You are better with an MT-32 instead of none. Just get one and play with it.
People recommend the old one as a standard. Just a personal opinion - when you deal with sound, there is no perfect choice.

There's a handful of games which only sound right with the glitches in original MT-32s. I understand the revised version (with the dedicated headphone jack) is kind-of the worst of both worlds wrt compatibility, as it's not the best for those titles which use glitches, and it doesn't support extensions like the CM-32L or LAPC-I do. I believe it's a little less noisy than the old version, though.

For a more thorough understanding of the Roland LA synth module lineup, probably just watch this video:
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/ultimate-rol … 2-tutorial.html

I doubt anyone would notice unless they were aware of it. I like a second-gen unit to overcome polyphony issues with games such as Larry 5 and PQ3, many want the weird SFX in games like SQ1/4.

Apparently SQ3's intro piece has different vibrato, but with examples like that you can see how much of a non-issue it is. I would think the lower noise permanently would outweigh perfect accuracy in 0.1% of situations, but that seems to be a minority opinion.

Using the MUNT software seems to be a better choice, you can even go '3rd gen' which is beyond the hardware itself- for example, 1st gen with 32-bit output, or 2nd gen with 32-bit output. Very cool stuff. Not many reasons to own a module any more IMO (except for recording with one mixed with other synths).

Yes, ideally you'd need a CM-32L/LAPC-I and an MT-32. Munt gives you both.

I'm afraid, munt will never sound identical to the real units, only better 😀

Well, as for the subj, the answer really depends on the scope of the preferred games. If 100% compatibility with old Sierra titles is preferred, this unit is likely the one you need. Although beware, the serial ID does not guarantee the compatibility. In case the unit occasionally got to the service, the main PCB could be theoretically replaced with the new one (and with phone jack removed as explained in the service notes). So, only seeing the PCB (or playing those hacky patches) can actually confirm whether it is the old-gen unit.

As for the PCB-0 vs. PCB-1, I am not aware of any differences (from the consumer PoV) between the two. AFAICT, the LA32 chip design remained intact, only the package was changed. Besides this change, all ROMs were also replaced at the SN #851400 boundary but the contents kept the same.

You could also look into a SC-55. It has limited MT-32 backwards compatibility and is a very good unit.

Yeah it's limited... limited to only the default instruments with no support for custom instruments whatsoever. If you want to listen to MT-32 music, the SC-55 isn't the way to go...though if its any consolation, it's better than non Roland midi devices which claim mt-32 compatibility

This is an interesting thread. I'm an owner of an MT-32, too, although I started out with a CM64 (and a Casio MT-540 before that).
So please excuse my ignorance - There's something I always wondered :

Which game(s) had been composed especially with the (old) MT-32 in mind, but not the CM models ?
When I got into Roland music, I had always been thought that the LAPC-I was the reference.
I also heard the LAPC-I was no MT32, but rather more of a CM32L+MPU401 combination.

This confuses me. The oldest game's that I've got, namely some from MagneticScrolls, used the extra effects,
such as floating water when standing on a bridge.

This makes me wonder: Was the plain MT32 more seen like a less-expensive fallback for customers, a platform independent device (Atari ST, etc)
and -more importantly-as the main instrument used by musicans/composers who did write large parts of a games's musical score
(the MT32 could be directly driven by a keyboard, which made composing more convenient. Extra SFX could be added on a computer easily later on) ?

Or was the LAPC-I unique in certain aspects ?
Like a prototype of the CM32L that had the same sound as the early MT32s ?
Or the other way round, had it been a MT32 with extra effects "ported over" from the CM32L ?

Again please excuse this post, but this really interests me.
Originally, I didn't mean to post here since I feel like I begin to annoy people (I feel like I posted in
about ten other threads in the last few days. Way too much.). 😅

It's quite simple in my opinion.

The MT-32 came first. It was a semi-pro synth that Sierra decided on a hunch to market as a deluxe device for video games. It was a big gamble since the MT-32 (a budget brother of the D-50) was still expensive and never primarily intended for that market. Nevertheless, its relative success urged Roland to come up with the CM-32, a simpler and more affordable module targeted at computer users.

The changes between the MT-32 and the CM-32 went largely unnoticed at the time, as we are still debating today about what actually changed. At any rate, the composers of the first MT-32 compatible games of course couldn't have forseen those changes. Likewise, most of the later post-1989 games were obviously composed for the CM-32, not because it had more special effects but simply because it was the most consumer-friendly offering by then.

I'd be surprised if any game released after 1989 would specifically require a MT-32 just because the composer prefered the way it sounded on it, or because he wanted to exploit some quirks that were not available on the CM-32. Economically speaking, that wouldn't have made any sense. Although it's perfectly possible that the composer was working on a MT-32 and ignoring that there were actual differences between the two synths.

Kaminari wrote:

I'd be surprised if any game released after 1989 would specifically require a MT-32

At least one such a game comes to my mind: Dune 2.

I'd be surprised if any game released after 1989 would specifically require a MT-32 just because the composer prefered the way it sounded on it, or because he wanted to exploit some quirks that were not available on the CM-32. Economically speaking, that wouldn't have made any sense. Although it's perfectly possible that the composer was working on a MT-32 and ignoring that there were actual differences between the two synths.

To paraphrase Rob Atesalp, who composed PQ1VGA in 1991, and tracks for SQ4 the same year- "What's a CM-32?" Most Sierra guys I've talked to have never heard of it, although Craig Safan seemed to have one. I would guess it was not that commonly used in American games. Was it even available commonly for American gamers to buy?

I just got an “old” MT-32 and it’s awesome. There a bunch of games at it, and it sounds amazing. Very happy with it! Just a tip, I find that most that sell on eBay are overpriced, I just used an eBay watching app (BayWatch for iOS) and waited until one came up for a reasonable amount (I paid $80).

I have the old Roland MT32 since 2010, 90 euros total cost with shipping from Japan to Greece. I bought it for my Macintosh retro computers because on some Sierra on line games I saw files for roland. What a sound! The quality is amazing, I really love Roland. I am so proud that I own one because today they are more expensive. Recently, after all these years I connected the MT32 with my Cyrix PC because there are so many games in dos that support it. I read about the various Roland devices and now I have my final preference. I will try to acquire a sound canvas sc55 or sc88 for the general midi games.

No straight answer?
As I was wondering too, I guess it would be like this? :

Best: Old Roland MT-32 up to serial number 851399
(most if not all games sound only right with this one)

OK: Old revision 1 serial numbers 851400 - 950499
(if no other choice)

Don't: New Roland MT-32 serial numbers 950500 and up.
(unless really no choice, better than no Roland MT-32)

Just too bad that they are so damn expensive, especially if you manage to find one of the 851399 and below serial numbers :I

is there any listening example of the differences between the old old one and the old rev.1?

Maybe there is something there, i am at work now and i cannot listen. (2:06:16​ Games that require MT-32 Old --)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLvsaJ4h-VY

yeah but that's only a comparison between "old" and "new", not between "old" and "old rev.1" ^^
I don't think rev.1 is ever mentioned, and it's not even entirely clear which revision his "old" is.

Ok.

OP is asking about two versions of "old-type" MT-32 (ASSY 7937731000 vs. ASSY 793741000), not about "old-type" vs. "new-type" (ASSY 7937731001) MT-32.

All that the later "old-type" MT-32 changes is to consolidate the circuit board design by changing the package type of the LA32 chip and by replacing EPROMs with mask ROMs. Control and sample ROM content are identical by all accounts. See the MT-32 Service Notes Second Edition.

Within the "old-type MT-32", there should be no reason to prefer one circuit board over the other sound-wise. The circuit board that mounts mask ROMs will be more durable in the long term however, since mask ROMs do not lose their content over time, unlike EPROMs.