YM2413 application manual correction and cleanup

YM2413 application manual correction and cleanup

by ro on 07-08-2017, 08:48
Topic: Hardware
Languages:

For MSX users, the YM2413 soundchip is not unknown. Although better known as MSX-MUSIC, this Yamaha soundchip, nick-named OPLL, is used in several sound enhancement cartridges like the FM-PAC. It is also built into select MSX2 and MSX2+ systems, and all MSX Turbo R machines, as part of the MSX-Music standard. Recently a discovery was made to improve the output sound quality of this chip.

When carefully studying the YM2413 documentation, MRC user sd_snatcher discovered that there was an error in the Yamaha Application Manual for this chip. The reference circuit shown on page 21 has a decimal point error in the value of the capacitors of its twin low-pass filters. Because of that, the cut-off frequency of each filter was 2.26KHz. Way below the 20KHz recommended at page 20 of the very same document. This results in a muffled/dull sound.

Although not very noticeable at the time that we enjoyed the sound via noisy/muffled TV speakers, audio equipment of the 21st century, with higher sound quality requirements, reveals these imperfections much easier. When the filter is corrected, the OPLL sound becomes much richer in details.

The YM2413 Application Manual has been corrected, completely cleaned up from the original scans made by Ricardo Bittencourt. The information about the SMD version of the chip was imported from the catalog PDF, and new PDF file was generated. Most of the tables and figures were also redrawn since they were too faded/illegible.

The new manual is published at one of the main sources of MSX documentation, the MSX Assembly Page.

Relevant link: New YM2413 Application Manual in PDF

Comments (58)

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

07-08-2017, 09:10

I’m really curious about the audio quality improvement.

By ericb59

Paladin (726)

ericb59's picture

07-08-2017, 09:27

So ? Is there a capacitor to change in actual hardware to improve sound quality ?

By Giangiacomo Zaffini 2

Supporter (11)

Giangiacomo Zaffini 2's picture

07-08-2017, 11:02

So we are talking about

C12 and C13 in Panamusement FMPAC SW-M004 that should be 0.0015uF ?

Cut off frequency of simple RC says that 0.015uF is too much.

What is the circuitry for those MSX 2+ and MSX turboR machines that have a YM2413 on board?

Looking at C10 and C11 in Panasonic FS-A1WX, they are 0.015uF, like in FMPAC.

My references sites among others:

http://d4.princess.ne.jp/msx/datas/OPLL/YM2413AP.html

http://green.ap.teacup.com/junker/

By Meits

Scribe (4331)

Meits's picture

07-08-2017, 15:07

While normalizing my clipping FM-PAQs (Repro Factory) down to the output volume of my Panasonic FM-PAC it turned out the sound was much more clearer on this modern clone (schematics) where R9 was designed to be 54K but should be 33K instead.
Could any of the people here who I respect as experts (let me edit this one, it sounds like some people earn my respect and some not, this is not the case. I probably should've written respected hardware experts) point me at the wrong capacitor(s) here, if they're wrong?

In my case, please point me at the possible improvement(s) of the konami casing version.

By Omega

Master (149)

Omega's picture

07-08-2017, 12:14

Interesting. I too noticed that the cutoff frequency of filter in FM-PAC is way lower than other MSX-Music cartridges, making it sound more dull and less crisp..

By boomlinde

Resident (54)

boomlinde's picture

07-08-2017, 13:54

Meits, I am by no means an expert, but the filter in the schematic you linked seems to have a cutoff frequency of ~32.9kHz (R=2.2kΩ, C=2.2nF). That would explain why it sounds clearer than a design based on the erroneous data sheet reference circuit (R=4.7kΩ, C=15nF).

I have a dutch FM-PAC clone, "FM STEREO PAK", does anyone have schematics for that?

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (2443)

sd_snatcher's picture

07-08-2017, 16:45

Quote:

So ? Is there a capacitor to change in actual hardware to improve sound quality ?

Hi ericb59! It's good to have you back!

Two capacitors must be changed. In the original SW-M004 FM-PAC, the capacitors C12 and C13 must be replaced by good 1n5/50V polypropylene film capacitors.

I'll publish recipes to fix the mixer (and filter, when the MSX-Music is present) of many MSX models. I've just sent MRC the news about the Sanyo MSX2+ machines and it should be published soon.

By Wolverine_nl

Paladin (667)

Wolverine_nl's picture

07-08-2017, 16:44

This is a huge deal! Smile

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

07-08-2017, 17:18

sd_snatcher wrote:

Two capacitors must be changed. In the original SW-M004 FM-PAC, the capacitors C12 and C13 must be replaced by good 1n5/50V polypropylene film capacitors.

Oh, the capacitors on that link are not available anymore! Would these work too? Can the MSX world create some speculation on those capacitors :) ?

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (2443)

sd_snatcher's picture

07-08-2017, 17:36

Louthrax wrote:
sd_snatcher wrote:

Two capacitors must be changed. In the original SW-M004 FM-PAC, the capacitors C12 and C13 must be replaced by good 1n5/50V polypropylene film capacitors.

Oh, the capacitors on that link are not available anymore! Would these work too? Can the MSX world create some speculation on those capacitors :) ?

Those are Metallized polyester caps. AFAIK they're not that great for audio. Use preferably the polypropylene film capacitors for the best possible filter quality, or if you can't find them just use some new ceramic capacitors instead. Newer ceramics got pretty good these days, and for the SMD designs it might be the only option.

These seem to be metallized polyester caps, but they're bigger because they're for 100V. It won't fit on some smaller designs.

By AmiMSX

Rookie (19)

AmiMSX's picture

07-08-2017, 18:51

As for myself I hesitate, I'm not sure if I'll replace those 2 capacitors on my FS-A1WSX or not. I like the "round" sound of the YM2413, it gives the MSX its distinctive sound (personality). I think I will wait to listen how it sounds first.
For those who will fix it, don't hesitate to make a video on Youtube. Smile

By ren

Paladin (670)

ren's picture

07-08-2017, 19:06

Does this effect existing software implementations (like e.g. the one in openMSX)?

@sd_snatcher You already fixed/modded some hardware? Would it be worthwhile to demonstrate the difference?

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (2443)

sd_snatcher's picture

07-08-2017, 19:32

Quote:

@sd_snatcher You already fixed/modded some hardware?

Take a look at this thread. :)

By gdx

Paragon (1462)

gdx's picture

08-08-2017, 10:22

About sound quality, OCMs do not have mixer and many slot expanders too.

By Manuel

Ascended (13301)

Manuel's picture

08-08-2017, 12:30

ren wrote:

Does this effect existing software implementations (like e.g. the one in openMSX)?

openMSX doesn't emulate any of the analog electronics of the sound circuitry. That's also why openMSX sounds a bit different than a real MSX.

By olliraa

Champion (267)

olliraa's picture

08-08-2017, 14:31

Manuel wrote:
ren wrote:

Does this effect existing software implementations (like e.g. the one in openMSX)?

openMSX doesn't emulate any of the analog electronics of the sound circuitry. That's also why openMSX sounds a bit different than a real MSX.

This might be a silly question, but how about the modern FM-pac replacements, e.g. Fmpac Lite?

By Elrinth

Resident (41)

Elrinth's picture

08-08-2017, 16:04

are there any comparisons? Big smile does this "problem" apply to every version of msx2, msx2+ and turbo R?

By Meits

Scribe (4331)

Meits's picture

08-08-2017, 18:04

olliraa wrote:

This might be a silly question, but how about the modern FM-pac replacements, e.g. Fmpac Lite?

boomlinde answered that a few replies up Wink

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (2443)

sd_snatcher's picture

08-08-2017, 21:38

boomlinde wrote:

Meits, I am by no means an expert, but the filter in the schematic you linked seems to have a cutoff frequency of ~32.9kHz (R=2.2kΩ, C=2.2nF). That would explain why it sounds clearer than a design based on the erroneous data sheet reference circuit (R=4.7kΩ, C=15nF).

32.9KHz is too high then. The sound might experience some aliasing.

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (797)

Lord_Zett's picture

08-08-2017, 21:42

i dont like the crisp sound . i leave my fm like it is

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

08-08-2017, 21:50

Manuel wrote:

openMSX doesn't emulate any of the analog electronics of the sound circuitry. That's also why openMSX sounds a bit different than a real MSX.

It does apply a low-pass filter though, doesn’t it?

By wouter_

Champion (384)

wouter_'s picture

08-08-2017, 22:36

Grauw wrote:

It [openMSX] does apply a low-pass filter though, doesn’t it?

Yes, though only indirectly because the resampler needs to have it.
But there are (currently) no specific per sound chip filters emulated (nor any other analog effects).

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

08-08-2017, 22:40

What’s the value, do you know?

By Meits

Scribe (4331)

Meits's picture

08-08-2017, 23:40

Lord_Zett wrote:

i dont like the crisp sound . i leave my fm like it is

Sometimes it's just unforgivably bad that what you hear has nothing to do with what you should hear: Philips, Sanyo, etc.

By olliraa

Champion (267)

olliraa's picture

09-08-2017, 08:09

Meits wrote:
olliraa wrote:

This might be a silly question, but how about the modern FM-pac replacements, e.g. Fmpac Lite?

boomlinde answered that a few replies up Wink

Aaah, ok Smile I was just wondering, what exactly does the FmPac Lite have inside of the unit: fpga implementation or real hw? And in addition to that how does this relate to the possible wrong capacitor values Smile

I don't have any other MSX-MUSIC to compare the FMpac lite with, so being a pessimist, I just want to make sure my "Yamaha" sounds correct Big smile Big smile

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

09-08-2017, 10:19

FmPac Lite and every other FmPac clone have the real thing. The YM2413 chips are cheap and easy to find, much cheaper than FPGA. Also more authentic sound. Only systems and extensions which are already FPGA-based for other purposes like 1chipMSX and GR8NET have an FPGA-based YM2413.

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (797)

Lord_Zett's picture

09-08-2017, 16:14

Meits wrote:
Lord_Zett wrote:

i dont like the crisp sound . i leave my fm like it is

Sometimes it's just unforgivably bad that what you hear has nothing to do with what you should hear: Philips, Sanyo, etc.

true some msxes got wrong hardware, but the sound now comming from the fm-pak is really 80's feel to it.(using a sony)

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (2443)

sd_snatcher's picture

09-08-2017, 18:57

@Lord_Zett

Don't worry. Fixing the filter doesn't make it loose the 80's feel just like the SCC has a sharp sound and still sound like 80's sound synthesis. The quality improvement is more like switching from the RF video connection to an RGB video connection: It's still 2D, it's still the very same MSX, but now you'll be able to enjoy all the little details that were missing.

By olliraa

Champion (267)

olliraa's picture

10-08-2017, 12:08

Grauw wrote:

FmPac Lite and every other FmPac clone have the real thing. The YM2413 chips are cheap and easy to find, much cheaper than FPGA. Also more authentic sound. Only systems and extensions which are already FPGA-based for other purposes like 1chipMSX and GR8NET have an FPGA-based YM2413.

And this means the capacitors are the correct ones In Fmpac Lite? Smile

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

10-08-2017, 13:06

FRS mentioned to me earlier that most clones also have a LPF cutoff value which is too low.

Did someone apply this yet? Not too many Sanyo Wavy 70FD’s out there I guess, but I’d love to hear a before / after comparison of the difference. And I hope a similar fix will be published for the turboR GT, because I’m super curious about what it will do for the Illusion City intro Smile.

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 14:34

Here are some tests I made for your listening and comparison pleasure, on un-modified hardwares. I used the Xak intro theme, which combines both MSX-MUSIC and PSG, and has nice bass and drums.

Sounds are stored in non-destructive FLAC format and have not been processed or normalized (that's why the turboR volume is quite lower).

You can clearly hear a big difference between some of them, just compare the FM-PAQ and Sony or turboR internal!

  1. FM-PAC Light (FM-PAQ)
  2. FM Stereo PAK
  3. Panasoft's original FM-PAC
  4. Sony HB-F1XDJ internal
  5. turboR FS-A1ST internal

Must say the latest reactions here remind me the old and interesting CD vs Vinyl debate at the time :)

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 15:59

And that one can also be interesting to compare to:

  1. openMSX

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 16:45

And now for the frequency analysis of the above FLAC files:

  1. FM-PAC Light (FM-PAQ)
  2. FM Stereo PAK
  3. Panasoft's original FM-PAC
  4. Sony HB-F1XDJ internal
  5. turboR FS-A1ST internal
  6. openMSX

Note that the openMSX recording has been made at 44KHz, when the others have all been recorded at 192KHz (that might explain some things here).

Also, as I mentionned, the PSG is also recorded here. If some square waveforms are generated by it, that might cause the high frequency peaks above 40KHz?

By Manuel

Ascended (13301)

Manuel's picture

10-08-2017, 17:23

If you record with opens on 44khz, which resampler did you use?
You can also record all channels separately at their native frequencies.

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 17:28

Manuel wrote:

If you record with opens on 44khz, which resampler did you use?
You can also record all channels separately at their native frequencies.

I used the default openMSX settings and just typed "soundlog start". I've seen in the documentation that you can have higher record-frequencies per-chip, but I would need to recombine them together (that might create some artefacts or unwanted shifts)? Or is there a way to record at a "global" higher frequency ?

By Manuel

Ascended (13301)

Manuel's picture

10-08-2017, 17:28

Perhaps it's not that useful to show all these inaudible frequencies?

By Manuel

Ascended (13301)

Manuel's picture

10-08-2017, 17:29

You can set the resampling frequency higher for that.

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 17:32

Manuel wrote:

Perhaps it's not that useful to show all these inaudible frequencies?

I'm no signal expert, but maybe there's something to understand about the underlying sound processing here with those high-frequencies (maybe aliasing stuff ?). I prefered to leave everything intact and un-processed, and will just wait for some experts analysis, I would be happy to learn new things again here Smile !

By ren

Paladin (670)

ren's picture

10-08-2017, 17:50

set frequency 48000
set resampler hq

You can log all channels separately (record_channels PSG MSX\ MUSIC) , and then you get the original sample rates for each chip.
As an experiment I tried that with a Starship Rendezvous track, and where the PSG used to be real loud compared to the OPLL, interestingly enough (or perhaps perfectly explainable (noob as well here ;-)?) when mixing the channels myself in Reaper, I had to boost the PSG / lower the OPLL mix actually (but perhaps difference mixing 6 9 vs 3 channels?)

Thanks for the recordings Louthtrax, have some observations will post later Wink

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 18:17

Manuel wrote:

You can set the resampling frequency higher for that.

Was going to post that, but just found it: set frequency :) ! Will redo my openMSX recording...

EDIT: I just re-recorded everything using "record_channels all" (thanks Ren), then combined all different WAVs into a single 192KHz FLAC file with Audacity (mixing is done at export time by Audacity, not sure which method it uses for that purpose). Frequency Analysis diagram and FLAC file for openMSX have been updated above, so just ignore my comment about 44KHz.

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 18:22

The things that puzzled me the most when looking at the frequency diagrams is that the FM-PAQ has such a clean shape with clearly identified peaks, and that openMSX shows no peaks at all? Why but why?

By ren

Paladin (670)

ren's picture

10-08-2017, 18:43

Your openMSX recording is totally distorted now. I believe (read my experience as well I described in my post above) you can't simply mix the channels in some app and get the same result as openMSX's mixing/rendering.

-edit: EvilEvilEvil Wink

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 20:41

ren wrote:

Your openMSX recording is totally distorted now. I believe (read my experience as well I described in my post above) you can't simply mix the channels in some app and get the same result as openMSX's mixing/rendering.

-edit: EvilEvilEvil Wink

Ah, darn... The new result sounds "saturated" to me. Maybe lowering the individual volumes by the same amount before performing the mix, the normalizing the result in order to avoid that saturation?

EDIT: I just did that: "De-amplifying" the volume of all 12 tracks (3 PSG + 9 MSX-MUSIC) by -16dB, then mixed everything. That sounds good this time (I updated the FLAC link above), almost the same as the FM-PAQ version, but thad no significant impact on analysis diagram.

By wouter_

Champion (384)

wouter_'s picture

10-08-2017, 20:58

Recording openMSX with "soundlog" should be fine. That's also the output that openMSX users will normally hear. Just make sure to select the hq resampler (high-quality) if you care about sound quality. The output frequency (44.1kHz vs 48kHz) doesn't really matter as long as you only look at the audible part of the spectrum (below 20kHz).

Also for the other graphs I'd recommend to only look at the part below 20kHz. Even if you sampled those at 192kHz (I'm assuming you're using a PC sound card to sample, not some expensive high-end audio component). Because many sound cards assume everything above 20kHz is anyway inaudible and make use of that freedom. So the stuff above 20kHz likely shows (more) characteristics of your sound card than of the thing you're measuring.

It would be good to include a graph of a 'silent' FM-PAQ output (or other hardware). To get an idea of the noise floor of your setup. Everything below that should also be ignored in the comparison. (But this is less needed if you cut the graphs at 20kHz).

By Meits

Scribe (4331)

Meits's picture

10-08-2017, 21:23

Louthrax. Did you replace R9 in FM-PAQ lite to 33K? If not, the device is too loud and will clip.
I have this MSX-Music cartridge as default MSX-Music in my ST, which sounds _horrible_ and it's indeed way less muffled than the Panasonic FM-PAC one.

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 21:33

Meits wrote:

Louthrax. Did you replace R9 in FM-PAQ lite to 33K? If not, the device is too loud and will clip.
I have this MSX-Music cartridge as default MSX-Music in my ST, which sounds _horrible_ and it's indeed way less muffled than the Panasonic FM-PAC one.

Hi Meits,

No hardware changes at all on the tests published here (also no slot expanders used). Thanks for the tip on the R9 resistor, the volume is a bit louder on my FM-PAQ lite (you can hear that in the FLAC files here), but I noticed no clipping yet.

Did you disable the internal turboR FM-PAC on your ST ? (or maybe you're just using the FM-PAQ output with no PSG?).

By ren

Paladin (670)

ren's picture

10-08-2017, 22:39

I listened to your openMSX recording: it's not representative. Think it's the same I witnessed already: OPLL getting a boost in volume. The PSG snare (ch. 2) is hardly noticeable.

I'm not sure how real or emulated chip(-channel) mixing compares with mixing on a PC's DAW?
I do think, within a DAW, FM gets boosted (compared to the PSG) simply because there are more channels producing output bringing the volume up, right? Could also be openMSX outputs too loud channels?

Interesting thing I see is that FM channel 10 (kick & tom drum) & 11 (hi-hat) clip by themselves already. Their levels being +0.3dB & +3.3dB respectively (according to my DAW).

(Shouldn't we move this discussion to a forum thread?)

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

10-08-2017, 22:58

AY-3-8910 and YM2149 have 3 outputs (1/channel), the S1985 MSX-Engine’s PSG has 2 outputs (left/right), the S3527 MSX-Engine PSG has a single mono output. OPLL has 2 outputs (FM / Drums), and the internal digital mixing does not sum, but uses an unusual (and cost-saving) time-division method.

All of these are mixed together. If you’d plainly 50/50 mix the PSG and OPLL channels, you would get very different mix balances even just depending on the PSG type. So it’s not just a matter of summing all channels, there’s different mixing circuitry in different places.

OpenMSX has per-chip mix settings in the machine and extension configurations iirc. I submitted a patch once to bring the SFG-05’s YM2151 volume more in balance with the rest comparing by ear on the real machine (tricky and a bit unscientific, but it’s way better now than it was before). That chip has a massive dynamic range btw, very easy to make it clip, so it has to be mixed carefully.

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

10-08-2017, 23:01

ren wrote:

I listened to your openMSX recording: it's not representative. Think it's the same I witnessed already: OPLL getting a boost in volume. The PSG snare (ch. 2) is hardly noticeable.

I'm not sure how real or emulated chip(-channel) mixing compares with mixing on a PC's DAW?
I do think, within a DAW, FM gets boosted (compared to the PSG) simply because there are more channels producing output bringing the volume up, right? Could also be openMSX outputs too loud channels?

Interesting thing I see is that FM channel 10 (kick & tom drum) & 11 (hi-hat) clip by themselves already. Their levels being +0.3dB & +3.3dB respectively (according to my DAW).

When you look at the individual PSG WAVs produced by open MSX, the volume is definitively lower (also off-centered), and the FM volumes are quite maximized. I'm also pretty sure All 12 channels are mixed the same way by Audacity. But maybe that's just what the Xak developpers intended? I should do tests with other games or have my "SofaMix" tool ready for that...

Anyway, I was thinking that maybe openMSX could give a good sound reference as it's not impacted by any hardware mixing.

ren wrote:

(Shouldn't we move this discussion to a forum thread?)

Yeah, my mouse scroll-wheel is breaking-down Smile

By Meits

Scribe (4331)

Meits's picture

10-08-2017, 23:59

Louthrax wrote:

Hi Meits,

No hardware changes at all on the tests published here (also no slot expanders used). Thanks for the tip on the R9 resistor, the volume is a bit louder on my FM-PAQ lite (you can hear that in the FLAC files here), but I noticed no clipping yet.

Did you disable the internal turboR FM-PAC on your ST ? (or maybe you're just using the FM-PAQ output with no PSG?).

I use its jack output and the custom jack output on my mfrscc+sd2 with a cloned PSG (when desired).
The FM-PAQ lite is too loud compared to any other soundchip I have. Every mixer I connected it to had the clipping led flashing. Two hardware gurus around here (Daemos and Omega) calculated the exact same desired value of 33K in stead of 56K. It sounds smashingly good and the clipping leds on my mixers stay off now.
If you're opening the device, please check the capacitors. I found one which was too weak on voltage according the schematics and one was placed the wrong way around. Might be just mine, but it stays handwork Wink

By Manuel

Ascended (13301)

Manuel's picture

11-08-2017, 10:20

Louthrax, can you show the spectral graphs up to 20kHz? I'm curious to see these after Wouter's comment.

By ren

Paladin (670)

ren's picture

11-08-2017, 10:58

Thanks for your input Grauw Cool (@Louthrax: seen it as well?)

By Louthrax

Paragon (1518)

Louthrax's picture

11-08-2017, 11:07

ren wrote:

Thanks for your input Grauw Cool (@Louthrax: seen it as well?)

Yes, things are way more complex than what I expected! Grauw, how does the "time-division" mixing work? My understanding is that it's related to the way the digital signals are internally transmitted (sequentially then?), but how is the final analog signal created?

Manuel wrote:

Louthrax, can you show the spectral graphs up to 20kHz? I'm curious to see these after Wouter's comment.

Sure, I will put that on a new "SofaMix development thread" (might be up to 44 or 48KHz, not sure if Audacity allows to reduce the frequency range).

By Manuel

Ascended (13301)

Manuel's picture

11-08-2017, 16:47

About the mixing: it is somewhere here: https://github.com/andete/ym2413/tree/master/results I hope Wouter wil pinpoint to you where it is described.

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

11-08-2017, 18:01

@Louthrax There’s a description in the OPLL application manual, page 19.

In my understanding, it is as follows: the OP* series has a single operator unit, which processes each operator one-by-one. In most OP* chips, its digital output is sent serially to an external IC, which sums them and then performs DAC. The OPLL however has an internal DAC, but instead of summing them first, it outputs the analog signal in series, and relies on a few simple external components to “blend” it.

See also Wouter’s description here.

By syn

Paragon (1600)

syn's picture

13-08-2017, 22:53

Louthrax wrote:

Here are some tests I made for your listening and comparison pleasure, on un-modified hardwares... [...]

Wow great post thanks you very much!

as someone who doesnt know the original tune (yeah I know I should be ashamed but thats another topic) it is great to hear the differences.

While i am not professional sound engineer but just an occasional wannabe music maker, i noticed this:

- Original unmodifed FM pac wins. Not only because the song was probably made on that device at the time, but sounds the most balanced and most clear to me.
- The sony: I have seen in various topics ppl saying it is "great or perfect sounding", but I feel it sounds way too bassy, I dont feel it is correct.
- FM PAQ lite has weird distorted sound
- Turbo R ST sounds thin. I guess this is the lowpass filter thing mentioned a few years ago in some topic
- Openmsx sounds so different :/ Kinda sucks since I primarily use openmsx when i make music. Guess I need to get some better speakers for my real msx setup and use that for making music instead.

However it is sorta hard to judge properly because I only listened to this for about 30 minutes and this is psg + fm pac mixed.

I read some remarks here that the FM-pac needs fixing? tbh I don't think it is needed since imho it is the best sounding one of the bunch. However I dont know how it sounds on other ppl's setup? maybe there are different revisions of the fm pac?

By Grauw

Enlighted (5838)

Grauw's picture

13-08-2017, 23:13

The openMSX sample is not recorded correctly and distorts, so please ignore it. (see discussion above)

Also I think we should hear the fixed sound before judging it Big smile. You have a Sanyo right? Tongue

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (2443)

sd_snatcher's picture

14-08-2017, 01:30

The openMSX sound (without recording issues) is somewhat close to the sound of Panasonic MSX2+ machines, except for the low-pass filter on the FM sound, of course.

My MSX profile