From: ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Best soundcard for a non-audiophile
Keywords: Gravis UltraSound(GUS), SoundBlaster, Thundercard, games, educ. SW
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:49:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.175842.12982@informix.com> craigbr@informix.com (Craig Browning) writes:
>In article <C04Dvy.59t@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>In article <29017@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>So my questions:
>>>
>>>	- Would the GUS really buy me that much more?  I guess
>>>	  that $130+speakers is probably $170, or $50 more than
>>>	  my Thunderboard setup.  I don't mind spending $50 if it
>>>	  will buy me something, but I don't want to waste $50 if
>>>	  it won't.
>>>
>>
>>On just sound quality, the GUS is almost as good as a $300-400
>>Roland Sound Canvas.  It uses the same synthesis technology as
>>the Sound Canvas and other upper-end cards such as the Multisound.
>>Currently, nothing really pushes the GUS to its potential, but the
>>raw power is there.  Even if you're not an audiophile and don't
>>care about things like frequency response and signal-to-noise
>>ratios, you will be deeply impressed by the REALISM of the instruments
>>and sounds the GUS produces compared to what the Thunderboard, SB,
>>SBPro, etc. can cough up.
>
>Are these sound improvements heard for what appears to be the large majority
>of games, that only have AdLib/SoundBlaster compatibility for you to use,
>or are they only heard for games you can find that are written for the Gravis?
>
>i.e., is there an better sound to the Gravis than the Sounblaster, when
>played with games that only support Soundblaster?
>

No, the GUS does not use its MIDI patches when emulating the SB, and thus,
will not sound any better on average than the SB.  In fact, depending on
how well the emulation works for a particular game, the sound quality
when the GUS is driven as a SB may be worse than a real SB.  On other 
occasions, the sound is better.  But in all cases, the SB emulation
sounds nowhere near as good as the native mode of the GUS.

>If the Gravis only sounds better with games written with support for Gravis,
>than I think there's a real issue with the limited number of games that
>will sound better with Gravis.
>

This would only be an issue if the GUS was much more expensive than a SB.
However, at around the same price as the SBPro, the GUS offers good SB
compatibility for the existing games plus an impressive wavetable synthesis
mode that rivals many semi-professional synth modules in sound quality.

>I got a Gravis to try, and have only been able to use it with the Soundblaster
>mode. I don't want to buy a game I wouldn't otherwise get just to get
>the Gravis sound.
>

What about its MIDI player?  Haven't you tried that?  Even with the currently
incomplete and imperfect set of patches, I think you'll be impressed at 
how good the card sounds.  

>Also, it was recommended to put 1MB in the card. How many games on the
>market will use this extra memory for some improvement?
>

None at the moment.  However, 1 MB does make a big difference with MIDI
files, and when games support the GUS, the more memory that GUS owners
put into their cards, the more likely game makers will support the
extra memory.

Phat.