TLDR: Sound Canvas cannot be seen as a truly separate product line, because the same GM banks were also used in Roland's more professional products (JV, XP, XV, Fantom, etc., and Integra-7), with all samples having a common origin in a master bank, and on top of that the SC55's architecture and those professional synths' architecture have a common origin in ultimately the U110 rompler.Įdit: And this whole piece just gave me an awesome idea: Apply phylogenetics to Roland synths and patch names. So no, they do not resample a real TR808 every time they make a new PCM ROM set.
There are only a few samples that are unique to a specific Roland synth or expansion card, and almost all of those are located on promotional expansion cards that were included for free with certain synth models. Basically you could make a "hereditary tree" based on patch names, and the root of each patch in the result would probably match the actual release order of the various synths and expansion cards pretty well. If you compare the patch sets of various Roland PCM synthesizers, you often can find patches with the same name and a similar sound, even though there sometimes are major differences in the synthesis engines with regards to the available parameters (e.g. Now and then new samples were added to it.
Is this a great idea?:-)ĪFAIK, there is a master version of the samples that is uncompressed, and Roland makes new versions of the samples from that master version each time they update their algorithms - which explains why the same sample set has been reused for a variety of synths, albeit with different compression algorithms and better quality the newer the synth. If that assumption ist true, than the samles as a signature -pattern in SC55 (in the mantissa bytes) should be found at a correct permutation of reminding unknown bits.
Ok, if we assume, that for given example the TR808 samples are the same in SC55 as well in SC88, we could make following adäquate konklusion: Why should roland take the affort, to sample TR808 samples a second time for the SC88? Taking samples costs money, i am in doubt, that for example esspeccially the TR808 samples are taken a second time. Hmmm, thank you for your great explanation. As I said for N=11 and N=12, I found 2 potential good options, but it's extremely hard to rule out, because verification becomes very difficult. That is what makes it harder and harder for N > 10, because the block to manually check becomes larger and larger, but on the other hand the data stream becomes more and more defined as well, that helps to rule out what are the possible options. I attach 2 pictures maybe that will make it more clear. Then the same for N=10, the block becomes first 0x3ff bytes.
So, in my most extreme manual step example N=9, I know how first 0x1ff bytes of SC-55 Waverom looks like, if those of descrambled SC-88 look similar, then the sequence is correct. Here human-verification based on how descrambled SC-55 Waverom looks like comes into play - the structure looks similar.
what is the trick, that you know, that THIS x is the correct bit ? That would also be wortrh of an explanation ? Mattw ? your commends are a pleasure but you did'nt lift your secrete in terms of trying the N nth bit, on which pattern do you recognize, that N (in your case '10' as the next bit is the correct bit.