I'm just discovering the world of soundfonts. How are soundfonts different that plugging a .wav/.mp3 sample into a channel? For example...if I drag a wav onto a host's step sequencer, I can play that sound in many different pitches.
I've noticed many soundfonts come with more than one font and some fonts have different samples for each key (i.e. a drumkit).
Other than this, I'm curious to know of advantages to playing a soundfont.
I'm also curious to know which is generally speaking the easiest route to go with the CPU...synth, sampler, soundfont, etc.? Thanks.
What are the advantages of using soundfonts?
-
NewOrleansElectronic NewOrleansElectronic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=57923
- KVRist
- 68 posts since 14 Feb, 2005 from New Orleans, LA, USA
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
Basically a soundfont is just a collection of samples plus some info on how to be used by the PC (or SB card).
Clear up the terminology: a soundfont is the whole collection in one SF2 file. It consists of patches/programs that are made up of samples. There also is an "instument" layer, but you can't see that from the outside. Some of the SF2 files only have one patch. Keeps the size down
Soundfonts can be mapped to key ranges, you found that out by yourself.
Soundfonts can have velocity layers: different samples for different playing velocities.
Samples in soundfonts can have ADSR, a modest LF filter and modest effects like chorus/reverb.
So you have basically a simple sampler (by todays standard). SFZ is for example a great soft sampler that also excells in playing soundfonts. Can do both!
Differences are more in workflow than in CPU load. Sometimes I use the soundfont, sometimes just the sample...
Clear up the terminology: a soundfont is the whole collection in one SF2 file. It consists of patches/programs that are made up of samples. There also is an "instument" layer, but you can't see that from the outside. Some of the SF2 files only have one patch. Keeps the size down
Soundfonts can be mapped to key ranges, you found that out by yourself.
Soundfonts can have velocity layers: different samples for different playing velocities.
Samples in soundfonts can have ADSR, a modest LF filter and modest effects like chorus/reverb.
So you have basically a simple sampler (by todays standard). SFZ is for example a great soft sampler that also excells in playing soundfonts. Can do both!
Differences are more in workflow than in CPU load. Sometimes I use the soundfont, sometimes just the sample...
My MusicCalc is temporary offline.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
-
- KVRian
- 903 posts since 14 May, 2003
The great advantage to soundfonts, especially for the newbie, is that there are thousands of them available free of change in every sound category imagineable. The great disadvantage is that they are generally of inferior sound quality to commercial sound libraries. Soundfonts can range from single sounds like a piano to complete general MIDI collections. I find that layering the sounds in a sampler like Kontakt (or stacking players like SFZ) with judiciously applied effects, especially reverb, will significantly improve their usefulness. Have fun!
-
NewOrleansElectronic NewOrleansElectronic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=57923
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 68 posts since 14 Feb, 2005 from New Orleans, LA, USA
Thank you both very much for the explanation. I've noticed that many of them don't sound very real (a la cheap keyboard patches of the early 90s).
-
- KVRist
- 333 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Brazil
That is true. But as a remainder for someone just discovering soundfonts: this is related to the quality of the samples used, not directly to the fact that they are assembled into a soundfont.bugs wrote:The great disadvantage is that they are generally of inferior sound quality to commercial sound libraries.
I've seen some people with the wrong idea that soundfonts have inferior quality per se. This can be traced back to the origin of soundfonts (hey, bugs: I'm not implying here you said that; I'm just using your post as a starting point!
)Sophisticated samplers offer many more options than the soundfont format allows: different kinds of filters, extensive modulations, superior FX and routing, etc. In this regard soundfonts are no match for full-featured samplers. But this has nothing to do with the original sample quality. In this aspect you can find very good material in soundfonts.
From my experience: if what you need is mostly "sample playing", with little or no filtering and no extensive modulations, then soundfonts can be of good use for you. For example, there are some very good soundfonts of multi-sampled, velocity-layered acoustic instruments and also of voices and choirs - some even for free.
That's my main use for them - and let me make clear that I don't really try to convince anyone with the results not being "electronic" anyway - YMMV.
-
- KVRist
- 261 posts since 19 Jan, 2005
It's kind of a shame Soundfont 2.1 didn't take off more. It does have some pretty extensive modulation routing capabilities - it can do some things I've only just figured out how to pull off in Emulator X - but unfortunately the filtering is still limited to lowpass...
-
NewOrleansElectronic NewOrleansElectronic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=57923
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 68 posts since 14 Feb, 2005 from New Orleans, LA, USA
So, I have to ask, boin...which sophisticated samplers would you recommend? As mentioned in the first post- CPU usage is defnitely a factor for me.
-
- KVRist
- 333 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Brazil
Others are in better position than me to do that; I've tried some but don't use any regularly. You could try Shortcircuit, Kontakt, Halion, Vsampler, etc. (in no particular order or preference - I just remembered these from the top of my head)NewOrleansElectronic wrote:So, I have to ask, boin...which sophisticated samplers would you recommend?
-
- KVRist
- 37 posts since 11 Dec, 2003 from Tampa Bay, Florida USA
We use Samplers quite a bit. We have several. It all depends on what price range you're looking for, but for a good quality, low priced Sampler (around $100 US), you just can't beat VSampler3. It's a MultiTimbral Sampler (you can play Samples on all 16 MIDI channels at the same time or any combo). It can import most Sampler's sounds. It does SF2 (SoundFonts), it can also export SoundFonts. It imports other file formats like HALion, Kontakt, Giga and others.
It has built in filters and synths and effects (simple reverb, chorus, compression etc). It has a full mixer. I really love it. It's kinda wacky to run sometimes, but it finally has a manual. That's helpful. If you're the type that reads manuals. It can also build samples from .wav files. The full version comes with a stand-alone, VST, DXi and ReWire capability too!
If you're looking for a Sampler and money is no object, then you may have too much money... just kiddin'. If you don't mind spending a few $$, then GigaStudio3 is pretty nice. There are 3 different levels (versions) and 3 levels of prices. GS3 is nice, but it's limited to only read .gig files and .wav files.
Kontakt (Native Instruments) is pretty nice too. It also ships with lots of Samples. And you can simply stack (layer) samples to get a big sound or you can load them onto different MIDI channels so you can play them with multiple MIDI inputs.
We recently got EMU's Emulator X. We've only had it for a month or so, but it's very nice. It's a hardware/software sampler. The smaller version goes in place of your sound card and works both as a Sampler and as an Audio recording and playback device. It's kinda confusing reading about it on the EMU web site, but I think the way to go is to get the smaller (regular version) which is the EMU 1212M with Emulator X software. It only has 2 Audio inputs and outputs, but it's got several digital ins and outs. It's actually 2 cards, on plugs into a PCI slot and the other is connected to it via a ribbon cable. That gives it the ability to have on board (hardware) effects via a DSP on the 2nd card.
EMU invented the SoundFont technology 20 years ago. They made excellent synths, then technology started to change and they were bought by Creative Labs (the SoundBlaster guys) several years ago. So, essentially the new EMU cards are like SoundBlasters on Steriods. They have a chip similar (or maybe exactly the same, but it's under a cover on the sound card) to the SoundBlaster Audigy. It does 44.1 kHz/24bit Audio on that chip and the other DSP handles the effects.
The best thing about the Emulator X is that it's only $300 US, for the sound cards AND the software! AND it comes with tons of great sampled sounds and some other useful software.
Don't forget, if you're going to own a Sampler, you've got to own a huge hard drive to store samples on. Usually, the better they are, the bigger they are.
It has built in filters and synths and effects (simple reverb, chorus, compression etc). It has a full mixer. I really love it. It's kinda wacky to run sometimes, but it finally has a manual. That's helpful. If you're the type that reads manuals. It can also build samples from .wav files. The full version comes with a stand-alone, VST, DXi and ReWire capability too!
If you're looking for a Sampler and money is no object, then you may have too much money... just kiddin'. If you don't mind spending a few $$, then GigaStudio3 is pretty nice. There are 3 different levels (versions) and 3 levels of prices. GS3 is nice, but it's limited to only read .gig files and .wav files.
Kontakt (Native Instruments) is pretty nice too. It also ships with lots of Samples. And you can simply stack (layer) samples to get a big sound or you can load them onto different MIDI channels so you can play them with multiple MIDI inputs.
We recently got EMU's Emulator X. We've only had it for a month or so, but it's very nice. It's a hardware/software sampler. The smaller version goes in place of your sound card and works both as a Sampler and as an Audio recording and playback device. It's kinda confusing reading about it on the EMU web site, but I think the way to go is to get the smaller (regular version) which is the EMU 1212M with Emulator X software. It only has 2 Audio inputs and outputs, but it's got several digital ins and outs. It's actually 2 cards, on plugs into a PCI slot and the other is connected to it via a ribbon cable. That gives it the ability to have on board (hardware) effects via a DSP on the 2nd card.
EMU invented the SoundFont technology 20 years ago. They made excellent synths, then technology started to change and they were bought by Creative Labs (the SoundBlaster guys) several years ago. So, essentially the new EMU cards are like SoundBlasters on Steriods. They have a chip similar (or maybe exactly the same, but it's under a cover on the sound card) to the SoundBlaster Audigy. It does 44.1 kHz/24bit Audio on that chip and the other DSP handles the effects.
The best thing about the Emulator X is that it's only $300 US, for the sound cards AND the software! AND it comes with tons of great sampled sounds and some other useful software.
Don't forget, if you're going to own a Sampler, you've got to own a huge hard drive to store samples on. Usually, the better they are, the bigger they are.
-
TotcProductions TotcProductions https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6202 - KVRAF
- 5156 posts since 5 Mar, 2003 from Franklin, NH
This isn't true either, you should learn your shit before you start mouthing off. Like others have posted in this thread, Soundfonts, as with ANYTHING sample-based, are subject to the quality of the samples included inside of it. There are actually many high quality libraries available in the soundfont format from companies like Sonic Implants and the like.....And instruments like the SFZ+ take full advantage of the soundfont format.Oxo wrote:As a rule - soundfonts are usually pretty crap...
Out-dated technology for PC's with shit sound cards...
A poor man's general midi.
Ox
So once again, you're wrong.
-
- KVRist
- 37 posts since 11 Dec, 2003 from Tampa Bay, Florida USA
It sounds like you're looking for an arguement. I'm sorry to hear you have such a sad an narrow viewpoint. Obviously you've never used SoundFonts or you wouldn't say that. Check out SonicImplants SoundFonts or go to the Alive! web site or Google SoundFonts and check them out!
Man, you gotta pay attention! Just because it doesn't have the latest technology doesn't mean it's crap! Believe me, the human ear can't really tell the difference between well recorded and played back 24 bit and 16 bit. Not everything needs to awesome resolution to sound good either.
Also, that's got nothing to do with General MIDI. General MIDI is particular order of sounds. Like pianos are 1-8, then comes harpsichord, then organs etc. It's got nothing to do with the quality of the sounds.
Do your homework.
Man, you gotta pay attention! Just because it doesn't have the latest technology doesn't mean it's crap! Believe me, the human ear can't really tell the difference between well recorded and played back 24 bit and 16 bit. Not everything needs to awesome resolution to sound good either.
Also, that's got nothing to do with General MIDI. General MIDI is particular order of sounds. Like pianos are 1-8, then comes harpsichord, then organs etc. It's got nothing to do with the quality of the sounds.
Do your homework.
-
- Banned
- 20 posts since 27 Feb, 2005
Yawn....
I have a Korg sound module with general midi sounds on it...
I listen to soundfonts and they are cut down crap versions of those sounds....
But hey - what do I know???
I'll stick to my East West 32 gigabyte orchestral library thank you very much....
I have a Korg sound module with general midi sounds on it...
I listen to soundfonts and they are cut down crap versions of those sounds....
But hey - what do I know???
I'll stick to my East West 32 gigabyte orchestral library thank you very much....
-
- Banned
- 20 posts since 27 Feb, 2005
TotcProductions wrote:This isn't true either, you should learn your shit before you start mouthing off. Like others have posted in this thread, Soundfonts, as with ANYTHING sample-based, are subject to the quality of the samples included inside of it. There are actually many high quality libraries available in the soundfont format from companies like Sonic Implants and the like.....And instruments like the SFZ+ take full advantage of the soundfont format.Oxo wrote:As a rule - soundfonts are usually pretty crap...
Out-dated technology for PC's with shit sound cards...
A poor man's general midi.
Ox
So once again, you're wrong.
Go and make a second rate techno bank for synth1 if you've nothing useful to say...
-
- "The" Jazz
- 4617 posts since 18 Aug, 2004 from California, United States
You're right -- there aren't that many good soundfonts out there. But there are definitely gems -- the NS kit, Sonic Implants soundfonts, Maestro soundfonts, etc.Oxo wrote:Yawn....
I have a Korg sound module with general midi sounds on it...
I listen to soundfonts and they are cut down crap versions of those sounds....
But hey - what do I know???
I'll stick to my East West 32 gigabyte orchestral library thank you very much....
And Korg sounds really aren't THAT good, by the way. At least not compared to some of the Gigasample stuff that's out there. My main gripe about the Korg sounds is that generally they are too hi-fi -- not enough warmth in the tone. That's why I prefer Roland or Yamaha sounds.