SF2 vs SFZ vs ??? What is best?

[davidv@plogue]

Another Vote for SFZ, for obvious reasons

[Bassballjg]

The thread title asks one question, and the poll another. So I voted sf2, because of the way the question was worded, due to its ubiquitousness.

Which do I think is better by the metrics of depth and flexibility? sfz, no-brainer.

Which do I prefer for my own work? sfz.

sfz is the internal development lingua franca for us at Dangerous Bear. We build our instruments in it, and form there either develop for Dimension and/or Rapture, or covert to WusikSND, Sampletank, Kontakt and the other formats we support commercially, including, ironically, sf2. There is nothing else like it for a combination of power and ease of use.

I further concur with most of what's been said about the downside of sf2.

However...

I like that sf2s are monolithic, it makes them easier to move around, and you can rename the folder you keep them in, while renaming your sample folder will break sfz files.

As great as Samplelord, sfz and the Cakewalk synths are, there is some unevenness of sfz implementation as well. I have had a devil of a time loading sfz files I've created in HighLife, for example. Some do, and some don't, and I don't see a pattern. I have read about folks being unsure as to what parts of the spec are recognized by which instruments, including Directwave and Short Circuit. So there is a way to go.

Furthermore, as SynthEdit has an sf2 oscillator, and I am unsure as to what if any multisample loading is available in SynthMaker, I don't see sfz obsolescing sf2 via direct competition until we see the proliferation of free and inexpensive instruments with a wide diversity of features and design concepts that play sfz(the full public spec) as exists now for sf2. That's where the bulk of sf2 use is, I think. It's not just about Aria or Dimension, or Kontakt now loading sfz, but we also need to see more and more consistent sfz implementation at the low end of the market for sf2 to be overtaken by the superior format.

William, I know you have your reasons for WusikSND, and I love it being monolithic and the smart soundset finding of the WusikPRST. But not a day goes by when I don't wish that the WusikEngine read sfz as well. (hint, hint )

[audiojunkie]

If you want to read about the specs, you'll have to google for the soundfont one (it moves around). This worked last time I tried:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache: ... spec21.pdf

SFZ is here:
http://www.cakewalk.com/DevXchange/sfz.asp
(or my one: http://www.drealm.info/WebContent/sfz/plj-sfz.html )

Thanks! I'll have to check this out.

--Sean

[audiojunkie]

The thread title asks one question, and the poll another. So I voted sf2, because of the way the question was worded, due to its ubiquitousness.

Which do I think is better by the metrics of depth and flexibility? sfz, no-brainer.

Which do I prefer for my own work? sfz.

sfz is the internal development lingua franca for us at Dangerous Bear. We build our instruments in it, and form there either develop for Dimension and/or Rapture, or covert to WusikSND, Sampletank, Kontakt and the other formats we support commercially, including, ironically, sf2. There is nothing else like it for a combination of power and ease of use.

I further concur with most of what's been said about the downside of sf2.

However...

I like that sf2s are monolithic, it makes them easier to move around, and you can rename the folder you keep them in, while renaming your sample folder will break sfz files.

As great as Samplelord, sfz and the Cakewalk synths are, there is some unevenness of sfz implementation as well. I have had a devil of a time loading sfz files I've created in HighLife, for example. Some do, and some don't, and I don't see a pattern. I have read about folks being unsure as to what parts of the spec are recognized by which instruments, including Directwave and Short Circuit. So there is a way to go.

Furthermore, as SynthEdit has an sf2 oscillator, and I am unsure as to what if any multisample loading is available in SynthMaker, I don't see sfz obsolescing sf2 via direct competition until we see the proliferation of free and inexpensive instruments with a wide diversity of features and design concepts that play sfz(the full public spec) as exists now for sf2. That's where the bulk of sf2 use is, I think. It's not just about Aria or Dimension, or Kontakt now loading sfz, but we also need to see more and more consistent sfz implementation at the low end of the market for sf2 to be overtaken by the superior format.

William, I know you have your reasons for WusikSND, and I love it being monolithic and the smart soundset finding of the WusikPRST. But not a day goes by when I don't wish that the WusikEngine read sfz as well. (hint, hint )

Wow, very enlightening. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Sorry about changing the wording between the Subject title and the Poll question... I started with the subject title, and by the time I finished with my original message, I had refined my thoughts and the wording of the poll was changed.

Thanks for telling me about what happens when the folder name is changed.

--Sean

[Bassballjg]

Sean,

About folders and portability:

With sfz, the definition file includes the path from the file to the sample. Therefore, if the samples and the definition files are in the same folder, you can change the folder name because that doesn't change the path.

sample=snare.wav

vs

sample=mydrums\snare.wav

Where in each case everything is within the folder C:\sfz

So if you change "mydrums" to "drums", when you load the definition file, the sample will not be found. You will have to edit the definition file to the new folder name. If you create the folder mydrums\snares and move snare.wav there, same thing, but you add the new folder to the pathway to fix it. If you move the definition file, you have to edit it to the new path, or, move the samples to the same relative location withing the new definition file location.

from C:\sfz to D:\sfz2

sample=snare.wav

and

sample=mydrums\snare.wav

are still each valid in the new location, if you move everything and keep the same names.

On the other hand, you can get lots of portability by pointing to the same samples from many locations of your definition files, where you may have edited the files for preset variations which can be organized as such, or stored them in the locations browsed by different instruments. For example, you can cross-use the Dimesion and Kontakt libraries from a single sample installation of each: just load the sfz files in Kontakt and save .nki files to that relative path, and create sfz files based on the wavs in Kontakt's library, saving the definition files which point to the Kontakt sample folders to a folder in the Dimension Multisamples folder. Or, you can batch convert/save using ESC.

So not really a downside so much as you need to be aware of this factor and its consequences and possibilities.

[audiojunkie]

Sean,

About folders and portability:

With sfz, the definition file includes the path from the file to the sample. Therefore, if the samples and the definition files are in the same folder, you can change the folder name because that doesn't change the path.

sample=snare.wav

vs

sample=mydrums\snare.wav

Where in each case everything is within the folder C:\sfz

So if you change "mydrums" to "drums", when you load the definition file, the sample will not be found. You will have to edit the definition file to the new folder name. If you create the folder mydrums\snares and move snare.wav there, same thing, but you add the new folder to the pathway to fix it. If you move the definition file, you have to edit it to the new path, or, move the samples to the same relative location withing the new definition file location.

from C:\sfz to D:\sfz2

sample=snare.wav

and

sample=mydrums\snare.wav

are still each valid in the new location, if you move everything and keep the same names.

On the other hand, you can get lots of portability by pointing to the same samples from many locations of your definition files, where you may have edited the files for preset variations which can be organized as such, or stored them in the locations browsed by different instruments. For example, you can cross-use the Dimesion and Kontakt libraries from a single sample installation of each: just load the sfz files in Kontakt and save .nki files to that relative path, and create sfz files based on the wavs in Kontakt's library, saving the definition files which point to the Kontakt sample folders to a folder in the Dimension Multisamples folder. Or, you can batch convert/save using ESC.

So not really a downside so much as you need to be aware of this factor and its consequences and possibilities.

Thanks! Great explanation! I think I can work with those limitations. I would probably put each multi sample set/definition file in a single folder with the title of the patch, so that I can move them anywhere at will. (at least if I understand what you said, that should work fine.)

[Bassballjg]

Yes, one folder per instrument including both definition file and samples maximizes your portability without editing your definition file. I do that sometimes, but mostly when I have defined a "family" of instruments to work together or as a subset of a library, I use a folder for that and within it, a folder for samples. If multisamples, then each instrument has its own subfolder of the samples folder. Anyway you do it, it's all good.

[Kyran]

William, I know you have your reasons for WusikSND, and I love it being monolithic and the smart soundset finding of the WusikPRST. But not a day goes by when I don't wish that the WusikEngine read sfz as well. (hint, hint )

Word!