Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

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

Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

jbeach2646
Rick, the great thing about Polyphone is that it allows for bulk conversion and editing, so I can just load the soundfont in Polyphone, select the sampling rate and convert back.  The size increase is not unacceptably high.  What I noticed when converting in Audacity is that, unlike when a frequency (Change Pitch in Effect) is changed, there was no visible change made to
the wave file itself.  I suspect that “conversion”, whatever that actually does to change the wave file, simply makes it suitable for playback at the right speed or sampling rate.  I reset the output of my soundcards to 96K as well.  If you have ever used ASIO4ALL, you know that you have to select the sampling rates for the soundcards used.
 
John
 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 11:55 PM
To: jorgan
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Fw: Sf2 limitation
 
John
 
It achieves nothing to up convert a file. You just end up with the same quality in a much larger file size.
 
To gain the advantage, a sample must be recorded at the highest possible resolution (using suitability specified microphones and pre-amplifier) then any editing be done at the same or better resolution. The final result should then have some advantage.
 
Regards
Rick
 
On 20 Jun. 2017 11:57 am, "John Beach" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I converted all the wave files in one disposition to 96K just to see if there was a noticeable difference.  I don’t believe there is.  Also, one source www.homerecording.com, says that
“It's quite easy: you won't hear any difference. If you hear any differences at all it's because the filters/DACs are not as good in the 44.1 kHz case.  It's much easier/inexpensiv to build filters for 96kHz sample rates.”
 
Those of you who have spent a great deal of time sitting directly in front of pipes on an organ bench, obviously, have much higher expectations than we who grew up with reed organs and, later, Hammonds.
You also know what you are striving for.  Don’t be discouraged if I perceive it to be a “striving after wind.” 
 
John Beach
 
 
From: John Beach
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:24 PM
Subject: Fw: [jOrgan-user] Sf2 limitation
 
Roy, 96K means that it is twice as good as it won’t be at 48K. 
At least, they thought about choice......
 
John
 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Sf2 limitation
 
   Sounds like much the same principle on which accountancy is done to 4 places of decimals but finally rounded to 2. If you used 2 all the way through a huge column of numbers the cumulative error could be way outside 2 places.
 
 
      Have fun,

            Roy.
 
 
On 19 June 2017 at 21:58, Dr Mark Bugeja MD <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

What Panos was referring to is what one has to do to record good quality
real pipe sounds.

When processed down to create a sampleset, one cannot expect an improvement
by setting sound engines up. I record my samples at 96K but when we release
the sets they are 48K. You cannot recreate the quality by setting the
software to 96K. Recording at 96K merely allows the sampleset creator
greater flexibility in his work.

Sets are best played at the rate established by the VPO developer.

The same can be said for photos taken. I take good quality photos - high
resolution (eg 35MB each) using a good digital camera. The sharpness allows
better handling of graphics but after processing, images are a fraction of
the size of the originals (usually averaging few kB to a few hundred kB). If
one starts with poor quality pictures, the end result is nothing short of a
disaster with images being far too pixellated and out of focus with huge
loss of definition. They are also enormously difficult to process.



--
View this message in context: http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Sf2-limitation-tp4665168p4665222.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].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: Sf2 limitation

greenfox
John, the size is not the important thing. The only reason you would convert a file to a higher resolution is if you had some compatibility problem. There is no way you can improve the quality of a sample (or assess the value of a higher bit rate) once you have it at a lower bit rate. It is a futile exercise. 

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 17:19 John Beach <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rick, the great thing about Polyphone is that it allows for bulk conversion and editing, so I can just load the soundfont in Polyphone, select the sampling rate and convert back.  The size increase is not unacceptably high.  What I noticed when converting in Audacity is that, unlike when a frequency (Change Pitch in Effect) is changed, there was no visible change made to
the wave file itself.  I suspect that “conversion”, whatever that actually does to change the wave file, simply makes it suitable for playback at the right speed or sampling rate.  I reset the output of my soundcards to 96K as well.  If you have ever used ASIO4ALL, you know that you have to select the sampling rates for the soundcards used.
 
John
 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 11:55 PM
To: jorgan
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Fw: Sf2 limitation
John
 
It achieves nothing to up convert a file. You just end up with the same quality in a much larger file size.
 
To gain the advantage, a sample must be recorded at the highest possible resolution (using suitability specified microphones and pre-amplifier) then any editing be done at the same or better resolution. The final result should then have some advantage.
 
Regards
Rick
On 20 Jun. 2017 11:57 am, "John Beach" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I converted all the wave files in one disposition to 96K just to see if there was a noticeable difference.  I don’t believe there is.  Also, one source www.homerecording.com, says that
“It's quite easy: you won't hear any difference. If you hear any differences at all it's because the filters/DACs are not as good in the 44.1 kHz case.  It's much easier/inexpensiv to build filters for 96kHz sample rates.”
 
Those of you who have spent a great deal of time sitting directly in front of pipes on an organ bench, obviously, have much higher expectations than we who grew up with reed organs and, later, Hammonds.
You also know what you are striving for.  Don’t be discouraged if I perceive it to be a “striving after wind.” 
 
John Beach
 
 
From: John Beach
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:24 PM
Subject: Fw: [jOrgan-user] Sf2 limitation
 
Roy, 96K means that it is twice as good as it won’t be at 48K. 
At least, they thought about choice......
 
John
 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Sf2 limitation
 
   Sounds like much the same principle on which accountancy is done to 4 places of decimals but finally rounded to 2. If you used 2 all the way through a huge column of numbers the cumulative error could be way outside 2 places.
 
 
      Have fun,

            Roy.
 
 
On 19 June 2017 at 21:58, Dr Mark Bugeja MD <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

What Panos was referring to is what one has to do to record good quality
real pipe sounds.

When processed down to create a sampleset, one cannot expect an improvement
by setting sound engines up. I record my samples at 96K but when we release
the sets they are 48K. You cannot recreate the quality by setting the
software to 96K. Recording at 96K merely allows the sampleset creator
greater flexibility in his work.

Sets are best played at the rate established by the VPO developer.

The same can be said for photos taken. I take good quality photos - high
resolution (eg 35MB each) using a good digital camera. The sharpness allows
better handling of graphics but after processing, images are a fraction of
the size of the originals (usually averaging few kB to a few hundred kB). If
one starts with poor quality pictures, the end result is nothing short of a
disaster with images being far too pixellated and out of focus with huge
loss of definition. They are also enormously difficult to process.




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


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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
greenfox - Brisbane Queensland Australia
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Dr Mark Bugeja MD
The reason for downsizing is to have reasonable quality versus the ultimate size of the set. One has to strike a balance between the two. It is pointless having extremely good quality at 96k but ending up with a sample set that only a few have the resources to load and play.

I am all for the scrapping of sf2 and having an alternative. I can only think of 2 people who I believe have the technical expertise to be able to do something about it, Graham Goode and Jonathan Aquilina. There may be others of course but I am not aware of them. They are the ones best to tell us whether or not they can help to bring about this much needed improvement and whether they have the time to devote to do so.

2 or 3 years ago, I tried searching for a programmer in an attempt to amalgamate jOrgan's GUI with GrandOrgue's Sound engine into one package but sadly I did not succeed.

It is about time to spread the word on other fora eg GO's and perhaps other sites to broaden our search perhaps someone will appear to volunteer!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

drwilx
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

jOrgan - User mailing list
Hear, hear, Dennis!
Scrapping current program is never a good idea just because someone comes up with a different alternative.

pk
Still dealing with problems adapting Window$ 10 designed by people who never heard, "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" and then turned around and dropped all support for the working system.

===  June 20, 2017, 9:23:37 AM PDT, drwilx wrote: ===

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.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sf2 limitation

Dr Mark Bugeja MD
The issue is a long standing one, 4 years at least.

jOrgan is not broke but it ain't good enough when paired up with fluidsynth for a great many. But if there are those who are happy with it as it is, I think I can live with that. As I said, despite all the bad press related to fluidynth, I myself do like jOrgan in general but then I use the backend Graham created and not the default sound when I do.

So far I have kept up the rhythm of producing jOrgan versions of the Maltese historic organs, with outside help of course. But I cannot guarantee that future samplesets will be subject to the same treatment.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

drwilx
Per Dr Mark Bugeja MD: "The issue is a long standing one, 4 years at least.

jOrgan is not broke but it ain't good enough when paired up with fluidsynth for a great many. But if there are those who are happy with it as it is, I think I can live with that. As I said, despite all the bad press related to fluidynth, I myself do like jOrgan in general but then I use the backend Graham created and not the default sound when I do."


I am so glad that the good doctor can live with me being happy with jOrgan as it is. What a relief! If you don't like jOrgan as it is then don't use it. Frankly, I am tired of reading Dr Mark's posts. Always asking for other people to do things he wants done. Do it yourself Doc.

Regards,

Dennis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fw: Fw: Sf2 limitation

Dr Mark Bugeja MD
Dear Dennis,

We are a friendly community here. So please watch your language and tone. No one forces you to read my comments or anyone else's for that matter. You did so on your own initiative and curiosity, I guess.

If I knew how to do certain things, I would! What is certain is that I have embarked on a new learning exercise with my project on Maltese Historic Pipe organs essentially inspired by this very community.... by jOrgan and the selfless contributions of Sven, Paul Stratman, John Reimer, Graham Goode, Jac Levy, Lars Palo, J Basquin, Bernd Casper, John Dubery, and many others whose names I do not recall off the cuff (apologies to them all). Some like Panos Ghekas and Bruce Miles have sadly passed away but they were just amazing people, patient, kind, polite, helpful, knowledgeable and simply awe inspiring!

I had to master a lot of new skills and I did so that I could contribute tangibly towards this community in kind! I was determined not to be a mere parasite feeding on other people's hard work and selfishly sit at my organ console and play away to my heart's content. I wanted to give something back to show my gratitude. I DID! I have produced Balzan organ, Fontana organ and currently working on Nadur Organ. Not only have I produced a virtual replica for each of these organs as most people would, I chose to go a step further that others have never done, to my knowledge, that of produced extended sets of each of these organs. In the case of Balzan, the extended set is also a free set!

Dennis, what have you given towards this community, if I may ask? A foul mouth it seems! Well, thank you! Such a pal.

Sincere apologies for this diatribe! But this gentleman needed a good reply to place him and myself in the right perspective in relation to jOrgan and VPOs in general.