On Thursday 12 August 2004 04:27 am, LinuxMedia wrote: > > is it difficult to compile your own soundfonts... > > When I was working with soundfonts, I used the smurf soundfont editor. > > http://smurf.sourceforge.net/ > > It's new name is "swami" but I couldn't get swami to work. I can't > remember if I spent the time to read the smurf docs but not the swami > one? You can try both and see how they work for you. It just seems to me > that smurf worked without a hastle, but I really had to mess with swami. > I don't even remember if I got swami to work. But smurf works well. > Yes, I've been using smurf for a few years. I have a pretty good library of Soundfonts though, so I haven't used it to build any patch sets. I _did_ used to do sample sets back in the day, when I had my EPS16+. Soundfonts aren't quite as exceptional as that beast, architecture-wise, but they're pretty good. > I'm excited about speciman because I find soundfonts to be a very > (un)flexible way to put instrument sets together. And it seems a bit > complicated (but made more sense as I used smurf). > Power of the GUI. I've only looked at Specimen briefly and it looks adequate. Coming from me, that's a pretty good evaluation. (I'm jaded) > Rocco
