[linux-audio-user] Timidity vs. Fluidsynth

Mark Constable markc at renta.net
Tue Dec 9 10:16:53 EST 2003

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:41 pm, Dave Phillips wrote:
>   Both synths used the same soundfont (FluidR3). The output from qsynth

Seems like FluidR3 is the most likely candidate for a quasi-reference

> was subjectively more to my liking, but I had a persistent problem with
> noise, as though periodically the synth output would "fall off the
> rails", resulting in severe aliasing. It eventually corrects itself but
> until I resolve this problem I would not use qsynth for a production
> run. OTOH TiMidity just works fine. The only problem I have with it is
> that I'm now rather spoiled by what I take to be the better filters of
> Fluidsynth. TiMidity's output was comparatively harsh, but of course I
> can modify it with outboard gear (or a LADSPA plugin ?) if necessary.

I have an Athlon 1.2Ghtz machine and I think it's not powerful
enough to run fluidsynth whereas Timidity 2.11.2 (Debian/unstable)
works fine both from a shell and in alsaseq mode. The latest Timidity
from CVS seems to sound different, perhaps better, but it struggles to
keep up in alsaseq mode with muse whereas v2.11.2 hangs in. I suspect
a 2Ghtz+ machine would work fine (for fluidsynth).

What Ghtz machine are you using for your tests ?

(I don't even bother with jack and ladspa or gui stuff, except muse)


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list