[linux-audio-user] Recommendatio wanted
j.anders at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
Mon Dec 1 06:31:11 EST 2003
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:
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 at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de)
More information about the Linux-audio-user