is sf2 lower audio quality than 16/44.1 wave?

[pw]

Hi,

can any tell me if, on the mathematical/theoretical level, not the level of perception, sf2 files are lower quality than standard 16bit wave files?

ie- if I convert wave samples which are 16/44.1, will some of their information be lost in the conversion/compression?

[Spe3D]

Standard SF2 files are 16 bit 44.1 waves (just wrapped up in an sf2 file) Think of the sf2 like a zip.

Where you might lose is if the sf2 is a split stereo file (then two mono files) sf2 can only use mono files so stereo ones are split in two with a hard pan right n left – on conversion how are you going to get the two files back into stereo, via what method will affect the quality (plus any edit and save to a 16 bit file will automatically lose you quality)

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[james0tucson]

Hi,

can any tell me if, on the mathematical/theoretical level, not the level of perception, sf2 files are lower quality than standard 16bit wave files?

ie- if I convert wave samples which are 16/44.1, will some of their information be lost in the conversion/compression?

You don't have to convert the sample at all! The perceived differences will be related to whatever you do with the envelope, looping, modulation, etc. If you just do it straight, the precision will be there up till whatever playback engine gets it.

[pljones]

Just to clearly state: there's no compression involved in creating an SF2 file. You're ADDING information above that contained in the WAV files, not taking anything away.

[bduffy]

Hi,

can any tell me if, on the mathematical/theoretical level, not the level of perception, sf2 files are lower quality than standard 16bit wave files?

ie- if I convert wave samples which are 16/44.1, will some of their information be lost in the conversion/compression?

Whenever you do a process on a wave file, there will be some kind of interpolation of the information. Theoritically, an application importing a 44/16 wave file to the same format should make an exact copy. If there's anything different, it's probably totally negligible.

Now the more times you process that same file, the greater chance you'll get some form of data truncation/approximation, resulting in artefacts. But seeing as an sf2 just needs to import that file and never process it again, this is not an issue. And, like pljones said: there is no compression in sf2 format. Which I believe supports higher bitrates now, does it not?

[kara]

Standard SF2 files are 16 bit 44.1 waves (just wrapped up in an sf2 file) Think of the sf2 like a zip.

Where you might lose is if the sf2 is a split stereo file (then two mono files) sf2 can only use mono files so stereo ones are split in two with a hard pan right n left – on conversion how are you going to get the two files back into stereo, via what method will affect the quality (plus any edit and save to a 16 bit file will automatically lose you quality)

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Peter,

Could you explain a litle bit more,please
It surpasses my knowledge

Rony

[pw]

Just to clearly state: there's no compression involved in creating an SF2 file. You're ADDING information above that contained in the WAV files, not taking anything away.

Thanks! Theres the answer I was looking for. Does this also apply with sf2's and 24 bit wave files?

[bduffy]

Just to clearly state: there's no compression involved in creating an SF2 file. You're ADDING information above that contained in the WAV files, not taking anything away.

Thanks! Theres the answer I was looking for. Does this also apply with sf2's and 24 bit wave files?

Absolutely. You should use higher bitrates whenever possible, because of what I was talking about earlier.

[pw]

Hmm, I only quite recently got into the wonderful world of samples floating around the net, and now have quite a nice collection of instruments. They are in various formats, and I want to convert them to one format. I am using sfz, and now, delving into the eXT sampler.

I always had thought sf2's were a kind of inferior sampler format. It seems this is not the case. I am really only interested in sampler formats for mappings anyway, not for modulations and effects and stuff, as I would rather do that on a song by song basis. So, are there any shortcomings of me converting my samples to sf2, at all???

[bduffy]

Hmm, I only quite recently got into the wonderful world of samples floating around the net, and now have quite a nice collection of instruments. They are in various formats, and I want to convert them to one format. I am using sfz, and now, delving into the eXT sampler.

I always had thought sf2's were a kind of inferior sampler format. It seems this is not the case. I am really only interested in sampler formats for mappings anyway, not for modulations and effects and stuff, as I would rather do that on a song by song basis. So, are there any shortcomings of me converting my samples to sf2, at all???

No man, go ahead. sf2 is generally considered less professional because:

1. it was developed by Creative Labs to run off of (not-so-high-quality) SoundBlaster cards,
2. it is kind of old school in its format (dual-mono) and editing sf2's can be kinda slow and difficult,
3. it could run off of a SoundBlaster, and it quickly became a popular source for free samples, which made it popular with beginners, which kept even professional sf2 libraries very cheap. Plus with RAM limitations, no one was about to release a 2G orchestral collection for $499!

But as far as converting to that format, you're fine. The sf2 format will not "dirty" your samples or anything - it's the playback devices you gotta worry about, and I hear sfz is supposed to be the best quality for that.

[pw]

thanks alot for your help.

[tERMoBLUe]

sf2 is supported of 24bit/48khz too ...

[pw]

sf2 is supported of 24bit/48khz too ...

???

[Cyrosis]

sf2 is supported of 24bit/48khz too ...

???

I just made a test SF2 2.4 bank, and got 24/96 to work just fine.

exported the samples and they exported from the SF2 still in 96khz, so I do believe it works

:edit: plays fine in SFZ and FL's SF2 player

[tERMoBLUe]

filigree ...