Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

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

Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

jbeach2646
Individuals can, obviously, do what they want.  The concerted effort to
improve jOrgan has to consider what is possible to be done by people who
can, in fact, do it.  Obviously, SF2 is only being kept alive by software
synthesizers such as Fluidsynth and Synthfont,  because Creative Labs and
E-Mu (so far as I am aware) no longer produce standalone-equipment which,
specifically, supports SF2.  It might be helpful if Kenneth Rundt would
comment on the discontent which has been expressed about SF2 since he has so
much experience with it and must be aware, by numbers of downloads of his
applications, how much demand there is for SF2 and what specific
improvements could be made to sound engines to improve quality.
SF2 is easy, the editors make it fast work and the results are, generally,
quite good.   I have the capability of using 8 soundfonts in both Fluidsynth
and Creative Sound dispositions with all
the stops I could want or use (hundreds).  The concept of "professional
voicing" of the ranks would be a real improvement, because my limitation is
my own knowledge.  It is easy to make sounds, it is not easy to know how an
ensemble of organ stops should be voiced by the rank to give good or
excellent results.  Experienced ears are not a layman's luxury.   But
"standard" is not a word that is appreciated on this forum and I will be
careful not to push it.

First of all, "scrapping SF2" is not possible.  When my PC is disconnected
from the internet, there is no possibility that my SF2s are going to be
"scrapped."  Secondly, at my age,
I am not about to learn another format.  I have spent hundreds, perhaps,
thousands of hours over the last 19 years, messing around with soundfonts.
It takes a long time to read,
absorb and apply knowledge.  When you look at the tutorials which Bill Skees
and Paul Stratman put together, and think of the many hours of work that
went into what they produced for the benefit of all jOrgan users, the notion
of scrapping anything is an insult.

I trust the good doctor is not an abortionist!

John B.




-----Original Message-----
From: drwilx
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:47 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

per Dr Mark Bugeja MD "I am all for the scrapping of sf2 and having an
alternative."

Bad idea. I for one don't have any problem with sf2 and don't intend to redo
all my dispositions to a different sound engine. Should you want to use
another sound engine - go for it, but comments like scrapping sf2 are not
helpful.

Regards,

Dennis



--
View this message in context:
http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Fw-Fw-Sf2-limitation-tp4665235p4665246.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: Sf2 limitation

Dr Mark Bugeja MD
Hi,

I am proud to be a Christian and a Catholic one at that. I am staunchly pro-life therefore NO - I am not an abortionist. Love me or leave me.

When I stated that I am in favour of scrapping sf2, I stated that in the context of what has to be done to conform to what sf2 allows... basically the creation of a small file at the expense of quality. To create soundfonts in sf2 format we select a handful of notes per octave and then chop them up ruining the beauty of the instrument we are trying to replicate in a virtual format. From my perspective it does not make any sense and it does not do any justice to the work we do to emulate the historic instruments closely. GO comes close to the realism yet often criticised by those who support HW which is considered THE software of choice for professional musicians. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if people are happy with the quality of sf2 then I have no issue with that. I do like to use jOrgan time and again and I would not hesitate to play certain VPOs like our Balzan, John Reimer's instruments or those of Paul Stratman and Panos' own dispositions to name just a few. There are others too numerous to mention. But I do have to respect and be guided by the people whose ears are better than mine and technically I can understand why these people hear things so differently even if I don't appreciate that myself most of the time.

Having said that, a recent experience has been my Nadur organ that's yet to be published. When I heard the jOrgan version after working with the GO version, I was left wanting. I have distinctly recognised the difference between the two and that troubled me considerably. I must, however, express my deep appreciation and thanks to Paul Stratman who created the jOrgan version but despite his perhaps overzealous efforts, the result lacks that something which I cannot easily put into words. Chopping and restricted use of samples has somehow reduced the VPO to one that sounds too artificial even though these are real pipe sounds I was listening too. Now if I could hear a difference when normally I wouldn't, how much more will others who do? Who will truly be enjoying the instrument? I for one won't and therefore I expect other won't either! So why release it at all? To create a sampleset that only a few will enjoy is not worth producing at all and my temptation would be not to cater for jOrgan at all.

But I must say I like the program. Pity that its sound engine does not match expectations of the discerned musician, which is why "I am all for the scrapping of sf2" or at least let jOrgan work with a choice of 2 sound engines, sf2 and something better. I am sure most will adopt the new whatever-it-will-be engine and sf2 will gradually fall out of favour and die a natural death.

As for the sampleset creators, why should they spend so much time and energy to downgrade a sampleset when the original good quality samples can be played on another existing software that is also free and easy to use? The only headache with GO is in creating the graphics of the sampleset. There jOrgan wins hands down!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

RoyR
Hi, Mark,

                If you create a Generic Sound in jOrgan you can define its output as any hard or software synth you like, the "restrictions" are purely those of convenience if you want something that just works straight out of the box.



      Have fun,

            Roy.


On 20 June 2017 at 20:42, Dr Mark Bugeja MD <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I am proud to be a Christian and a Catholic one at that. I am staunchly
pro-life therefore NO - I am not an abortionist. Love me or leave me.

When I stated that I am in favour of scrapping sf2, I stated that in the
context of what has to be done to conform to what sf2 allows... basically
the creation of a small file at the expense of quality. To create soundfonts
in sf2 format we select a handful of notes per octave and then chop them up
ruining the beauty of the instrument we are trying to replicate in a virtual
format. From my perspective it does not make any sense and it does not do
any justice to the work we do to emulate the historic instruments closely.
GO comes close to the realism yet often criticised by those who support HW
which is considered THE software of choice for professional musicians.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if people are happy with the
quality of sf2 then I have no issue with that. I do like to use jOrgan time
and again and I would not hesitate to play certain VPOs like our Balzan,
John Reimer's instruments or those of Paul Stratman and Panos' own
dispositions to name just a few. There are others too numerous to mention.
But I do have to respect and be guided by the people whose ears are better
than mine and technically I can understand why these people hear things so
differently even if I don't appreciate that myself most of the time.

Having said that, a recent experience has been my Nadur organ that's yet to
be published. When I heard the jOrgan version after working with the GO
version, I was left wanting. I have distinctly recognised the difference
between the two and that troubled me considerably. I must, however, express
my deep appreciation and thanks to Paul Stratman who created the jOrgan
version but despite his perhaps overzealous efforts, the result lacks that
something which I cannot easily put into words. Chopping and restricted use
of samples has somehow reduced the VPO to one that sounds too artificial
even though these are real pipe sounds I was listening too. Now if I could
hear a difference when normally I wouldn't, how much more will others who
do? Who will truly be enjoying the instrument? I for one won't and therefore
I expect other won't either! So why release it at all? To create a sampleset
that only a few will enjoy is not worth producing at all and my temptation
would be not to cater for jOrgan at all.

But I must say I like the program. Pity that its sound engine does not match
expectations of the discerned musician, which is why "I am all for the
scrapping of sf2" or at least let jOrgan work with a choice of 2 sound
engines, sf2 and something better. I am sure most will adopt the new
whatever-it-will-be engine and sf2 will gradually fall out of favour and die
a natural death.

As for the sampleset creators, why should they spend so much time and energy
to downgrade a sampleset when the original good quality samples can be
played on another existing software that is also free and easy to use? The
only headache with GO is in creating the graphics of the sampleset. There
jOrgan wins hands down!



--
View this message in context: http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Fw-Fw-Fw-Sf2-limitation-tp4665252p4665255.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