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


Sven Meier
Please ignore.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Fluid Synth Sound

Someone on another list proclaimed without rational reason or explanation ( I have not received his official permission to quote his post but would welcome a reply):

"more ore less absurde quality judgments are exhibited in public." ..."... It is still impossible to compare the Grand-Orgue sound engine with, e. g., jOrgan Fluidynth sound extension, whilest the hobbyists are chatting about "better" and "bader" of dispositions. I suggest to compare the Grand-Orgue sound result with the result of state-of-the-art Hauptwerk dispositions, to avoid any errors of judgement regarding the sound quality of Grand-Orgue dispositions."

As I consider myself a hobbyist, my opinions have apparently been judged "absurd" and "errors of judgement" and I took this somewhat personally.   Yet I find nothing in this posters comments to support his claim that various audio sound engines cannot be compared.  It only seems logical to do so, and we all know that it can be done because we all do it.

I would welcome enlightenment on the reason that FluidSynth sound generation should not be compared with those used in GrandOrgue or Hauptwerk.  The latter appear much higher quality to my ear.  I cannot think of a logical reason why open source audio reproduction should be any lower quality than closed source, yet my ears do not lie to me.


California, USA

Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
jorgan-sound mailing list
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Fluid Synth Sound

Brian Sweetnam
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.