Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

jbeach2646
Thomas,
 
I downloaded the SFZ program and loaded an organ soundfont into it.  It is a soundfont player and there is a virtual keyboard at the bottom to toy with.   The dropdown SF2 menu allows the
selection of one preset of the soundfont to be played by the keyboard.  It is possible to input a .mid file from an external midi sequencer program by means of a virtual midi cable.  It is
also possible to load .mid files in the sfz player, so it is a kind of combination Midi Sequencer program, allowing the playing of .mid files using wave files, sfz, and soundfonts, similar to the
default General Midi Soundbanks which are standard in all Midi Sequencer programs.  It would be interesting to know whether the Aria sound engine which is used with the Garritan Classic Pipe Organs CD has an organ GUI, such as jOrgan consoles and how it compares, since the SFZ Player is limited to one choice of preset. 
 
Apparently, there is no desire to make the sound engine as flexible as Fluidsynth, in terms of integrating it in programs such as jOrgan.  In the Plogue folder in which SFZ installs, there is
an Aria folder, a  sforzando folder and a Table Warp2 folder.  The sforzando folder looks much like the Fluidsynth folder in terms of dynamic link libraries (.dll files).  Obviously, it can not just be copied to the jOrgan folder “lib” replacing Fluidsynth, or some of the computer techies on the forum would have done so.  So, there must be some complicated writing to be done and program permissions to be secured to be able to integrate it.  I suppose there will come a day when this will be possible, i.e., a sound engine you just drop into the appropriate folder in a sound-related program and you are good to go.
 
It does not seem to differ that much from the file components in the “default” folder in jOrgan Fluidsynth.  I will say this.  My organ soundfonts sound no better when played in the  SFZ Player than they do in Fluidsynth.
 
Also, I read much of the technical description of SFZ, which, just as SF2, complies with the Midi Standard.  It would be interesting to see the SFZ editor which compares to either Polyphone or
Vien(n)a, to know, exactly, how the format differs and why, given the specific protocols prescribed by the Midi Standard, the format might be any way superior to SF2.  Articles which describe
are, generally, more vague than the actual editor in which changes are specified with respect to the wave file.  Obviously, both SFZ and SF2 stipulate how (with what parameters) a wave file
is to be played.  Being familiar with SF2, it should not be difficult to learn the differences between the two formats and to learn to edit wave files in the SFZ format.  When I used the term “vague,” it is because each wave file for a note in the compass of an instrument seems to be a standalone item, apart from the structure of a soundbank, and instrument or a preset. 
An analogy might be the loading of the notes of the stops of a Grand Orgue sample set, all the wave files, labelled, are in a folder, independent of a “bank” structure.  The SF2 format is
a beautifully organized structure.  Again, it is only the quality of the individual wave file (recording) which is articulated in one way or another by each of the software synthesizers
which should be perceptible.  I have not seen any information concerning why SFZ is, purportedly, better in articulating a wave file than SF2.
 
John Beach
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation
 
Thanks, John. I'll check it out.
 
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, John Beach <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thomas,  the purpose of the forum is communication about the subject and I think everything pertinent should be presented for consideration.   I don’t have any “private vocabulary” and how I
describe things probably represents more an ill-informed layman’s perspective of a subject with which I have only familiarized myself to a limited extent over the past 19 years since becoming
“computer-literate.” 
 
From the synthtopia.com website:
  
“The SFZ Format is widely accepted as the open standard to define the behavior of a musical instrument from a bare set of sound recordings. Being a royalty-free format, any developer can create, use and distribute SFZ files and players for either free or commercial purposes.  So when looking for flexibility and portability, SFZ is the obvious choice. That’s why it’s the default instrument file format for the ARIA Engine. 
As a bonus, an integrated format converter should get you started! You can also drop SF2, DLS and acidized (??) WAV files directly on the interface, and they will automatically get converted to SFZ 2.0, which you can then edit and tweak to your liking!”
 
Thomas,  have you seen or tried the Garritan Classic Pipe Organ sets, available on ebay.com for about $79 US? (About $99 on their site),  It comes with the Aria player included.  I don’t have it myself, but this may be something for you to consider.   I have heard the recordings of the sets and they are excellent. https://www.garritan.com/products/classic-pipe-organs/
 
I certify that I am in no way connected with the aforementioned product or company and receive no benefits.  I put in a search for SFZ and this was one of the results.
 
John
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation
 
Hi John,
 
You seem to employ your own private vocabulary when discussing this subject and I can't quite follow you. And actually, many aspects in which soundfonts are lacking have been enumerated. So perhaps it's best if we leave it there. I certainly don't intend any personal animosity and I hope no offense is taken.
 
I don't think I currently have the knowledge to convert existing sample set WAV files to the sfz format, which I would really love to hear in linuxsampler as controlled by jOrgan. So I can only hope that someone is willing to give it a go.
 
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 12:36 PM, John Beach <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thomas,  I am all in favor of improvement.  If it sounds like a recording, it is because it is.  I surmise that we are talking about the quality of the “recorder” with respect to Fluidsynth or Grand Orgue or Hauptwerk and  “playback,” and not the quality of the “recorded sounds” which are merely played back by the “recorder.”  I am not complaining about the quality of the “recorder” (not jOrgan’s recorder) but Fluidsynth, as the engine which effectuates the playback of the recorded wave files, the parameters of which are specified in the soundfont instrument.
I have come to expect “CD Quality” from the output of jOrgan dispositions.  While this does not equate exactly to the environmental acoustic of a building in which a pipe organ stands,
if the disposition were played in that same environment, the quality would be the same.  
 
Constructive criticism is good if we can, in fact, do anything beneficial from it.   Personally, I don’t have the know-how to build a better “sound engine,” and I am not sure if anyone
has, specifically, clarified what aspects of Fluidsynth need to be improved, other than reverb, for which dissatisfaction has been expressed.  I noted a while ago that there seems to be
a difference between the reverb quality in Polyphone and that of jOrgan, also noting that it appears to be the same design structure (GUI, at least).   We are dealing with electricity and
electronics, whether generated by a windmill or a solar panel, harnessed to play recordings of real or emulative, synthesized organ stops.   The “King of Instruments,” while “royalty”
powered by a windmill, is not common to either.  If we are confronted with irreconcilable differences, I am content to recognize and be at peace with difference. 
 
John Beach
 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation
 
John,
 
I'm not sure where to start here.
 
If you go to the Hauptwerk website, the different versions of the software are presented for comparison. It is very easy to understand.
 
The "sound engines" that you cite that cost $2000 are probably sample sets. I won't define that for you, since I think you already know what they are. HW sample sets range in cost from free to whatever.
 
GrandOrgue, which is a free, open source application also uses sample sets. There are many free sample sets, many of them very good. If you spend some time, you can also purchase or use free HW sample sets and port them to the GrandOrgue format.
 
There's no need to make things more complicated than that.
 
If you like soundfonts, good for you. Many others don't.
 
Judging by the post shared with us by Mark Bugeja, our late and dear friend Panos was hoping for a better sound technology for jOrgan. I agree and hope that jOrgan can be revived by providing a platform for more musical and professional organ sounds.
 
If you think soundfont technology is good enough, that's fine. But if seems as if some here are trying to squelch innovation and improvements by negating any constructive criticism.
 
 
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot


_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

John Reimer
Administrator
I have not seen any information concerning why SFZ is, purportedly, better in articulating a wave file than SF2.

JohnB,

Yes. That is precisely what we need to hear, before we feel the need to diversify in this fashion. Exactly in what respects is SFZ better than what we already have? We know, for example, that the soundfont technology is not very good with release samples (if we want to use them). Does SFZ handle them any better?

On another matter, John, is there any good reason why your contributions to this Forum cannot appear normally in the thread about which they deal? I think it is unhelpful the way you are handling them at the moment.

John Reimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

grahamg
Hi,

Remember that there is a free Soundfont player with the name "SFZ" (which I think also could load early sfz sample definitions). Then there is the open platform SFZ standard of sample definitions - which is what LinuxSampler, ARIA, and other 'sound engines' play. A little confusing.

The SFZ standard allows for multiple samples per note, in either round robin or random order of play back. It allows for multiple releases, multiple loops, full stereo samples, as well as the ADSR definitions used in a soundfont. Plus modulator definitions. So it provides everything that an sf2 definition would have, plus all the things that we're looking for to make more realistic sounding sets.

The biggest thing lacking for SFZ usage is a quick and easy tool to create the SFZ definition.

All of the free SFZ creator or editor apps that I've tried over the years have been complicated and frankly useless for the purpose of virtual pipe organ sample set creation. I need to try ARIA to see if it will do loop detection and release marker detection.
Graham Goode
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
VPOs with jOrgan, LinuxSampler, Fluidsynth, SFZ, GrandOrgue, NI Kontakt, and Hauptwerk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Dr Mark Bugeja MD
Panos had developed an ARIA version of our Balzan sampleset. I have no idea how he went about it, but should you be interested in investigating it you are all welcome. Just "order" it (it is free) from my website.

Regards
Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

tbeck
Thank you very much, Graham!

John and John, sorry to have gotten you in a tizzy. Please stick with the technology and sound without "complications" that make you happy. 

I am trying to find a solution for jOrgan that makes everyone happy. So the people who love soundfonts are happy now. Others of us, not so much. 

jOrgan should be versatile enough for both. But... I think if we don't continue to develop jOrgan in function or in sound quality, it will become moribund.





On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Dr Mark Bugeja MD <[hidden email]> wrote:
Panos had developed an ARIA version of our Balzan sampleset. I have no idea
how he went about it, but should you be interested in investigating it you
are all welcome. Just "order" it (it is free) from my  website
<http://maltesepipeorgans.webs.com/downloads-1>  .

Regards
Mark



--
View this message in context: http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Sf2-limitation-tp4665201p4665206.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

tbeck
"The biggest thing lacking for SFZ usage is a quick and easy tool to create
the SFZ definition."

Perhaps someone (*cough* Aaron *cough*) should create an editor.

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Thomas Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you very much, Graham!

John and John, sorry to have gotten you in a tizzy. Please stick with the technology and sound without "complications" that make you happy. 

I am trying to find a solution for jOrgan that makes everyone happy. So the people who love soundfonts are happy now. Others of us, not so much. 

jOrgan should be versatile enough for both. But... I think if we don't continue to develop jOrgan in function or in sound quality, it will become moribund.





On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Dr Mark Bugeja MD <[hidden email]> wrote:
Panos had developed an ARIA version of our Balzan sampleset. I have no idea
how he went about it, but should you be interested in investigating it you
are all welcome. Just "order" it (it is free) from my  website
<http://maltesepipeorgans.webs.com/downloads-1>  .

Regards
Mark



--
View this message in context: http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Sf2-limitation-tp4665201p4665206.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Aaron Laws
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
"The biggest thing lacking for SFZ usage is a quick and easy tool to create
the SFZ definition."

Perhaps someone (*cough* Aaron *cough*) should create an editor.


That's exactly what I thought when I read that ^_^. My question is the same as above, though: "Exactly in what respects is SFZ better than what we already have?". I understand that SF2 is not able to provide releases? It sounds pretty crazy to me that sf2 can't provide a release sound, but if SF2 cannot and SFZ can, that's enough for me. Modeling a reed stop with a "fade out" (at whatever speed) bears no resemblance to a real reed stopping with all its noise. There are some resemblances that are worthless, but this one is "make or break" to me. I need to hear the reed stop -- noisily. I heard an exemplary recording in this respect and thought about bookmarking it, but decided against doing so. I kick myself now. I think reeds are the biggest case for the necessity of release sounds, but the other types of pipe also benefit.

In Christ,
Aaron Laws

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

tbeck
Hi Aaron,

I'm playing a GrandOrgue sample set that I've cobbled together from various sources, and I love the reeds. You can hear the little "blurp" at the end and that is the way the pipes actually do sound. It's beautiful. 

The pedal 4' Trumpette stop and 8' Krummhorn sound glorious for the pedal cantus firmus in the Bach Chorale Preludes.

As we speak I'm trying to put together a very basic linuxsampler disposition using the sfz sound engine. Unfortunately, I don't have the info or knowledge to take advantage of multiple loops and multiple release samples and other "complications" yet. However, the goal is just to have a proof of concept.

Tom

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Laws <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
"The biggest thing lacking for SFZ usage is a quick and easy tool to create
the SFZ definition."

Perhaps someone (*cough* Aaron *cough*) should create an editor.


That's exactly what I thought when I read that ^_^. My question is the same as above, though: "Exactly in what respects is SFZ better than what we already have?". I understand that SF2 is not able to provide releases? It sounds pretty crazy to me that sf2 can't provide a release sound, but if SF2 cannot and SFZ can, that's enough for me. Modeling a reed stop with a "fade out" (at whatever speed) bears no resemblance to a real reed stopping with all its noise. There are some resemblances that are worthless, but this one is "make or break" to me. I need to hear the reed stop -- noisily. I heard an exemplary recording in this respect and thought about bookmarking it, but decided against doing so. I kick myself now. I think reeds are the biggest case for the necessity of release sounds, but the other types of pipe also benefit.

In Christ,
Aaron Laws

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Aaron Laws
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Aaron,

I'm playing a GrandOrgue sample set that I've cobbled together from various sources, and I love the reeds. You can hear the little "blurp" at the end and that is the way the pipes actually do sound. It's beautiful. 

The pedal 4' Trumpette stop and 8' Krummhorn sound glorious for the pedal cantus firmus in the Bach Chorale Preludes.

As we speak I'm trying to put together a very basic linuxsampler disposition using the sfz sound engine. Unfortunately, I don't have the info or knowledge to take advantage of multiple loops and multiple release samples and other "complications" yet. However, the goal is just to have a proof of concept.

Tom

Is that a gratis or free GrandOrgue sample set? (Are you able to share?) If not, perhaps you could be troubled for a quick recording?

Can you also verify for me (my research is just commencing) that this is not possible using SF2?

Is the value of multiple loops to further avoid being able to hear the loops? I would imagine that it's much more likely to be able to hear incidental irregularities if there is only one set of loop points, so "multiple loops" can have some sort of pseudo-random choice of which part of the wave file is played at any instant?

Multiple releases? I take it this allegedly helps with the monotony of a single, repetitive, recognizable release sound?

In Christ,
Aaron Laws

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Aaron Laws
In reply to this post by grahamg
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:07 AM, grahamg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Remember that there is a free Soundfont player with the name "SFZ" (which I
think also could load early sfz sample definitions). Then there is the open
platform SFZ standard of sample definitions - which is what LinuxSampler,
ARIA, and other 'sound engines' play. A little confusing.

The SFZ standard allows for multiple samples per note, in either round robin
or random order of play back. It allows for multiple releases, multiple
loops, full stereo samples, as well as the ADSR definitions used in a
soundfont. Plus modulator definitions. So it provides everything that an sf2
definition would have, plus all the things that we're looking for to make
more realistic sounding sets.

The biggest thing lacking for SFZ usage is a quick and easy tool to create
the SFZ definition.

All of the free SFZ creator or editor apps that I've tried over the years
have been complicated and frankly useless for the purpose of virtual pipe
organ sample set creation. I need to try ARIA to see if it will do loop
detection and release marker detection.

When you say "I need to try ARIA...", you mean http://ariaengine.com/overview/sfz-format/, right? If I'm reading properly, ARIA is an engine, not an application. That is, it's a library whence other applications support their functionality; it's not something a "user" can "use". It exposes an Application Programmer Interface, not a Graphical (or Command Line) User Interface.

If I'm wrong, please fill me in; I'm just getting started, and would like to investigate SFZ soundfont creation.

Likewise, I'll let you know what I learn.

In Christ,
Aaron Laws

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

John Reimer
Administrator
In reply to this post by Aaron Laws
Aaron Laws wrote
Can you also verify for me (my research is just commencing) that this is
not possible using SF2?
Aaron,

Release samples incorporating reed off-transients are certainly possible using sf2. I believe that Paul Stratman still employs it with his jOrganVPO's. As I have recently made clear, I am one VPO developer who while I certainly recognise the existence of such transients, and especially in reeds, am not prepared to go to the extra trouble to include them. One reason is that my organ playing over the years has left me relatively unfamiliar with what reeds do, and so I do not miss them if they are not there. And as a player, I regard them as a musical distraction, whereas that plainly is not your attitude. I suspect that professional organ builders try to minimise them as much as possible.

I am not so sure that MULTIPLE releases can be easily provided with sf2. But speaking as an ex-engineer, the law of diminishing returns governs the extra complication some of us are prepared to go to. One great attraction which jOrgan has for me is its great economy of computer resources, yet it does provide the type of sound I am seeking. As I have already said, other organ enthusiasts are desiring other types of sound, and this may not always be available in a VPO with the same ease. Available perhaps, but at considerable extra cost.

By the way, I care VERY much about the existence of STARTING transients in pipes, and one of my problems with English voicing is the apparent attempt to remove them as much as possible. Yet I believe that the neo-baroque movement went to the opposite extreme.

If you find the reed note-off transients of vital importance, I think that unless you find another cheap and easy way of handling them in jOrgan (assuming you don't find the present sf2 provision adequate) you will eventually move to one of the other programs, much to our loss.

John Reimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

grahamg
In reply to this post by tbeck
Hi Aaron,

The SFZ standard allows for multiple samples per note, in either round robin or random order of play back. It allows for multiple releases, multiple loops, and full stereo samples in one wave file. None of this is supported by the soundfont format. 

What many of us are looking for is a SFZ creator and editor that can import wave files that have loops, release markers, and tuning information embedded (like those from GrandOrgue and Hauptwerk) and create the SFZ instrument file auto sensing it all. Lars Palo's LoopAuditioneer might be a good place to start code wise...

Kind regards,
GrahamG
On Jun 19, 2017 at 11:48 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
"The biggest thing lacking for SFZ usage is a quick and easy tool to create
the SFZ definition."

Perhaps someone (*cough* Aaron *cough*) should create an editor.


That's exactly what I thought when I read that ^_^. My question is the same as above, though: "Exactly in what respects is SFZ better than what we already have?". I understand that SF2 is not able to provide releases? It sounds pretty crazy to me that sf2 can't provide a release sound, but if SF2 cannot and SFZ can, that's enough for me. Modeling a reed stop with a "fade out" (at whatever speed) bears no resemblance to a real reed stopping with all its noise. There are some resemblances that are worthless, but this one is "make or break" to me. I need to hear the reed stop -- noisily. I heard an exemplary recording in this respect and thought about bookmarking it, but decided against doing so. I kick myself now. I think reeds are the biggest case for the necessity of release sounds, but the other types of pipe also benefit.

In Christ,
Aaron 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Graham Goode
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
VPOs with jOrgan, LinuxSampler, Fluidsynth, SFZ, GrandOrgue, NI Kontakt, and Hauptwerk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

John Reimer
Administrator
In reply to this post by grahamg
grahamg wrote
 there is a free Soundfont player with the name "SFZ"
Graham,

I have looked at a website which I assume is one for the SFZ Player you are referring to. And also, I assume that JohnB is referring to the same product. I think his post about it suggests that it can handle only one preset at a time, but I imagine the limitation is simply on what you can play on its keyboard at any one time. As far as I can see, there are versions for Mac and for Windows, but there is no mention of Linux.

In my search to find this, I saw that there are still sites which deal with the old "sfz* (lower-case) VST plug-in, and people should note that this is something quite different. It plays sf2 files, but nothing else, as far as I know. Very confusing, with such a name.

John Reimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

RoyR
In reply to this post by John Reimer
Hi, John,

              "I regard them as a musical distraction, whereas that
plainly is not your attitude. I suspect that professional organ builders try
to minimise them as much as possible."

   Exactly my feeling about adding stuff like blower noise, key clicks, audience coughing and all the other extraneous noises some would call "realism"...

   Then again, I'm a 'lectric man with no special affection for pipe sounds as such, that's why I use the Edirol units to build an "orchestral" organ rather than soundfonts for a pipe organ. 

   Don't get me wrong, I admire the skill and patience of those who strive for perfect realism, just wouldn't want to go that way myself. Each to his own!    *:) happy



      Have fun,

            Roy.


On 20 June 2017 at 00:40, John Reimer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Aaron Laws wrote
> Can you also verify for me (my research is just commencing) that this is
> not possible using SF2?

Aaron,

Release samples incorporating reed off-transients are certainly possible
using sf2. I believe that Paul Stratman still employs it with his
jOrganVPO's. As I have recently made clear, I am one VPO developer who while
I certainly recognise the existence of such transients, and especially in
reeds, am not prepared to go to the extra trouble to include them. One
reason is that my organ playing over the years has left me relatively
unfamiliar with what reeds do, and so I do not miss them if they are not
there. And as a player, I regard them as a musical distraction, whereas that
plainly is not your attitude. I suspect that professional organ builders try
to minimise them as much as possible.

I am not so sure that MULTIPLE releases can be easily provided with sf2. But
speaking as an ex-engineer, the law of diminishing returns governs the extra
complication some of us are prepared to go to. One great attraction which
jOrgan has for me is its great economy of computer resources, yet it does
provide the type of sound I am seeking. As I have already said, other organ
enthusiasts are desiring other types of sound, and this may not always be
available in a VPO with the same ease. Available perhaps, but at
considerable extra cost.

By the way, I care VERY much about the existence of STARTING transients in
pipes, and one of my problems with English voicing is the apparent attempt
to remove them as much as possible. Yet I believe that the neo-baroque
movement went to the opposite extreme.

If you find the reed note-off transients of vital importance, I think that
unless you find another cheap and easy way of handling them in jOrgan
(assuming you don't find the present sf2 provision adequate) you will
eventually move to one of the other programs, much to our loss.

John Reimer




--
View this message in context: http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Sf2-limitation-tp4665201p4665230.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

erikds
In reply to this post by Aaron Laws
Hello,

ARIA Player is the full application with an elaborate GUI. Its most recent version is version 1.872.
It can be obtained free of charge from this website; after making a free user account you can download an installer for ARIA player for MAC or for WINDOWS.

Is contains of course the ARIA Engine.

To check out how it sounds using this sample player, try the sample set Balzan_v1.2_ARIA which you find on Mark Bugeja's web site.
The .rar package includes an excellent tutorial, written by Panos, that explains very clearly how to set up the disposition in jOrgan and use ARIA Player as sound engine.

A limitation is that one instance of ARIA Player can handle a maximum of 16 MIDI channels thus allowing to control 16 ranks maximum.
Dry samples should be used; amount of reverb that sound really good can be added and controlled by individual rank if so desired.
Also a lot of different temperaments can be used, including user made ones as Panos did.

All the best.

Erik.
----------------------------------------
Aaron Laws wrote:
When you say "I need to try ARIA...", you mean http://ariaengine.com/overview/sfz-format/, right? If I'm reading properly, ARIA is an engine, not an application. That is, it's a library whence other applications support their functionality; it's not something a "user" can "use". It exposes an Application Programmer Interface, not a Graphical (or Command Line) User Interface.

If I'm wrong, please fill me in; I'm just getting started, and would like to investigate SFZ soundfont creation.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

John Reimer
Administrator
erikds wrote
     
      ARIA Player is the full application with an elaborate GUI. Its most recent version is version 1.872.
Thank you, Erik.
This all looks very promising.

John Reimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

tbeck
In reply to this post by Aaron Laws
Aaron,

I'll have to review the licenses for the sample sets I used, but I don't think it will be a problem. Failing that, I can give you a link to the original sample sets so you can try them yourself in GO. And also, I might try making some small recordings.

I can't prove that soundfonts cannot provide the proper releases for reed stops, or any other for that matter, but Graham Goode says it is kludgy.

Multiple loops are used to provide a sense of life to a sustained sound. If a note is sustained beyond the end if its main loop, then other loops are played. I'm not sure what scheme is used to determine which loop is played. Hauptwerk software also provides for multiple samples per not which are selected randomly. GrandOrgue does not currently have this capability.

Multiple releases are samples of the release of a pipe when played with different lengths, e.g., staccato or legato. GO selects the appropriate release based on how long a note is played. 

Multiple attack samples are utilized by velocity sensitive keyboards. The appropriate attack sample is selected according to the velocity of the keypress. Obviously this can be used to more realistically mimic the action of a tracker organ.

Tom

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Aaron Laws <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Aaron,

I'm playing a GrandOrgue sample set that I've cobbled together from various sources, and I love the reeds. You can hear the little "blurp" at the end and that is the way the pipes actually do sound. It's beautiful. 

The pedal 4' Trumpette stop and 8' Krummhorn sound glorious for the pedal cantus firmus in the Bach Chorale Preludes.

As we speak I'm trying to put together a very basic linuxsampler disposition using the sfz sound engine. Unfortunately, I don't have the info or knowledge to take advantage of multiple loops and multiple release samples and other "complications" yet. However, the goal is just to have a proof of concept.

Tom

Is that a gratis or free GrandOrgue sample set? (Are you able to share?) If not, perhaps you could be troubled for a quick recording?

Can you also verify for me (my research is just commencing) that this is not possible using SF2?

Is the value of multiple loops to further avoid being able to hear the loops? I would imagine that it's much more likely to be able to hear incidental irregularities if there is only one set of loop points, so "multiple loops" can have some sort of pseudo-random choice of which part of the wave file is played at any instant?

Multiple releases? I take it this allegedly helps with the monotony of a single, repetitive, recognizable release sound?

In Christ,
Aaron Laws

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Brian Sweetnam
In reply to this post by RoyR
Hi Roy,

Please tell us more about your organ dispostion.  I have a problem with mine.

As my organ now has about 500 built in hardware generated ranks, I am finding it quite hard to decide where to put what.  My organ has one velocity sensitive manual (lower manual, at 61 keys), the upper manual has only 49 keys, and the 'pedalboard' only has 13 keys

But, I love it.  This organ runs on Raspberry Pi.  My problem is, with the +- 500 built in ranks, and a theatre organ with all its ranks, plus a classical organ with lots of ranks, and some more soundfonts of choirs, and last but not least, a GM soundfont, with even more 'ranks'.  I think I have close to 1000 'ranks'.  I've obviously not mixed them all up, but have different screens or consoles for different purposes.  So, there is a theatre console, classical organ, 'real' orchestra and choir console.  These are the three main playing consoles.  

Hardware wise, this little wonder also has about 140 rhythms built in.

It is abviously not a purit's console, as you will find it almost impossible to play the classical organ literature on it due to the fact that it only has 13 pedals.

Still, I love this little wonder.

How did you setup your console?
Regards,

BrianS
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

RoyR
   Hi, Brian,

                  That's a big subject, way off topic as I don't use Soundfonts and also specific to Edirol SD-20 MIDI modules. I doubt much of it will interest most people here so I'm writing to you off list.

   

      Have fun,

            Roy.


On 20 June 2017 at 14:26, BrianS <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Roy,

Please tell us more about your organ dispostion.  I have a problem with
mine.

As my organ now has about 500 built in hardware generated ranks, I am
finding it quite hard to decide where to put what.  My organ has one
velocity sensitive manual (lower manual, at 61 keys), the upper manual has
only 49 keys, and the 'pedalboard' only has 13 keys

But, I love it.  This organ runs on Raspberry Pi.  My problem is, with the
+- 500 built in ranks, and a theatre organ with all its ranks, plus a
classical organ with lots of ranks, and some more soundfonts of choirs, and
last but not least, a GM soundfont, with even more 'ranks'.  I think I have
close to 1000 'ranks'.  I've obviously not mixed them all up, but have
different screens or consoles for different purposes.  So, there is a
theatre console, classical organ, 'real' orchestra and choir console.  These
are the three main playing consoles.

Hardware wise, this little wonder also has about 140 rhythms built in.

It is abviously not a purit's console, as you will find it almost impossible
to play the classical organ literature on it due to the fact that it only
has 13 pedals.

Still, I love this little wonder.

How did you setup your console?



-----
Regards,

BrianS
--
View this message in context: http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Fw-Sf2-limitation-tp4665201p4665243.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Aaron Laws
In reply to this post by grahamg
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Graham Goode <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Aaron,

The SFZ standard allows for multiple samples per note, in either round robin or random order of play back. It allows for multiple releases, multiple loops, and full stereo samples in one wave file. None of this is supported by the soundfont format. 

What many of us are looking for is a SFZ creator and editor that can import wave files that have loops, release markers, and tuning information embedded (like those from GrandOrgue and Hauptwerk) and create the SFZ instrument file auto sensing it all. Lars Palo's LoopAuditioneer might be a good place to start code wise...

Kind regards,
GrahamG

Did you purposely point me to immature code so I would become zealous and improve it? ;-)

Is there any other software for creating SFZs? As has recently been mentioned: SFZs are text files, so they could be created with a text editor, but it may be difficult to get the correct sample numbers, etc.

In Christ,
Aaron Laws 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user