4-op FM, which gives it it's distinctive "Yamaha"-ish sound. FM is generally great for making periodic noise, especially in the lower register, but it generally have issues with anything that's not periodic (like percussion). FM was never meant to sound like real instruments, so simulated real-world voices tend to sound a bit cheezy.
• Roland's card uses a special "Linear Artimetric" synthesis, which can remind a little about sampling and filtering. It therefore gives greater flexibility, and it's able to generate very good percussion sounds. It simulates real sounds quite well, but you can still clearly hear it's a synth playing. However, it's not made for generating sounds which change in timbre over time (this effect is possible on IBM's card).

The differences in the sound engines are not that big, and it's very well possible to enjoy the sound of both, so I don't believe this had too much an impact on the sales.

Effects:

• The IBM card came completely without any effect generator. What you hear is what the synth produces of sound. However, the synth itself does have a volume envelope for every of the 32 operators.
• The LAPC-I, on the other hand, got a BOSS Reverb controller coupled to it's audio output. This does make quite a difference in the audio, but over-usage may make tunes sound like '80s pop songs.

It has been mentioned somewhere else that the reverb may have made a big difference. Certanly it does help, but I believe it's not the sole reason why Roland's card went that successfull.

Amplifier

• The IBM MFC is based on a set of 8x 4556 amplifiers and some analog components (transistors, etc..). It's earphone output is designed for High-impedance earphones (125 Ohm), and it sounds like the amplifier isn't capable of sourcing enough current through my 36 Ohm earphones. The output sound is of acceptable loudness, but not especially notable.
• The LAPC-I have a different amplifier, generally consisting of more amplifiers and analog components. Compared to the MFC, the LAPC-I amp is crowded with components. The LAPC-I plays WAY louder than the MFC, and it's able to source the earphones with such amounts of current that it's clearly audible that the left earphone got a deffect on the membrane (To do the same on my recent PC, I have to turn everything up to max plus I have to double the output volume of the data by using software).

So after the comparasion, I'm generally blown away by the audio from the LAPC-I. The sound was to such level that normal soundcards today have problems replicating the audio without making it sound thinner. Therefore, I think that the amplifier was one of the main reasons why this card is considered to sound better.

Of course factors like avaiablilty, compability and price also plays an enourmous role when it comes to the sale numbers.

 

[Unknown_K]

People are known to pick the louder speakers as being better, so I can see people picking a soundcard based on a louder amplifier.

 

[Great Hierophant]

A very good comparison, but I am not sure these cards are really contemporaries. The IBM Music Feature Card was first produced at some point in March, 1987, while the Roland LAPC-I was produced no earlier than March, 1989. In the two years between them, IBM may not longer have been offering its card for sale, especially as it had certainly de-emphasized XT and AT bus products by that time. Would the same vendors have sold both cards? An MT-32 + MPU-IPC(-T) combination would have been a more likely choice for the buyer of the time, and the MT-32 (first released in 1987) did not support a headphone jack until around October, 1988.

 

[per]

A very good comparison, but I am not sure these cards are really contemporaries. The IBM Music Feature Card was first produced at some point in March, 1987, while the Roland LAPC-I was produced no earlier than March, 1989. In the two years between them, IBM may not longer have been offering its card for sale, especially as it had certainly de-emphasized XT and AT bus products by that time. Would the same vendors have sold both cards? An MT-32 + MPU-IPC(-T) combination would have been a more likely choice for the buyer of the time, and the MT-32 (first released in 1987) did not support a headphone jack until around October, 1988.

You got a point there, and I see that I did made some mistake on this (I wrote the original post at 3:00 AM). As you mention; IBM clearly killed off the MFC themselves as it was sold in a market it was never intended nor fit for (much thanks to Sierra).

However, the FB-01/MFC is the only card which can be compared to the MT-32/CM-32L/LAPC-I. All other cards from that time were based on cheaper and less flexible single-chip sound generators using dedicated direct-I/O interfaces.

 

[Great Hierophant]

You got a point there, and I see that I did made some mistake on this (I wrote the original post at 3:00 AM). As you mention; IBM clearly killed of the MFC themselves as it was sold in a market it was never intended nor fit for (much thanks to Sierra).

However, the FB-01/MFC is the only card which can be compared to the MT-32/CM-32L/LAPC-I. All other cards from that time were based on cheaper and less flexible single-chip sound generators using dedicated direct-I/O interfaces.

The irony is is that those single chip sound interfaces (Adlib) almost always sounded better than the expensive IMFC (triple the price) unless you actually made your own music on it.

 

[Great Hierophant]

You got a point there, and I see that I did made some mistake on this (I wrote the original post at 3:00 AM). As you mention; IBM clearly killed of the MFC themselves as it was sold in a market it was never intended nor fit for (much thanks to Sierra).

However, the FB-01/MFC is the only card which can be compared to the MT-32/CM-32L/LAPC-I. All other cards from that time were based on cheaper and less flexible single-chip sound generators using dedicated direct-I/O interfaces.

The irony is is that those single chip sound interfaces (Adlib) almost always sounded better than the expensive IMFC (triple the price) unless you actually made your own music on it.

 

[per]

The irony is is that those single chip sound interfaces (Adlib) almost always sounded better than the expensive IMFC (triple the price) unless you actually made your own music on it.

I was also thinking about the Creative music system and other less known cards from that time.

In most cases I have heard, the AdLib usually sounds more throughdone just because the hardware is more limited. Because of this it rather uses sounds that fits the arrangement instead of sounds that sounds like cheezy replications of the MT-32 sounds. The real problem was that very little effort was put into conversion for the FB-01 sounds, as most of the audience had AdLib cards (or compatible). At the time Sierra supported a handfull of sound options, and quite a lot of them of them needed custom voices. converting voices takes time, and for a company; time is money.

I would say that certain tunes for the FB-01 does at least sounds decent, especially the tunes from Silpheed (except for the flute in the intro; it's way too loud through my speakers, but that may be because the speakers are not of optimal impedance).

 

[PeterNY]

Just my opinion: a while ago I connected a Yamaha FB-01 to an IBM PS/2 and I played around with it but I have to say that the Roland LAPC-I absolutely has better sound quality. Even in Silpheed, which is considered the best FB-01 / IMFC showcase.

 

[njroadfan]

The Roland MT-32/LAPC-1 is certainly going to sound better then any FM synth. due to the use of samples and built-in effects (reverb). The built in percussion is excellent as well and rivals many newer sample based synths.

 

[PeterNY]

The Roland MT-32/LAPC-1 is certainly going to sound better then any FM synth. due to the use of samples and built-in effects (reverb). The built in percussion is excellent as well and rivals many newer sample based synths.

Right. Hence the relative low demand, high supply and very low prices of Yamaha FB-01s versus Roland MT-32s and Roland LAPC-Is. I have yet to see an IBM IMFC go up for sale: I imagine those would go for a pretty price given the rarity.

There is one for sale (without retail box or manuals): http://www.dosforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6487). My budget does not allow me to buy it at this point. I would have gladly bought it otherwise.

 

[per]

There is one for sale (without retail box or manuals): http://www.dosforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6487). My budget does not allow me to buy it at this point. I would have gladly bought it otherwise.

200€ - That's about twice of what I paid for the same card in similar condition on Ebay.

The absolutely cheapest way to get them is to either get to know somebody who has some lying around, or stumble across one at a less crowded place than Ebay, like Craigslist. The reason I went for Ebay is because this card is more or less nowhere to be found lying around in these parts of the world, and nobody here in Norway uses Craigslist anyways (allthough it is available).

They may have made a coupple of thousands of these cards, but I don't think they made more than 10000.

 

[PeterNY]

200€ - That's about twice of what I paid for the same card in similar condition on Ebay.

Interesting: when was this?

The absolutely cheapest way to get them is to either get to know somebody who has some lying around, or stumble across one at a less crowded place than Ebay, like Craigslist.

The owner of the card for sale actually got it for free but you cannot blame the guy for trying.

[/QUOTE]The reason I went for Ebay is because this card is more or less nowhere to be found lying around in these parts of the world, and nobody here in Norway uses Craigslist anyways (allthough it is available).[/QUOTE]
I managed to buy a Roland LAPC-I + MCB-1 as well as a Roland RAP-10 off Craigslist in 2010 / 2011 and I have seen Yamaha DB50XGs, Roland SCP-55s and a lot of modules on there. I have yet to see an IMFC on Craigslist: that would be quite the find. I assume you would use www.finn.no in Norway anyway. Folks in NO would generally throw stuff out anyway or be active on forums like VCF and Vogons when they are collectors.

They may have made a coupple of thousands of these cards, but I don't think they made more than 10000.

Sure but how many survive to today? Less than 5% I would assume.

 

[per]

Interesting: when was this?

A little less than one and a half year ago.

The owner of the card for sale actually got it for free but you cannot blame the guy for trying.

As I mentioned, that is by far the most echonomical way of getting rare objects like this, but still, there is a LOT more people in Germany (and most other countries in the world) compared to Norway.

I also make good deals from time to other, for example, the other day I traded one of my IBM 5151 monitors for a working IBM 5154 monitor. The 5151 did have some issues with the Hsync, but I made sure the one I traded with was aware of it.

I assume you would use www.finn.no in Norway anyway.

Anything sold on that webpage is usually listed at prices far beyond what you would expect even at Ebay.