On Wed, 28 May 2003, Robert Jonsson wrote: > soundfonts. Most of the time I find it better to use Fluidsynth. The only > concern here is that Fluidsynth will consume CPU resources which the hardware > synth won't. This is the 4rd time I'm told a hardware midi synthesizer isn't necessary because there are a lot of software midi synthesizers. But this against all of my experience. Please have a look at: http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/soundtest/soundtest.html There is a MIDI file "sample.mid" and an MP3 "sample_hardware.mp3" with the first 20 seconds of "sample.mid" created with soundcard AWE 64 and soundfont "8mbgmsfx.sf2". It sounds like a bigband. Unfortunately, there is no posibility to record the Fluidsynth WAV output. Otherwise I'd present a direct comparison. But even if I use the same soundfont and -r 44100 there is no similarity between the result and the sound in "sample_hardware.mp3". Till now I regard the software synthesizers only as a substitute for all those who can't bring their hardware MIDI synthesizer to work. This holds also for TiMidity++. But feel free to make your own attempts with "sample.mid". I'm convincend you won't get a playing bigband. In my ears it always sounds like a orchestra in a stock pot. -- J.Anders, Chemnitz, GERMANY (ja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
