I am only really missing 24bit support.
sfz (not sfz+) is a great option !
Complains about the pure sf2 sound quality are stupid.
Shit in, shit out !!
Or
Great samples in, great samples out !!
Soundfont technology out-of-date?
-
- KVRAF
- 2054 posts since 3 Jun, 2001 from Not far from Australia
sf2 format is dated but still good enough for most things !
I am only really missing 24bit support.
sfz (not sfz+) is a great option !
Complains about the pure sf2 sound quality are stupid.
Shit in, shit out !!
Or
Great samples in, great samples out !!
I am only really missing 24bit support.
sfz (not sfz+) is a great option !
Complains about the pure sf2 sound quality are stupid.
Shit in, shit out !!
Or
Great samples in, great samples out !!
DSP with attitude
-
- KVRAF
- 2988 posts since 11 Apr, 2001
I'm still wondering why a poll was created on this topic.And yes, thus, the soundfont is old fashioned, because there is a technological standard from 1990's EMU sound chip still used today.
But it seems, that most of you didn't even take a note of all this.
Generally, a poll is created when you have some interest to know what people think about the poll topic.
However, from the first poll, the thing seems to be "here's the poll, but you must vote it's obsolete for the obvious reasons I'm mentioning".
So, I would like to ask... do you Mr. Hyde have a nice new format which you would unveil right after this thread so we can be impressed? or this is just "someone do what I want as the sfz which you idiots adore just plainly sucks"?
-René
-
- KVRAF
- 6490 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Rochester, NY
sfz+ is far from plainly sucks, I use it for almost every freaking track when it's not drums or synth 
I have gigs of sf2's and theyre not outdated, screw all the other samplers. I say convert over to sf2's with ESC (just bought it) and use SFZ+
Best ever, thx rene
RONC
I have gigs of sf2's and theyre not outdated, screw all the other samplers. I say convert over to sf2's with ESC (just bought it) and use SFZ+ Best ever, thx rene
RONC
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
Can't be arsed to read every single reply in this thread - but I strongly agree with jackle&hyde in that there's a need for some common, widely supported sampler format.
Current observations:
- SF2 are a pain to be edited. No matter whether you're using a Creative card or VSampler. Lousy mapping/grouping/routing and moduation options. Not up to the task of complexed sampler patches at all.
- The file format is widely spread but still proprietary as it embeds the samples - which is just as lame as it could get. Can't be any worse.
- Regarding sfz, from what I know there's no realtime editor. In a proper sampler I NEED to be able to check out and alter my patches in realtime. I just want "select by played note" functionality and the likes - and I NEED immediate response when playing the patch, without saving and reloading for each and every step. Also, unfortunately, sfz is Windows only (I'm a Windows guy too, but I need to be compatible with Macs).
So yes, SF2 is stuff from yesterday (let's not forget the sample format limitations).
Current observations:
- SF2 are a pain to be edited. No matter whether you're using a Creative card or VSampler. Lousy mapping/grouping/routing and moduation options. Not up to the task of complexed sampler patches at all.
- The file format is widely spread but still proprietary as it embeds the samples - which is just as lame as it could get. Can't be any worse.
- Regarding sfz, from what I know there's no realtime editor. In a proper sampler I NEED to be able to check out and alter my patches in realtime. I just want "select by played note" functionality and the likes - and I NEED immediate response when playing the patch, without saving and reloading for each and every step. Also, unfortunately, sfz is Windows only (I'm a Windows guy too, but I need to be compatible with Macs).
So yes, SF2 is stuff from yesterday (let's not forget the sample format limitations).
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRAF
- 7412 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
Having a sampler/editor that could read/write sfz format mappings and let you adjust them in real time doesn't sound impossible for someone to write. (Using sfz as the playback engine would not be the place to start, though, as that doesn't allow realtime updating of the major mapping parameters.)
So far, it sounds as if the major objections to sfz format are:
1) No decent GUI for playback
2) No decent, realtime GUI for creating maps
Neither of these actually addresses the format itself (which I consider pretty solid). If there's sufficient demand, I'm sure a developer will step up and produce something - unless they're all too big-headed to use something someone else created (i.e. sfz format).
It's not a small task -- I'm imagining how much would have to be added into, say, SynthEdit, in terms of basic widgets... There's so much stuff you can tweak...
So far, it sounds as if the major objections to sfz format are:
1) No decent GUI for playback
2) No decent, realtime GUI for creating maps
Neither of these actually addresses the format itself (which I consider pretty solid). If there's sufficient demand, I'm sure a developer will step up and produce something - unless they're all too big-headed to use something someone else created (i.e. sfz format).
It's not a small task -- I'm imagining how much would have to be added into, say, SynthEdit, in terms of basic widgets... There's so much stuff you can tweak...
-
- KVRian
- 500 posts since 13 Oct, 2004 from Durham, NC USA
And what's the problem with stereo soundfonts? It's simple to support stereo soundfonts in a program. I added stereo support to my little soundfont builder in a few hours one day.
BTW, as a soundfont developer I like the samples kept independently. But as a musician, I like the monolithic format; it's convenient. It would be nice if there was a standard "packed" format for sfz.
Yes, Soundfont format needs more routing options and the ability to respond to arbitrary MIDI controller numbers. Ideally, the soundfont would specify controllable facets, and a soundfont player would allow simple mapping of facets to MIDI controllers, for nonstandard purposes -- when you don't want to use an RPN.
BTW, as a soundfont developer I like the samples kept independently. But as a musician, I like the monolithic format; it's convenient. It would be nice if there was a standard "packed" format for sfz.
Yes, Soundfont format needs more routing options and the ability to respond to arbitrary MIDI controller numbers. Ideally, the soundfont would specify controllable facets, and a soundfont player would allow simple mapping of facets to MIDI controllers, for nonstandard purposes -- when you don't want to use an RPN.
-
- KVRAF
- 2054 posts since 3 Jun, 2001 from Not far from Australia
This is not right.Sascha Franck wrote: - SF2 are a pain to be edited. No matter whether you're using a Creative card or VSampler. Lousy mapping/grouping/routing and moduation options. Not up to the task of complexed sampler patches at all.
Using Awave Studio it is fast and easy to do.
(once you understand the tool.)
I could not disagree more !Sascha Franck wrote: - The file format is widely spread but still proprietary as it embeds the samples - which is just as lame as it could get. Can't be any worse.
Its clean and tidy, great to handle and perfect to store. (even in compressed form.)
Yes, here I agree with you Sascha.Sascha Franck wrote: - Regarding sfz, from what I know there's no realtime editor. In a proper sampler I NEED to be able to check out and alter my patches in realtime. I just want "select by played note" functionality and the likes - and I NEED immediate response when playing the patch, without saving and reloading for each and every step. Also, unfortunately, sfz is Windows only (I'm a Windows guy too, but I need to be compatible with Macs).
I am sure Rene has a long term plan for the sfz format, lets wait and see.
I can convert sf2 to any other sampler format quite easy and than edit the parameters as needed.Sascha Franck wrote: So yes, SF2 is stuff from yesterday (let's not forget the sample format limitations).
sf2 is my first choise for multisamples and portation.
Even tho it is a dated format.
DSP with attitude
-
- KVRian
- 859 posts since 14 Sep, 2004
A new soundfont editor\player would be great. I don't think soundfont technology is out of date. The problem is just that no one bothered to add the features of the programs that came along to supplant it:
1.Creating and playing back samples that allows direct-from-disk playing.
2.Separate pedal-down samples.
And none of the programs I've looked at have:
4. Easy access to the samples buried by the uppermost sample. All of them make it hell to try to reach samples that are hidden behind other samples--say the left panned sample in a two sample stereo note. You have to drag the uppermost sample to the side, make your edit, and then slide the topmost sample back into place, checking to be sure it hasn't shifted pitches. A tabbed interface would make this simple, with numbers to indicate which level you were on.
5. A good a macro function, letting you create macros that could be assigned to key combinations. Sorely missing. (Giga has one, but it's limited.)
6. The ability to quickly adjust the tuning and relative volume of "layers" of samples: not samples stacked by velocity, but instead sitting on top of each other, and choosing which of these play at all, allowing a mix of variations of the basic sound.
Giga is great, but needs much better macro support, and it won't easily play in a sequencer.
Kontakt's interface is terrible--having to scroll up and down is a nightmare. No macros.
VSample has the best interface, but no macros, and I hate having to load samples into it on the separate page. Very awkward, somehow.
1.Creating and playing back samples that allows direct-from-disk playing.
2.Separate pedal-down samples.
And none of the programs I've looked at have:
4. Easy access to the samples buried by the uppermost sample. All of them make it hell to try to reach samples that are hidden behind other samples--say the left panned sample in a two sample stereo note. You have to drag the uppermost sample to the side, make your edit, and then slide the topmost sample back into place, checking to be sure it hasn't shifted pitches. A tabbed interface would make this simple, with numbers to indicate which level you were on.
5. A good a macro function, letting you create macros that could be assigned to key combinations. Sorely missing. (Giga has one, but it's limited.)
6. The ability to quickly adjust the tuning and relative volume of "layers" of samples: not samples stacked by velocity, but instead sitting on top of each other, and choosing which of these play at all, allowing a mix of variations of the basic sound.
Giga is great, but needs much better macro support, and it won't easily play in a sequencer.
Kontakt's interface is terrible--having to scroll up and down is a nightmare. No macros.
VSample has the best interface, but no macros, and I hate having to load samples into it on the separate page. Very awkward, somehow.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1325 posts since 1 Sep, 2004
Why do (most of you) you misunderstand me all the time?
It's not so much the question about the format. And it's not the question of "sfz format or not".
It's the question for me (to know the answer), why developers don't use the EXISTING EXTEDEBILITY of the formats (either SF2 or DLS or whatever). And to know, why they do NOT IMPLEMENT all the features pssible (with sfz for instance) ...
(Manufacturer specific chunks can be embedded into soundfonts, without violating the formats integrity. That's a "rule" of the format specification already.)
Why they give us today so called "professional" soundfont players with the rudimentary old legacy feature set (and probably wana have our money for this).
Why is for instance sfz not able to save additional useful parameters and modulation settings with a patch, if it actually supports that "glorious" sfz format?
And specially to Renè (because you asked): No. It is not my intention to present a new format, nor to develop my own soundfont player. There are other ppl, who claim to be "experts" in that area (but obviously all merely "hot steam" so far).
We expect a (professional) Soundfont player to extend and expand the old feature set and being able to play our soundfonts with an professional editor interface, if someone want's our money for that. We want the features, which are the standard for years now in average sampler units. And we want to be able to save our new patches without losing the integrity of our existing soundfont banks.
Otherwise we can use a professional sampler and decompile our soundfonts this way like usually and (necessarily the case in the past 10 years).
.
It's not so much the question about the format. And it's not the question of "sfz format or not".
It's the question for me (to know the answer), why developers don't use the EXISTING EXTEDEBILITY of the formats (either SF2 or DLS or whatever). And to know, why they do NOT IMPLEMENT all the features pssible (with sfz for instance) ...
(Manufacturer specific chunks can be embedded into soundfonts, without violating the formats integrity. That's a "rule" of the format specification already.)
Why they give us today so called "professional" soundfont players with the rudimentary old legacy feature set (and probably wana have our money for this).
Why is for instance sfz not able to save additional useful parameters and modulation settings with a patch, if it actually supports that "glorious" sfz format?
And specially to Renè (because you asked): No. It is not my intention to present a new format, nor to develop my own soundfont player. There are other ppl, who claim to be "experts" in that area (but obviously all merely "hot steam" so far).
We expect a (professional) Soundfont player to extend and expand the old feature set and being able to play our soundfonts with an professional editor interface, if someone want's our money for that. We want the features, which are the standard for years now in average sampler units. And we want to be able to save our new patches without losing the integrity of our existing soundfont banks.
Otherwise we can use a professional sampler and decompile our soundfonts this way like usually and (necessarily the case in the past 10 years).
.
-
- KVRAF
- 4143 posts since 7 Sep, 2001 from Melbourne, Australia
Just out of curiosity - what would happen if a soundfont player supported more or all of what is possible in the soundfont standard?
Wouldn't we lose the portability of the format across all existing players everytime this new sample player/editor pushed out a new sampleset onto the web?
Isn't one of the advantages on the soundfonts on the web the fact that alot of players are already available to play them (including some hardware solutions like Audigy etc)?
Maybe there's some unspoken agreement to leave the current implementation of soundfonts as is and to invest in new sample formats to take advantage of more complex features. *shrugs*
Caleb
Wouldn't we lose the portability of the format across all existing players everytime this new sample player/editor pushed out a new sampleset onto the web?
Isn't one of the advantages on the soundfonts on the web the fact that alot of players are already available to play them (including some hardware solutions like Audigy etc)?
Maybe there's some unspoken agreement to leave the current implementation of soundfonts as is and to invest in new sample formats to take advantage of more complex features. *shrugs*
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1325 posts since 1 Sep, 2004
What would happen?Caleb wrote:Just out of curiosity - what would happen if a soundfont player supported more or all of what is possible in the soundfont standard?
Wouldn't we lose the portability of the format across all existing players everytime this new sample player/editor pushed out a new sampleset onto the web?
Isn't one of the advantages on the soundfonts on the web the fact that alot of players are already available to play them (including some hardware solutions like Audigy etc)?
Maybe there's some unspoken agreement to leave the current implementation of soundfonts as is and to invest in new sample formats to take advantage of more complex features. *shrugs*
Caleb
Hmm.
- As already sayed, the spec allows special chunks. This means in fact, that compatibility is 100% ensured. The files can be played back with all players, which support at least the version 1.0 standard. No compatibility lost so far. Merely extended.
btw: This is already the case today. Version 1 players can provide a basic subset of the players version 2.
- The available player manufacturers would actually get a kick in their ass to develop the format further and their products. And this with absolute downward compatibility. And the products probably could get out of their current letargy.
- We finally could really see an evolution of an 15 years old technique and get back the creative possibilities, which were initially intented to be an evolution by the developers of the several formats.
At current we merely have a stagnation, which probably anywhen leads to the total disapearing of those formats.
.
-
- KVRian
- 1244 posts since 21 Nov, 2003 from San Francisco
I think I have only used a soundfont in 1 song. It was a free vibraphone soundfont. It's actually quite funny: after making that song I developed my "moth" soundfont player vsti, since then I have never used it. Lots of people tell me they use it though, so I'm glad it is useful to someone.