On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Monday 01 Dec 2003 10:45 am, Joerg Anders wrote: > > Do you really get different results > > with FluidR3 soundfont and FluidSynth ? > > Well, one problem is that I don't think you've ever actually said > which patch you're using, except that it's "strings". ... Ok, my mistake! > > String Ensemble 1 (49): pretty much the same as you. I'm guessing > this is what you're using. Yes, that's what I'm talking about! > > String Ensemble 2 (50): a nice smooth string wash, no attack. Yes, but these are slow strings. They always come too late. > > Synth Strings 1 (51): a smooth sound with some pretty bizarre tuning. > > Synth Strings 2 (52): similar but more so (reminds me of that > out-of-tune synth in Joy Division's The Eternal). The synth strings are unusable in most cases. Only patch 49 behaves and sounds like real strings. > So you see, I've generally assumed that most of these fonts were just > designed to have the string ensemble 1 sound a bit more vigorous for > faster passages and the string ensemble 2 be the friendly wash. That > is actually quite a useful distinction. It hadn't occurred to me > that other synths would play it differently. The string ensemble 2 always comes too late. If you want an accompainmant you cannot use string ensemble 2. > > Given that this isn't exhibited with all string patches, it really > might be worth taking a bit more time to check that the hardware > synth is actually the correct one... ... TiMidity gives also smooth strings. The same happens with AWE32/64. On M$-Windows are also non-attacking strings. Believe me: The soundfont creator certainly had no attacking strings in mind! > Just because you like it better > doesn't necessarily mean it is (although it seems probable). I It is certainly a FluidSynth error. > certainly agree with you that the difference is rather strange. > My question is: What is the conclusion ? Is there any FluidSynth programmer on this list ? If not, that means: There is no soft synth which creates a good bigband sound. The hardware sound is the only option. But the Audigy2 driver produces gaps: http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/DROP/gap.html And apparently nobody will fix this. Thus, I'll throw away my Audigy2 soundcard and I'll follow the recommendation of On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Hartmut Z Noack wrote: > If SB-Live does not work sufficiently, why dont trying to use Terratecs > EWX24/96? The card does not have Hardware SF-Support but you can load > SFs into RAM (if you have enough...) and it works perfectly well for me. > > Conclusion: try Delta 66 or some similar Pro-Gear or try it with a > ICE-chipbased card like terratecs muse, whitch are verywell supported by > alsa and can play SF from RAM. > The whole dilemma comes from: The AWE64 is an ISA card. Otherwise, I'd further use AWE64 ... :-(( -- J.Anders, Chemnitz, GERMANY (ja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
