The most future proof format for sampled instruments is SFZ

[audiojunkie]

What would be useful, would be to list on the SFZFormat.com page, along with every known sfz parser and player, the opcodes each parser or player supports.

[enroe]

There doesn't seem to be any good hardware samples since the early 2000s! ...

Well, that time is probably over.

There used to be an AKAI 2000, 3000 or 5000 in every studio. A great device
with an 8-line LCD display. So when the GIGAs, EXSs, Halions and Kontakts
came along, that was the "end" for all hardware.

[enroe]

I've done a lot of thinking since the last posts about all of this. I am still convinced that SFZ is the best future-proof format.

...

-----------------------------------------

Possible SFZv2 Opcodes to support:

<control> -- SFZv2
default_path -- SFZv2
label_ccN
set_ccN

What is everyone's thoughts on this? Are all of you happy with things as they are with SFZ? Are all of you saying that you wouldn't like to see the majority of available SFZ instruments be able to do more than just note-on/note-off playing of samples?

I think a good idea would be for us as a community to determine the best subset of required SFZ codes (the smaller the better to encourage developers of plugins to support these opcodes. We could list this set of recommended opcodes as an unofficial recommended basic subset and list it on the sfzformat page.

Comments?

It's nice how you advocate for standardization. I can support all of this too.

The stupid thing is: the developers of the individual SFZ samplers are all individualists,
and they implement the opcodes that they themselves consider to be useful. And nothing
will change that anytime soon.

Nevertheless, the SFZ standard is a kind of “universal sample definition”. And the best
thing that the individual musician and sample user can do is: He chooses his favorite
SFZ player - and optimizes "his" SFZ files exactly for this one SFZ player. For me, for
example, that's Sforzando.

[BackInCheck]

It has properly been mentioned before, but in my observation SFZ is less popular (even much less known) than for example Kontakt because of a lack of a commonly accepted playback engine and GUI facilities. Sure, Sforzando allows some licensed developers to add a GUI to the library, but as far as I understand that feature will not be made accessible to new developers.

I'm not ideological when it comes to this issue. Recently Decent Sampler has made huge steps forward as an alternative format to Kontakt. My understanding is that it's technically very similar, but allows easy integration of a GUI to EVERYONE and also already has lots of libraries due to being the second most popular format on Pianobook. The downside is probably that the Decent Sampler format is not open source (?) like SFZ, but still can be accessed and used freely by everyone.

I think what SFZ needs to become more relevant is a playback engine with GUI features, some easily to implement scripting features and also a graphical editor to quickly create libraries without the hassle of having to deal with text editors. Decent Sampler has a built-in sample mapping editor (I don't know how good / advanced it is).

I'm not sure what is the merit of having two very similar formats competing for being a Kontakt alternative while having a very similar feature set, with one being actively developed (Decent Sampler), while the other one (while quite advanced in functions), has basically ceased development?! Correct me if I'm wrong! I'm using SFZ libraries often btw, but I know that most of my fellow computer music enthusiasts, unless they are total nerds, have never heard of this great format (I'm trying to tell them about it).

[BackInCheck]

Nevertheless, the SFZ standard is a kind of “universal sample definition”. And the best
thing that the individual musician and sample user can do is: He chooses his favorite
SFZ player - and optimizes "his" SFZ files exactly for this one SFZ player. For me, for
example, that's Sforzando.

And that's exactly what 99% of the common user base of audio software will refrain from doing. They want their software to work straight away often even relying on presets / included patches, instead of mingling around. Remember that not everyone are total nerds like us folks over here!

[Largos]

It has properly been mentioned before, but in my observation SFZ is less popular (even much less known) than for example Kontakt because of a lack of a commonly accepted playback engine and GUI facilities. Sure, Sforzando allows some licensed developers to add a GUI to the library, but as far as I understand that feature will not be made accessible to new developers.

I'm not ideological when it comes to this issue. Recently Decent Sampler has made huge steps forward as an alternative format to Kontakt. My understanding is that it's technically very similar, but allows easy integration of a GUI to EVERYONE and also already has lots of libraries due to being the second most popular format on Pianobook. The downside is probably that the Decent Sampler format is not open source (?) like SFZ, but still can be accessed and used freely by everyone.

I think what SFZ needs to become more relevant is a playback engine with GUI features, some easily to implement scripting features and also a graphical editor to quickly create libraries without the hassle of having to deal with text editors. Decent Sampler has a built-in sample mapping editor (I don't know how good / advanced it is).

I'm not sure what is the merit of having two very similar formats competing for being a Kontakt alternative while having a very similar feature set, with one being actively developed (Decent Sampler), while the other one (while quite advanced in functions), has basically ceased development?! Correct me if I'm wrong! I'm using SFZ libraries often btw, but I know that most of my fellow computer music enthusiasts, unless they are total nerds, have never heard of this great format (I'm trying to tell them about it).

The decent sampler player is not open source, the format is openly readable though. Both SFZ and Decent Sampler use plain text files. Decent Sampler format is basically SFZ with the names of the fields/opcodes changed for some odd reason. Decent sampler development at the moment means catching up with most SFZ players. The only new things I've seen added is the ability to make crappy custom UI's and use the players in built FX that you may or may not like. Fortunately, it's trivial to convert decent sampler presets to sfz.

[BackInCheck]

The decent sampler player is not open source, the format is openly readable though. Both SFZ and Decent Sampler use plain text files. Decent Sampler format is basically SFZ with the names of the fields/opcodes changed for some odd reason. Decent sampler development at the moment means catching up with most SFZ players. The only new things I've seen added is the ability to make crappy custom UI's and use the players in built FX that you may or may not like. Fortunately, it's trivial to convert decent sampler presets to sfz.

Yes, as I mentioned in my previous comment, Decent Sampler is not open source, but openly accessible.

Well, as you say: there are various SFZ players, while Decent Sampler is one player and one format (just like Kontakt and .exs). That's much easier to grasp for the general user than having to understand why there are various playback engines floating around the web with different capabilities for the same format. On Pianobook you will see that developers of free sample libraries are much more likely to use Decent Sampler than SFZ, since the end user will easily understand that he / she just has to load the DS preset file from the file browser and they are good to go. No need to refer to an additional .XML file to get some basic UI capacities.

SFZ might be technically superior in ways that matter to 1% of the user base, while at the same time being vastly inferior in UX / ergonomical aspects. I understand that this doesn't matter to you, but it obviously matters to 99% of users, who are not hackers, but music makers who want to quickly load up a library and not mingle around with text files until they have adapted the settings to their personal preferences!

Not only the capacity to make UIs (which you refer to as "crappy", while it's actually in no way inferior to Sforzando's UI feature, which btw is only accessible to a chosen few), but also the built in sample mapper and developer tools, built in browser to easily manage and load up your libraries, ability to add impulse responses to your library and a few more useful features missing in Sforzando and SFZ more genrally.

[enroe]

...

SFZ might be technically superior in ways that matter to 1% of the user base, while at the same time being vastly inferior in UX / ergonomical aspects. I understand that this doesn't matter to you, but it obviously matters to 99% of users, who are not hackers, but music makers who want to quickly load up a library and not mingle around with text files until they have adapted the settings to their personal preferences!

Not only the capacity to make UIs (which you refer to as "crappy", while it's actually in no way inferior to Sforzando's UI feature, which btw is only accessible to a chosen few), but also the built in sample mapper and developer tools, built in browser to easily manage and load up your libraries, ability to add impulse responses to your library and a few more useful features missing in Sforzando and SFZ more genrally.

Dear "BackInCheck": You have an interesting point of view, but
I think you're mostly wrong. I hope I can explain why in a few
sentences.

I have to say in advance: I really appreciate Decent Sampler;
it's free, and there are lots of amazing libraries for Decent
Sampler. A great thing!

Nevertheless, the number of SFZ multisamples - if you google
it or search kvr - is much, much larger than that for the much
younger Decent Sampler. As an SFZ you really find every
instrument!

You like to devalue editing SFZs with a text editor as “nerdy”.
Many people have this devaluation and nerdiness impulse - so
that doesn't surprise me.

But it is not like that. On the contrary: Because you can write
SFZ with ANY text editor, it is extremely flexible: Anyone can
quickly write an SFZ anywhere. And: It's extremely simple - not
nerdy at all. Because this one line is enough to assign a
sample:

<region> sample=path/samplename.wav key=c3

That's all, and the sample works.

Try this out with Sforzando or Sfizz: Your sample
“samplename.wav” will be played when you press the “c3” key.
That's basically it. Of course, you have to repeat this line for
each additional sample that makes up the multi-sample.

The following applies to the other functions (Loops, ADSR,
Volumes, Pan, Round Robin, Velocities): Instead of reading
the associated manual like with Halion, Kontakt, EXR, you
simply read the SFZ documentation on "sfzformat.com" - and
that's it: You can do anything.

You see: text editing is by no means “nerdy” or difficult. No: It's
fast and flexible - and you always have full control!

Regarding the GUI I ask you: Do you want to work with great
GUI and visual effects? Or do you ultimately want to make music?
You have to decide that entirely for yourself.

I have worked with EXR, Halion and Kontakt, and I have to say
for myself: Instead of learning partially cryptic knobs and operating
methods, I prefer to learn exactly the SFZ format and then write
a line of text, e.g.:

transpose=+2

and then you know exactly what is happening. It's not nerdy, it's
just transparent and fast.

Overall, your assessment that only 1% of users are interested in
editing SFZs is not correct. The SFZ-community is certainly smaller
than the Kontakt-community, but these people really appreciate
writing simple SFZ lines. And these people also value their
independence from any company decisions, they value the future
security of their brilliant sound libraries as "SFZ files".

[BackInCheck]

Well, if you think that the average user of sample libraries is interested in editing text files in order to make the samples work, than you are entitled to that opinion. I'm not trying to convince you of the opposite, but it seems reality proves you wrong. Just fyi: I'm not a newbie to the SFZ format, in fact I have been promoting it for a long time and I use it frequently. That's exactly why I know that the average user of sample libraries is typically not accustomed to using SFZs and struggles to understand it's benefits and how to use it (which playback engine to use? how to load it?)

[Largos]

[quoteBackInCheck post_id=8747143 time=1694971866 user_id=662356]
Well, as you say: there are various SFZ players, while Decent Sampler is one player and one format (just like Kontakt and .exs). That's much easier to grasp for the general user than having to understand why there are various playback engines floating around the web with different capabilities for the same format. [/quote]

File formats with multiple programs to open them are extremely common, so I don't really see this as an issue. This thread is about future proofing and not being tied to a specific program is about as future proof as you can get.

On Pianobook you will see that developers of free sample libraries are much more likely to use Decent Sampler than SFZ, since the end user will easily understand that he / she just has to load the DS preset file from the file browser and they are good to go. No need to refer to an additional .XML file to get some basic UI capacities.

I think you are referring to the sforzando specific xml files, which are not really to do with sfz as a standard?

SFZ might be technically superior in ways that matter to 1% of the user base, while at the same time being vastly inferior in UX / ergonomical aspects. I understand that this doesn't matter to you, but it obviously matters to 99% of users, who are not hackers, but music makers who want to quickly load up a library and not mingle around with text files until they have adapted the settings to their personal preferences!

What you are trying to characterise here? You can control parameters in a sfz player's GUI which at the same time link them to MIDI CC numbers for easy use with a control surface. There is no need for a custom UI feature. For the use case you say, there is no need to go into the text file if the sfz is created properly in the first place.

Not only the capacity to make UIs (which you refer to as "crappy", while it's actually in no way inferior to Sforzando's UI feature, which btw is only accessible to a chosen few), but also the built in sample mapper and developer tools, built in browser to easily manage and load up your libraries, ability to add impulse responses to your library and a few more useful features missing in Sforzando and SFZ more genrally.

If you're going to be doing sample library making in any quantity then using a good text editor is wayyy faster in the long run than a GUI editor will ever be.

[pljones]

If you're going to be doing sample library making in any quantity then using a good text editor is wayyy faster in the long run than a GUI editor will ever be.

... or do it in bash

[PatchAdamz]

No one knows the future, especially the guys who invented 8-Track cassette.

[BONES]

My point is that SFZ is the the most future proof format because it provides access to the wav files, which when properly labeled and looped, allow for easy transfer to almost any sampler.

So why not just archive the wav samples themselves? Why bother with any kind of wrapper? That's all we've ever done. If we need to rebuild them into a different multi-sample format, it's not much effort.

Anyway, this entire discussion is a perfect example of what makes open source so bloody useless. Everyone goes their own way, leaving a dog's breakfast for people who have no interest in it and just want to make music.

[enroe]

My point is that SFZ is the the most future proof format because it provides access to the wav files, which when properly labeled and looped, allow for easy transfer to almost any sampler.

So why not just archive the wav samples themselves? Why bother with any kind of wrapper? That's all we've ever done. If we need to rebuild them into a different multi-sample format, it's not much effort.

You see, you've now understood it: the striking thing about the SFZ format is that the wavs are left as
they are. The very simple, additional SFZ file only tells the sampler how to play the individual wav files
when you press a key.

Anyway, this entire discussion is a perfect example of what makes open source so bloody useless. Everyone goes their own way, leaving a dog's breakfast for people who have no interest in it and just want to make music.

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.

[audiojunkie]

My point is that SFZ is the the most future proof format because it provides access to the wav files, which when properly labeled and looped, allow for easy transfer to almost any sampler.

So why not just archive the wav samples themselves? Why bother with any kind of wrapper? That's all we've ever done. If we need to rebuild them into a different multi-sample format, it's not much effort.

Anyway, this entire discussion is a perfect example of what makes open source so bloody useless. Everyone goes their own way, leaving a dog's breakfast for people who have no interest in it and just want to make music.

You aren’t wrong. The only reason I recommend SFZs over plain samples is to save some work. Almost universally, samplers import SFZ files to some extent. This saves time when the import can at least map the samples or import other basic stuff. But, yes—the samples are the most important part. And yes, I wish things were different around the SFZ format. But I still believe for the above-listed reason that SFZ is the best long term storage format. Well labeled and properly looped multisamples are a close second best option.