The most future proof format for sampled instruments is SFZ

[BONES]

As I said, I think it's easiest to simply save the wavs. And whilst you may see a difference between other formats and SFZ, to me it's just another format and something I need to keep a specialist plugin to use - Zampler being the only one I am aware of. AFAIK I can' tload them into any of Studio One's instruments or Kontakt.

Nope, that just shows how proprietary systems build a huge fuss around very simple wav files just
to close access for many musicians and make a lot of money from it. But - as “Open Source” and
SFZ show, everything can be very simple.

I don't see anyone complaining about proprietary formats. I think they are f**king awesome because they just work and I never have to worry about anything. You definitely get what you pay for.

[Largos]

As I said, I think it's easiest to simply save the wavs. And whilst you may see a difference between other formats and SFZ, to me it's just another format and something I need to keep a specialist plugin to use - Zampler being the only one I am aware of. AFAIK I can' tload them into any of Studio One's instruments or Kontakt.

Nope, that just shows how proprietary systems build a huge fuss around very simple wav files just
to close access for many musicians and make a lot of money from it. But - as “Open Source” and
SFZ show, everything can be very simple.

I don't see anyone complaining about proprietary formats. I think they are f**king awesome because they just work and I never have to worry about anything. You definitely get what you pay for.

The idea is to use a standard file format so that you can use a library in many samplers. However suckers want to assume something is better just because it has a high price tag, so you get proprietary companies "going their own way" and locking customers in to their products.

[BONES]

If that's the idea, then I don't see SFZ as the answer because, as I said, I have to keep Zampler around to use them. The fact that so many companies choose Kontakt as their format suggests that it is a much better format for any and all of us, particularly as you can get a player for free from NI.

[enroe]

As I said, I think it's easiest to simply save the wavs.

Here I may quote myself:

The striking thing about the SFZ format is that the wavs are
left as they are.

That's the great thing about the SFZ format: The WAVs stay
as they are - no encryption or proprietary containers like in
Kontakt.

And whilst you may see a difference between other formats and SFZ, to me it's just another format and something I need to keep a specialist plugin to use - Zampler being the only one I am aware of. AFAIK I can' tload them into any of Studio One's instruments or Kontakt.

Another difference is: There are a lot of SFZ samplers - here
is an excerpt:

Calfbox
Carla
Grace
liquidsfz
sfizz
SFZero
Zerberus
BassMIDI
Highlife
Sforzando
TX16Wx
Zampler
Samplelord
TAL-Sampler
...
(The whole list is here. )

So the difference is simple: there are many samplers. So it's
not just another format. It is "THE format" - and that is why
it is "future-proof".

Nope, that just shows how proprietary systems build a huge fuss around
very simple wav files just to close access for many musicians and make a
lot of money from it. But - as “Open Source” and SFZ show, everything
can be very simple.

I don't see anyone complaining about proprietary formats. I think they are f**king awesome because they just work and I never have to worry about anything. You definitely get what you pay for.

Proprietary formats are a problem. The newcomer usually does not recognize the problem at first. It's only when an update is due or the sound library needs to be adjusted for some reason that you realize that "proprietarity" is really, really bad.

In the following threads you can get an idea of what proprietaryness really means:

Sad state of Native Instruments:
viewtopic.php?t=592030

NI-Library updates:
viewtopic.php?t=601520

NI-activations:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=541076

So the stories tend to repeat themselves:

If a company gains a quasi-monopole on a market there is always the tendency to abuse the market position. They don't need to listen to their customers, because they know that their customers depend on them!

[BONES]

Proprietary formats are a problem. The newcomer usually does not recognize the problem at first. It's only when an update is due or the sound library needs to be adjusted for some reason that you realize that "proprietarity" is really, really bad.

Except that never happens, does it? I've got Kontakt libraries that are 6 or 7 years old and they continue to work just fine.

Another difference is: There are a lot of SFZ samplers - here
is an excerpt:

Calfbox
Carla
Grace
liquidsfz
sfizz
SFZero
Zerberus
BassMIDI
Highlife
Sforzando
TX16Wx
Zampler
Samplelord
TAL-Sampler

How many of those will also load my Kontakt libraries? It's just another format we all have to support. You have to remember that most content for Kontakt doesn't come from NI, it comes from dozens, maybe hundreds, of 3rd party providers who, given the choice, decided to go with Kontakt, not SFZ. So what do you think you know that these folk don't?

In the following threads you can get an idea of what proprietaryness really means

What you get in each of those threads is some small insight into what complete dumbasses most people are. More to the point, the chances of those kinds of problems occurring with open source software are actually much higher because anyone is free to change any part of it they feel like, which means chances of incompatibility are likely far greater.

If a company gains a quasi-monopole on a market there is always the tendency to abuse the market position. They don't need to listen to their customers, because they know that their customers depend on them!

It's worse for open source because people are free to f**k it up 9 ways from Sunday, so one man's SFZ does not necessarily have to be compatible with another's. The perfect example is the different ways there are to manage software on different Linux distributions - they are all Linux but you have a choice of either .dpkg or .rpm and you need the right one for your distro. (Unless that's changed in the last 10-15 years, of course. I gave up on Linux a long time ago.)

[Largos]

How many of those will also load my Kontakt libraries? It's just another format we all have to support.

N.I. have made it so only their software can load Kontakt libraries. They have also made it so they don't support SFZ seemingly. Else you wouldn't need to use another program to load them, I guess. The problem is with N.I. they are the ones forcing you to use multiple samplers/sample players because they won't use a standard. If everyone uses a standard, you only need to use the program of your choosing.

You have to remember that most content for Kontakt doesn't come from NI, it comes from dozens, maybe hundreds, of 3rd party providers who, given the choice, decided to go with Kontakt, not SFZ. So what do you think you know that these folk don't?

Given what choice? Most will make their libraries in a way which they perceive will earn them the most money for the least effort. It's nothing to do with choice. Situations get created where everyone is using X because everyone is making Y for it. Everyone is making Y for X because everyone is using it. It has nothing to do with whether it's actually better or not, it's just the company's business practice for their own benefit.

It's worse for open source because people are free to f**k it up 9 ways from Sunday, so one man's SFZ does not necessarily have to be compatible with another's. The perfect example is the different ways there are to manage software on different Linux distributions - they are all Linux but you have a choice of either .dpkg or .rpm and you need the right one for your distro. (Unless that's changed in the last 10-15 years, of course. I gave up on Linux a long time ago.)

This has nothing to do with open source, the format was created by rgc audio and used in Cakewalk when they bought it out. Native Instruments could make their file format open and it'd likely sink sfz but they won't because then you wouldn't have to buy their software to use the libraries. You argue for them but they actively make life harder for you to keep their pockets lined, that's being a sucker.

[enroe]

In the following threads you can get an idea of what proprietaryness really means.

What you get in each of those threads is some small insight into what complete dumbasses most people are. More to the point, the chances of those kinds of problems occurring with open source software are actually much higher because anyone is free to change any part of it they feel like, which means chances of incompatibility are likely far greater.

No no. These aren't all stupid users and these aren't trivial
things either.

For example, NI suddenly no longer activates certain libraries
that users have purchased. This means the user can no
longer use them - they are then simply gone.

This is of course also stated in the terms and conditions. And
then you see: you can no longer purchase proprietary
synthesizers or libraries. You can only purchase usage rights
for a limited period of time.

You are completely at the mercy of the goodwill of the
company - here, for example, NI. If that's what you want - fine.

If a company gains a quasi-monopole on a market there is always the tendency to abuse the market position. They don't need to listen to their customers, because they know that their customers depend on them!

It's worse for open source because people are free to f**k it up 9 ways from Sunday, so one man's SFZ does not necessarily have to be compatible with another's. The perfect example is the different ways there are to manage software on different Linux distributions - they are all Linux but you have a choice of either .dpkg or .rpm and you need the right one for your distro. (Unless that's changed in the last 10-15 years, of course. I gave up on Linux a long time ago.)

Haha, Linux is a nice example: In the area of enterprise software
(SAP), Linux is the basic operating system that runs on ALL
servers. Because no one wants anything proprietary!

Of course, there are a large number of Linux derivatives, and you
have to see what runs compatible with whom. But for maintenance
and administrators it is still an advantage that they have Linux: All
Linux derivatives are similar - and every Linux expert can maintain
a Linux server.

With SFZ, on the other hand, things look much simpler: all SFZ
players can interpret the simple basic SFZ text well. This is also
the strength of SFZ.

Specialties of individual SFZ players can actually be easily
adapted so that they also run on other players.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The future security of SFZ is guaranteed by:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The variety of different SFZ sample players (see above).

2. The format idea that is not tied to a single player or company.
This means that no one can deactivate your library or refuse to
activate it for you (NI can do this at any time).

[BONES]

The problem is with N.I. they are the ones forcing you to use multiple samplers/sample players because they won't use a standard. If everyone uses a standard, you only need to use the program of your choosing.

Kontakt is a standard, used by all the pros, and it has been around for decades. SFZ is the upstart here, the one who wouldn't conform to a standard. |IIRC, it was created by the guy who made z3ta+ and Pentagon, wasn't it?

Everyone is making Y for X because everyone is using it. It has nothing to do with whether it's actually better or not, it's just the company's business practice for their own benefit.

Of course it does. The fact that everyone is using makes it better for us, as end users. Believe me, I spent many, many years on the road less traveled and it is not the best option. There is strength in numbers.

Native Instruments could make their file format open and it'd likely sink sfz but they won't because then you wouldn't have to buy their software to use the libraries. You argue for them but they actively make life harder for you to keep their pockets lined, that's being a sucker.

Perhaps if that was true but it's not. I have never paid for Kontakt, yet I have dozens of Kontakt libraries I rely on every day. If it's all about NI lining their pockets, they are doing a piss-poor job of it by offering Kontakt Player for free. Maybe it's more about keeping control of the standard, ensuring it doesn't get f**ked up?

For example, NI suddenly no longer activates certain libraries that users have purchased. This means the user can no
longer use them - they are then simply gone.

Does NI actually do that? All the more reason not to buy their libraries if they do. I only have a couple and I've never had any problems. Quite the opposite, improvement in Native Access makes it easier than ever to keep everything, especially 3rd party products, running smoothly.

You can only purchase usage rights for a limited period of time.

Of course, we all know and understand this. I don't know why it is such a difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around, it's made perfectly obvious in every EULA I've ever read.

You are completely at the mercy of the goodwill of the company - here, for example, NI. If that's what you want - fine.

It's not goodwill, it's simply good business practice to keep your customers happy. But the thing is, I'm not really an NI customer, I'm a Heavyocity customer and an Output customer and a Keep Forest customer. NI give me their player for free.

The thing is that you guys are looking at it from the wrong perspective. As an end user, I'm looking at an ecosystem, like iOS v Android - the OS is of far less importance than the ecosystem that's been built around it. Maybe SFX is, technically, a better format but the ecosystem that's been built around Kontakt over decades makes that irrelevant.

Haha, Linux is a nice example: In the area of enterprise software
(SAP), Linux is the basic operating system that runs on ALL
servers. Because no one wants anything proprietary!

What they don't want to have to do is payout for thousands of licenses. It saves them millions of dollars, yet many corporations still see value in sticking with Windows Server, which maintains about a one-quarter share of that market. Of course, if you look at the server market overall, then Windows owns nearly three-quarters of it.

This means that no one can deactivate your library or refuse to activate it for you (NI can do this at any time).

Not being a paranoid weirdo, that's not something I worry about at all. The rate at which I ditch software is about 100 times greater than any company is likely to even contemplate so it's largely irrelevant.

[Largos]

Kontakt is a standard, used by all the pros, and it has been around for decades. SFZ is the upstart here, the one who wouldn't conform to a standard. |IIRC, it was created by the guy who made z3ta+ and Pentagon, wasn't it?

Kontakt is not a standard, it's a sampler. Its file format is not a standard because only it uses it. If other samplers were allowed to load kontakt libraries they would, that is obvious.

Of course it does. The fact that everyone is using makes it better for us, as end users. Believe me, I spent many, many years on the road less traveled and it is not the best option. There is strength in numbers.

Makes what better? Is a situation where every sampler/sample player can load every sample library not better than everyone rail roaded to a single piece of software?

Perhaps if that was true but it's not. I have never paid for Kontakt, yet I have dozens of Kontakt libraries I rely on every day. If it's all about NI lining their pockets, they are doing a piss-poor job of it by offering Kontakt Player for free. Maybe it's more about keeping control of the standard, ensuring it doesn't get f**ked up?

Kontakt player is not free, they charge the fee through the sample library creators. You've likely given N.I. plenty of money and just didn't know.

https://www.native-instruments.com/en/s ... licensing/

[BONES]

Kontakt is not a standard, it's a sampler. Its file format is not a standard because only it uses it.

That makes no sense, given that dozens of third party vendors - you know, people who are packaging up multi-samples for other people to use - use the Kontakt format in their products.

Makes what better?

The ability to produce music. Or did you forget that's what we are here for?

Is a situation where every sampler/sample player can load every sample library not better than everyone rail roaded to a single piece of software?

No, why would you think that? Nobody is railroaded into anything, we all get to choose from myriad options. How boring would life be without that?

Kontakt player is not free, they charge the fee through the sample library creators. You've likely given N.I. plenty of money and just didn't know.

And done so happily.

https://www.native-instruments.com/en/s ... licensing/

You do understand that what that page shows is that vendors aren't paying for Kontakt itself, so much as all the services NI provide around it. That is a big part of why I use Kontakt, rather than having to curate all this shit from a dozen different vendors on my own. I imagine it's also why the vendors themselves see benefit in signing on and when you see it laid out like that, it makes perfect sense.

[Largos]

That makes no sense, given that dozens of third party vendors - you know, people who are packaging up multi-samples for other people to use - use the Kontakt format in their products.

It doesn't make sense because you've decided to jump into a topic where you know little of what is being talked about, you don't even really know what is being talked about, you apparently just want to shill for a sampler you haven't even got.

The ability to produce music. Or did you forget that's what we are here for?

Does what software other people are using affect your ability to make music?

No, why would you think that? Nobody is railroaded into anything, we all get to choose from myriad options. How boring would life be without that?

You're the one moaning about having to load up a separate sampler to use sfz.

Kontakt player is not free, they charge the fee through the sample library creators. You've likely given N.I. plenty of money and just didn't know.

And done so happily.

https://www.native-instruments.com/en/s ... licensing/

You do understand that what that page shows is that vendors aren't paying for Kontakt itself, so much as all the services NI provide around it. That is a big part of why I use Kontakt, rather than having to curate all this shit from a dozen different vendors on my own. I imagine it's also why the vendors themselves see benefit in signing on and when you see it laid out like that, it makes perfect sense.

Smoke as much copium as you want but N.I. are getting money for people using the player, contrary to what you thought.

[chk071]

Always funny to see people discuss the "future of formats", while the industry always does something entirely different.

I don't think it will ever stop. Forums are so funny. Completely unworldly.

[audiojunkie]

The deeper I did into the format and the development community around it, the more I see the flaws in the SFZ format itself. It is not a perfect format--that is to be sure. Having to determine the lowest common denominator of supported opcodes between the various SFZ parsers in order to make sure your samples will run on every available SFZ parser is not ideal.

Yes, the samples and sample libraries are the most important part. Having access to the actual samples and multisamples, so that one can load them into any sampler, is the ultimate future proofing of your sample archive.

In that sense, 'ANY' sampler format that leaves the sample files accessible is an acceptable solution. Ultimately, with the samples, one can rebuild the instrument in any sampler. In that sense, the sample player itself is irrelevant. However, it's nice when you can import as much of the original sampler format into the new sampler you use, so that you don't have to repeat the work of looping, mapping, creating zones, adjusting envelopes, etc, etc. If your new sampler imports your old sampler's format, then great!!--problem solved. However, if it doesn't, all is not lost because you have the samples. Where SFZ is the ultimate benefit, is that almost every sampler imports SFZ to 'SOME' extent. Every little bit that is imported saves work in recreating that instrument in your new sampler. That is the reason I believe SFZ is the best format for future proofing: `1. The samples are available. 2. Almost every sampler can import SFZ files to some degree. If any other format offers those two things, then I would say that they stand on equal footing as SFZ for a future-proof format.

To sum it up: It's unencrypted access to the instrument samples and the near universal ability of all samplers to import to some extent the instrument configuration information of the format that makes SFZ the best format.

[audiojunkie]

Always funny to see people discuss the "future of formats", while the industry always does something entirely different.

I don't think it will ever stop. Forums are so funny. Completely unworldly.

While the "industry" continues to include "SFZ" as an import format on nearly every sampler created, the industry is doing exactly what everyone needs of an open format.

[lobanov]

Blind users like to see their own advantages and don't want to think about the others. Let's look at the situation from the developer' point of view.

From the user' point of view an open standard is good. From the developer' point of view it is (in many cases) bad. Sales. With SFZ is hard to gain money and this is the main problem of SFZ. Kontakt is more attractive for developers who want to make money and don't want to create libraries 'for free'. We all need to eat, pay bills etc. And this is important as production of good libraries takes enormous amounts of time and money. Gear, recording studios, computers, programs, people, time...

But blind users still want 'open standards for free'.

Kontakt is a standard, used by all the pros, and it has been around for decades. SFZ is the upstart here, the one who wouldn't conform to a standard. |IIRC, it was created by the guy who made z3ta+ and Pentagon, wasn't it?

This is marketing bullshit from NI, sorry. People are so credulous...

The proper standard cannot be closed.

Don't forget, NI makes enormous money out of developer' needs and fears (and greed). Developers pay for every protected library they sell. And they must pay even for free libraries for Kontakt Player (if they want to protect it). May be I am mistaken in some details but read this:

Kontakt licensing

This is the marketing strategy of NI. Good one. Smart and crafty. But this is rather marketing than music and music technologies.