Best file format for instruments with round-robin samples?

[audiojunkie]

I agree with the consensus on this thread - SFZ format is the best we have as a 'de facto' standard. Like Sean I really don't see DLS becoming the standard for sampling.

We support SFZ as the only sample format in Alchemy and Alchemy Player (which as well as having its own sounds, is also a free SFZ player) and are working on fully supporting all op codes in Alchemy v2. Thanks to everyone who's posted with information on interpretation of the standard especially Garth and David

Cheers
Ben

And this is why Alchemy is such a good instrument! That and the fact you guys give excellent support, you provide a 'free' player version, you have a huge collection of sounds available for purchase, you support good causes, etc. etc.

--Sean

[audiojunkie]

One huge problem with DLS is the monolithic nature of the format; that the samples are included in the file. That means no sharing of samples between files. That alone eliminates DLS as contender.

The native sample playback machines of OSX and Windows aren't anything anyone would want to use, and they have little incentive to improve them. Their base are people who can turn up their iPods, that's about it.

Look on the web and see the amount of DLS files available. Not many, perhaps zero.

Lets not forget what we are talking about. Why is a "standard" necessary anyway? Any major sampler loads in the most popular formats, and any future sampler will too. All major samplers save in a format where it can be disassembled (the exceptions mentioned previously). There is zero danger of loss or obsolescence.

Use SFZ.

Exactly! To me, the monolithic formats read "CLOSED FORMAT." Granted, Soundfonts were monolithic too, but I like being able to open a folder and see the sounds available.

--Sean

[pljones]

SFZ gets obsolete when:
1) no one can read audio files (generally in whatever format you happen to want to use but WAV is most widely supported)
2) no one can read plain text files

Monolithic formats of any nature get obsolete when no one remembers what they are any more. I don't remember the last time anyone mentioned DLS before this thread, for example... So Soundsfonts are (sadly) likely to be around a while, I guess.

So if you're into avoiding obsolescence, you have to pick a format that people won't forget.

I know what I'd go for.

[Xleth]

One huge problem with DLS is the monolithic nature of the format; that the samples are included in the file. That means no sharing of samples between files. That alone eliminates DLS as contender.

That's actually wonderful about format like DLS -- it is possible to change it and improve it in a unified and binding (as in standardized) way. Unlike SFZ, which is Wild West as I see it.

DLS itself has had two or three revisions already. What's preventing MMA from creating DLS 3.0, which will support round robin and external samples? Nothing. Exactly, nothing.

Use SFZ.

I will avoid SFZ like plague. Read my posts to understand why.

[audiojunkie]

Then do what you want! You asked for our opinions, we gave them. I'm not going to argue with you. You have heard opinions from some pretty big names in the industry, who gave educated opinions--note I said opinions. Just because you don't like what people said, you want to argue. Do what you want! I'm done with this thread!

--Sean

[Xleth]

Then do what you want! You asked for our opinions, we gave them. I'm not going to argue with you. You have heard opinions from some pretty big names in the industry, who gave educated opinions--note I said opinions. Just because you don't like what people said, you want to argue. Do what you want! I'm done with this thread!

--Sean

The author of Translator initially didn't recommend SFZ and posted some evidence clearly showing that SFZ is not an open format. It opened my eyes as far as SFZ is concerned (some people here have been constantly spreading misinformation saying that SFZ is open, which simply is not the case). Then he suddenly changed his mind. I didn't.

I'm done with this thread (a bit tired of it).

[Baard]

The author of Translator initially didn't recommend SFZ and posted some evidence clearly showing that SFZ is not an open format. It opened my eyes as far as SFZ is concerned (some people here have been constantly spreading misinformation saying that SFZ is open, which simply is not the case). Then he suddenly changed his mind. I didn't.

I'm done with this thread (a bit tired of it).

Semantics. The word "Open" can mean a lot of things. Being an adjective, it really doesnt mean much unless coupled with a noun or verb. If you are talking about an open structure, that can easily be edited or even reverse engineered, the people in this thread are right. There is no question that SFZ has the most "open" structure for patch editing, and that it can do what you asked for.

So.. no misinformation has been spread, and if any, it didnt come from chickeneps, audiojunkie, pljones, david, chad, ben or myself. There is no format in existence that can live up to your criteria, so people here have adviced you to approach the format that is closest. But as I said initially, this all boils down what "open" really means.

If you know a format that:
a) Is "open" in your eyes
and
b) Supports the features you asked for in the time of writing

Please inform us! I for one would love to hear about such a format, but sadly it doesnt seem to exist AFAIK. I would love to be proven wrong tho'.

[chickeneps]

The author of Translator initially didn't recommend SFZ... then he suddenly changed his mind.

You were asking for a recommendation but remember there are plenty of equal options. I never "didn't recommend SFZ", I just expanded your options a bit. After we clarified some things, and more clearly understood your other non-RR concerns, I narrowed it down to SFZ as a recommendation.

But use what you feel comfortable with.

[Mr_Bumpy]

There seems to be an assumption that a clearly documented spec will lead to uniform support among sample players. While this might improve the situation, it would by no means provide uniformity. Just look at all the SoundFont players for an example. I have tried every SoundFont player VSTi I could find, and do you know how many of them interpret SoundFont spec. 2.1 modulators?

Zero.

Despite the fact that the specs are fully published and freely available.

Apart from Creative/E-MU's on-board SoundFont synths, the only software SoundFont synth that I have found to properly interpret these values (or even attempt to) is FluidSynth. Unfortunately, Fluidsynth doesn't exist in VSTi format, but that's another matter.

So, all of my tight velocity-to-attenuation, velocity-to-fc, and custom CC assignments get lost in practically every player out there, including the almighty SFZ+. SoundFont gets a bad rap, but it's actually a much more capable sampler format than most players will allow it to be.