OK, I know that nearly everything imports SF2. However, I've noticed that the import quality of each sample player varies, and is never 100%. Parameters and settings are always lost that result in the samples not sounding like they should. The closest thing available is the sfz vsti, and there is no further development for it. Aside from this, you have to have a creative labs sound card to play these samples correctly.
Also, SFZ is an open format and seems to be gaining momentum and acceptance everywhere.
My question is:
What is the best archival format for converting samples to? Is it SF2 or SFZ? OR, is there a format that may be better than these?
Thanks,
--Sean
SF2 vs SFZ vs ??? What is best?
-
- KVRAF
- 7426 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
-
- KVRAF
- 3002 posts since 24 Nov, 2003 from Heidelberg&Hamburg
I know of the disadvantages of Sf2, told in many threads. Whenever I can I save things simply as 24bit-samples or whatever I got, and my personal way isn't for sure the quickest, but here we go:
- I have Kontakt2, so if I used things inside of it I save it as Kontakt-file. If I need another "Format" I use my trusty Awave Studio later to convert it to whatever I want, including sf2 and sfz (I bought sfz+ as it came out, and it has giga-support - dropped later - but no sfz-support;-).
- If I have wavs and know how my sampler wants it, I convert my wav-files to ape files (monkeys audio) and save them in my archive. Coming back to it later I use the batch-function of Awave (there are many other options) while I have a good coffee
. Maybe in the time I'll get back to some archived samples the sf2-standard or other ones have changed, some format that was 16 bit might be 24 now and so on - so well, that's how I do it.
Generally I have no problems with sf2-files, for example the many built into Orion Platinum just sound fabulous to me, even if I know the limitations. The idea behind sfz is amazing, and you don't need a soundblaster at all for it. But you don't need one for sf2 too - synthfont is there for doing things, and sfz was originally a soundfont-player
which sounds great.
- I have Kontakt2, so if I used things inside of it I save it as Kontakt-file. If I need another "Format" I use my trusty Awave Studio later to convert it to whatever I want, including sf2 and sfz (I bought sfz+ as it came out, and it has giga-support - dropped later - but no sfz-support;-).
- If I have wavs and know how my sampler wants it, I convert my wav-files to ape files (monkeys audio) and save them in my archive. Coming back to it later I use the batch-function of Awave (there are many other options) while I have a good coffee
. Maybe in the time I'll get back to some archived samples the sf2-standard or other ones have changed, some format that was 16 bit might be 24 now and so on - so well, that's how I do it.Generally I have no problems with sf2-files, for example the many built into Orion Platinum just sound fabulous to me, even if I know the limitations. The idea behind sfz is amazing, and you don't need a soundblaster at all for it. But you don't need one for sf2 too - synthfont is there for doing things, and sfz was originally a soundfont-player
which sounds great.-
- KVRAF
- 1714 posts since 14 Mar, 2003 from Israel
It seems one of the biggest disadvantages of the Soundfont format is that it allows only velocity and key mapping. More advanced formats, like sfz, allow you add more "dimensions", e.g. with keyswitching or by changing articulation with the mod wheel.
Also, I think some common programing tricks are not available to you in sf2 - like Round Robin.
Another advantage sfz has over sf2 is that it's non-monolithic and the mapping is human readable. This makes it more resistant to corruption and incompatibilities. For archiving, this is a huge difference.
The main advantage of Soundfont is that it is widely supported. But like the OP mentioned - sfz is gaining more following. With massive Cakewalk backing - including Rapture and Dimension -and Garritan going sfz with his new ARIA player, the future is looking bright for this format.
What's worth mentioning is that Samplelord supports sfz and should work with most of the format's advanced features. This is an excellent no-nonsense sample player which disk streaming. Add to that basic sfz support in the free Shortcircuit and Highlife (open source) and the original sfz player, and you have some nice options for usage.
Also, I think some common programing tricks are not available to you in sf2 - like Round Robin.
Another advantage sfz has over sf2 is that it's non-monolithic and the mapping is human readable. This makes it more resistant to corruption and incompatibilities. For archiving, this is a huge difference.
The main advantage of Soundfont is that it is widely supported. But like the OP mentioned - sfz is gaining more following. With massive Cakewalk backing - including Rapture and Dimension -and Garritan going sfz with his new ARIA player, the future is looking bright for this format.
What's worth mentioning is that Samplelord supports sfz and should work with most of the format's advanced features. This is an excellent no-nonsense sample player which disk streaming. Add to that basic sfz support in the free Shortcircuit and Highlife (open source) and the original sfz player, and you have some nice options for usage.
CubaseStudio4 µTonic/Rapture Nitro/GS-201/Ohmicide/TBK 1&3
-
- KVRist
- 149 posts since 23 Sep, 2006 from Germany
Since SFZ is available, I prefer it.
Advantages: non-monolith, and the mapping with a simple text editor.
So you can make a lot of tricks without an expensive sample editor.
I can refer to all my samples in a simple way if they are well ordered. :))
Advantages: non-monolith, and the mapping with a simple text editor.
So you can make a lot of tricks without an expensive sample editor.
I can refer to all my samples in a simple way if they are well ordered. :))
-
- KVRist
- 57 posts since 7 Dec, 2005
Can sfz do round-robin?
And what do you like for a good sfz player?
I do like the quick text/copy-paste for setting up files. Rene @RGC/Cakewalk wrote about it and it's quite convincing when you've got the proverbial sh*tload of samples to map...
And I think it even does keyswitching if I'm not mistaken, too...
And what do you like for a good sfz player?
I do like the quick text/copy-paste for setting up files. Rene @RGC/Cakewalk wrote about it and it's quite convincing when you've got the proverbial sh*tload of samples to map...
And I think it even does keyswitching if I'm not mistaken, too...
-
- Banned
- 5089 posts since 12 Jun, 2001 from Wusik Dot Com
I'm Biased, but when I created the WusikSND format, I took in mind a few things as a sound-developer and designer. 
We have a tool that you can batch-convert files into WusikSND files in a very easy way, or you can use the Sample-Editor that comes with it free.
Still, SFZ is much superior compared to SF2. SF2 is too old, doesn't support true stereo files and only 16 bits AFAIK. Does SFZ supports stereo WAV files? I'm pretty sure it does.
Still, WusikSND supports Mono/Stereo and 8/16/24/32 bits and any sample-rate. (stereo support was added last year)
Wk
We have a tool that you can batch-convert files into WusikSND files in a very easy way, or you can use the Sample-Editor that comes with it free.Still, SFZ is much superior compared to SF2. SF2 is too old, doesn't support true stereo files and only 16 bits AFAIK. Does SFZ supports stereo WAV files? I'm pretty sure it does.
Still, WusikSND supports Mono/Stereo and 8/16/24/32 bits and any sample-rate. (stereo support was added last year)
Wk
-
- KVRAF
- 1714 posts since 14 Mar, 2003 from Israel
AFAIK, yes.AngelicLight wrote:Can sfz do round-robin?
The original sfz player is free and very nice, but does not do disk streaming.AngelicLight wrote:And what do you like for a good sfz player?
I use Samplelord as my sample player, and it support sfz, as well as most major formats (including advanced features) and does disk streaming nicely.[/url]
CubaseStudio4 µTonic/Rapture Nitro/GS-201/Ohmicide/TBK 1&3
-
- KVRAF
- 3139 posts since 6 Sep, 2002 from United Kingdom & Opinions Will Travel :O)
I voted SFZ as the future alternative to SF2, sfz will eventually become as popular as sf2 had/s been.
Spe3d
Spe3d
-
- KVRist
- 193 posts since 3 Dec, 2004 from España
I vote for SFZ too... SF2 is obsolete right now, and creative did not revamp it after the latest SF2 specification. its pretty limited as it is now.
in contrast, SFZ has almost(if not all) the features GIGA has, and what could be a very good idea is converting all those free sf2 floating on the net, fixing and converting them to sfz, and applying all the new SFZ tricks(like those mentioned in this thread)... that would be killer... (if you can live with the fact that almost all sf2 on the net are on the bound from questionable legality)...
in contrast, SFZ has almost(if not all) the features GIGA has, and what could be a very good idea is converting all those free sf2 floating on the net, fixing and converting them to sfz, and applying all the new SFZ tricks(like those mentioned in this thread)... that would be killer... (if you can live with the fact that almost all sf2 on the net are on the bound from questionable legality)...
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7426 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
This is all very good information. Thanks! I'm concerned about archival corruption, so it is good to know that it is more resistant to corruption. Also, I like the fact that it is an open format and text editable (not that I really WANT to edit the format with a text editor.spacefox wrote:It seems one of the biggest disadvantages of the Soundfont format is that it allows only velocity and key mapping. More advanced formats, like sfz, allow you add more "dimensions", e.g. with keyswitching or by changing articulation with the mod wheel.
Also, I think some common programing tricks are not available to you in sf2 - like Round Robin.
Another advantage sfz has over sf2 is that it's non-monolithic and the mapping is human readable. This makes it more resistant to corruption and incompatibilities. For archiving, this is a huge difference.
The main advantage of Soundfont is that it is widely supported. But like the OP mentioned - sfz is gaining more following. With massive Cakewalk backing - including Rapture and Dimension -and Garritan going sfz with his new ARIA player, the future is looking bright for this format.
What's worth mentioning is that Samplelord supports sfz and should work with most of the format's advanced features. This is an excellent no-nonsense sample player which disk streaming. Add to that basic sfz support in the free Shortcircuit and Highlife (open source) and the original sfz player, and you have some nice options for usage.
Also, since Samplelord is my main sample player, I'm happy to know how well it works with SFZ. I'm also happy that SFZ is supported by the best freeware samplers/sample players.
--Sean
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7426 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
I agree. These are great things about SFZ.osci wrote:Since SFZ is available, I prefer it.
Advantages: non-monolith, and the mapping with a simple text editor.
So you can make a lot of tricks without an expensive sample editor.
I can refer to all my samples in a simple way if they are well ordered.
--Sean
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7426 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
WilliamK,WilliamK wrote:I'm Biased, but when I created the WusikSND format, I took in mind a few things as a sound-developer and designer.
Still, SFZ is much superior compared to SF2. SF2 is too old, doesn't support true stereo files and only 16 bits AFAIK. Does SFZ supports stereo WAV files? I'm pretty sure it does.
Still, WusikSND supports Mono/Stereo and 8/16/24/32 bits and any sample-rate. (stereo support was added last year)
Wk
Thanks for mentioning the positives/negatives you know about the two formats. I think your vsti is great too, and I am probably going to take advantage of your excellent offer that is currently going on with your group buy. It is an unbelievably great offer.
--Sean
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7426 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
Cool, I wasn't aware of how fully featured the SFZ format is. It's great that it is almost as fully featured as the GIGA format.Kel wrote:I vote for SFZ too... SF2 is obsolete right now, and creative did not revamp it after the latest SF2 specification. its pretty limited as it is now.
in contrast, SFZ has almost(if not all) the features GIGA has, and what could be a very good idea is converting all those free sf2 floating on the net, fixing and converting them to sfz, and applying all the new SFZ tricks(like those mentioned in this thread)... that would be killer... (if you can live with the fact that almost all sf2 on the net are on the bound from questionable legality)...
--Sean
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7426 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
I'm bumping this topic, because I still want to hear even more opinions and information. Please everyone, if you know something about these formats, vote and chime in.
--Sean
--Sean
-
- KVRAF
- 7414 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
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 )
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 )