14 Dec
2006
14 Dec
'06
9:52 p.m.
what are your favorite piano samples that work well with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I've been using qsynth and making do with some Roland samples I got
from hammersound.net , but they're not all that great.
How's the stuff from pianosounds.com ?
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
14 Dec
14 Dec
10:28 p.m.
16-bit Bardstown Bosendorfer using GigaStudio here. This gig file used
to work well with LS a couple of years ago. However I no longer touch
LS due to their licensing changes so I cannot vouch for operation
currently, but it's probably OK. If you were to buy the Bardstown gig
these days it would come in 24-bit. I don't know the status of that
gig file with LS.
Hope this helps Paul.
Cheers,
Mark
On 12/14/06, Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> wrote:
what are your favorite piano samples that work well
with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I've been using qsynth and making do with some Roland samples I got
from hammersound.net , but they're not all that great.
How's the stuff from pianosounds.com ?
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
15 Dec
15 Dec
2:49 a.m.
White Grand and Rain Piano (both from http://www.sampletekk.com/
are both very nice.. WG for more pop/rock/jazz piano, RP for the
sound of that almost-in-tune piano you might find in a pub!!).
Also "The Emperor" from Post pianos http://www.postpiano.com/ has
a lovely sound, but the gig files are corrupted and missing some
notes at some velocities (at least on LS!).. I emailed post about
this but have never received a satisfactory reply. That being
said, Michiel seems a very nice guy and is generally quite
helpful.
LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It used to read 32
bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
Can I use LinuxSampler for commercial music
production?
Hell, yes! Every indirect commercial usage of LinuxSampler, which
essentially means using its audio output, can of course be used
in commercial applications like music productions, live shows,
etc. Don't get us wrong, with the mentioned commercial exception
we don't want to restrict the normal user / musician, we just
want to avoid somebody to directly make money with our work, that
is by selling our software in a sampler product like a sampler +
sample library bundle, a hardware sampler or something
equivalent, at least not without giving something back to the
open source Community.
James
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 07:27:54PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
16-bit Bardstown Bosendorfer using GigaStudio here.
This gig file used
to work well with LS a couple of years ago. However I no longer touch
LS due to their licensing changes so I cannot vouch for operation
currently, but it's probably OK. If you were to buy the Bardstown gig
these days it would come in 24-bit. I don't know the status of that
gig file with LS.
Hope this helps Paul.
Cheers,
Mark
On 12/14/06, Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> wrote:
>what are your favorite piano samples that work well with linux
>tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
>
>I've been using qsynth and making do with some Roland samples I got
>from hammersound.net , but they're not all that great.
>
>How's the stuff from pianosounds.com ?
>
>--
>
>Paul Winkler
>http://www.slinkp.com
>
3:09 a.m.
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 07:45 +0000, James Stone wrote:
LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It used
to read 32
bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
>Can I use LinuxSampler for commercial music production?
>
>Hell, yes! Every indirect commercial usage of LinuxSampler, which
>essentially means using its audio output, can of course be used
>in commercial applications like music productions, live shows,
>etc. Don't get us wrong, with the mentioned commercial exception
>we don't want to restrict the normal user / musician, we just
>want to avoid somebody to directly make money with our work, that
>is by selling our software in a sampler product like a sampler +
>sample library bundle, a hardware sampler or something
>equivalent, at least not without giving something back to the
>open source Community.
Nice to see that they cleared that up, but it's still sad that you can't
steal code from LinuxSampler and mix it with pure GPL code to make a new
GPL program.
--
Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
10:29 a.m.
Cool, the samples sound very nice.
I'll probably buy that (or maybe Black Grand) if I ever get "serious".
-PW
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:45:55AM +0000, James Stone wrote:
White Grand and Rain Piano (both from
http://www.sampletekk.com/
are both very nice.. WG for more pop/rock/jazz piano, RP for the
sound of that almost-in-tune piano you might find in a pub!!).
Also "The Emperor" from Post pianos http://www.postpiano.com/ has
a lovely sound, but the gig files are corrupted and missing some
notes at some velocities (at least on LS!).. I emailed post about
this but have never received a satisfactory reply. That being
said, Michiel seems a very nice guy and is generally quite
helpful.
LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It used to read 32
bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
2:59 p.m.
On 12/15/06, Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> wrote:
Cool, the samples sound very nice.
I'll probably buy that (or maybe Black Grand) if I ever get "serious".
-PW
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:45:55AM +0000, James Stone wrote:
While you are at the Post Piano page, check out the "Old Lady" and
"Bosendorfer 290" libraries. I have these, and they sound awesome
with LS. (Of course, not _all_ the instruments in the gig files work,
but there are both wet and dry instruments on both that work
perfectly.) If you want to get these, be sure to get both the GS2 +
GS3 libraries. (Available on one DVD for $50 US, and a steal at that!)
Some restrictions apply. See store for details. Not available in
counties in Oregon beginning with the letter L... blah blah blah.
-TimH
White Grand and Rain Piano (both from
http://www.sampletekk.com/
are both very nice.. WG for more pop/rock/jazz piano, RP for the
sound of that almost-in-tune piano you might find in a pub!!).
Also "The Emperor" from Post pianos http://www.postpiano.com/ has
a lovely sound, but the gig files are corrupted and missing some
notes at some velocities (at least on LS!).. I emailed post about
this but have never received a satisfactory reply. That being
said, Michiel seems a very nice guy and is generally quite
helpful.
LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It used to read 32
bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
12:22 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:45:55AM +0000, James Stone wrote:
LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It used
to read 32
bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
modifications are required to be free software.
--
Ross Vandegrift
ross(a)kallisti.us
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
12:40 p.m.
New subject: [Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:45:55AM +0000, James Stone
wrote:
I know.. They released it as non-free software (as in speech) and
non-GPL. Their license is exactly the same as the GPL except for
their non-commercial use clause, which, as you say makes it
non-compatible with the GPL.
I think some of the libraries that LS uses are GPL but I have not
checked recently, and before you start complaining, they were all
written by the same authors as released LS so it is up to them if
they want to abide by their own license terms or not.. Therefore
(AFAIK) LS does not _have_ to be GPL.
I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
programming. I can understand why they want to see some return if
someone uses their code.. and I don't think they see releasing
modification of source code as sufficient recompense for
commercial uses of their code. I guess if you were to donate
masses of cash, they might reconsider their decision.
Anyway, this argument has been done to death on the LS list, so
there is little point repeating it here. I think the authors are
fairly clear about the terms they want in their license.
James
LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It
used to read 32
bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
modifications are required to be free software.
1:02 p.m.
New subject: [Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone wrote:
I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of
the GPL says:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all."
So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
freedoms at all.
But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
either. I withdraw from the discussion.
--
Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
I hate to be a
jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
modifications are required to be free software.
I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
programming. 
1:08 p.m.
New subject: [Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano
Lars Luthman wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone wrote:
I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of
the GPL says:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all."
So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
freedoms at all.
But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
either. I withdraw from the discussion.
Well... If LS links to GPL code that it's authors do not own the
copyright to than this is true. However, as a copyright owner of code
that does not link to any GPL code you are free to release software
under absolutely whatever license you choose... including 'almost
exactly GPL but with x, y, & z differences'. Trolltech licesenses their
code under two different licenses, GPL, & a non-GPL license. But because
they own the copyright to their code this is not a problem.
I hate to
be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
modifications are required to be free software.
I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
programming.
1:22 p.m.
New subject: [Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:07 -0700, Garett Shulman wrote:
Lars Luthman wrote:
I don't mean that they are violating any license themselves, they are of
course allowed to do whatever they want with the code that they wrote. I
mean that the current license (GPL + inconsistent add-on) can be
interpreted as saying that no one is allowed to distribute LinuxSampler
at all except the people that already have that right without any
licensing (the authors).
--
Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone
wrote:
I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of
the GPL says:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all."
So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
freedoms at all.
But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
either. I withdraw from the discussion.
Well... If LS links to GPL code that it's authors do not own the
copyright to than this is true. However, as a copyright owner of code
that does not link to any GPL code you are free to release software
under absolutely whatever license you choose... including 'almost
exactly GPL but with x, y, & z differences'. Trolltech licesenses their
code under two different licenses, GPL, & a non-GPL license. But because
they own the copyright to their code this is not a problem. I hate to
be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
modifications are required to be free software.
I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
programming.
1:25 p.m.
New subject: [Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano
Lars Luthman wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:07 -0700, Garett Shulman
wrote:
Oh... I see. Hm... That's interesting.
Lars Luthman wrote:
I don't mean that they are violating any license themselves, they are of
course allowed to do whatever they want with the code that they wrote. I
mean that the current license (GPL + inconsistent add-on) can be
interpreted as saying that no one is allowed to distribute LinuxSampler
at all except the people that already have that right without any
licensing (the authors).
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone
wrote:
Well... If LS links to GPL code that it's authors do not own the
copyright to than this is true. However, as a copyright owner of code
that does not link to any GPL code you are free to release software
under absolutely whatever license you choose... including 'almost
exactly GPL but with x, y, & z differences'. Trolltech licesenses their
code under two different licenses, GPL, & a non-GPL license. But because
they own the copyright to their code this is not a problem.
> I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's
project, but this is a
> clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
>
> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
>
> Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
> purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
> I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
> modifications are required to be free software.
>
>
I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
programming.
I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7
of
the GPL says:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all."
So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
freedoms at all.
But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
either. I withdraw from the discussion.
4:33 p.m.
New subject: Linuxsampler license again, was Re: [linux-audio-user] nice piano
Can I please be allowed to mention linuxsampler on the
linux-audio-user list without the thread devolving into Yet Another
License Argument? Please change the subject line. Thank you.
-PW
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 11:24:51AM -0700, Garett Shulman wrote:
Lars Luthman wrote:
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:07 -0700, Garett Shulman
wrote:
Oh... I see. Hm... That's interesting. Lars Luthman wrote:
I don't mean that they are violating any license themselves, they are of
course allowed to do whatever they want with the code that they wrote. I
mean that the current license (GPL + inconsistent add-on) can be
interpreted as saying that no one is allowed to distribute LinuxSampler
at all except the people that already have that right without any
licensing (the authors).
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone
wrote:
>>I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
>>clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
>>
>>https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
>>https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
>>https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
>>
>>Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
>>purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
>>I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
>>modifications are required to be free software.
>>
>>
>I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
>in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
>programming.
>
>
I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of
the GPL says:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all."
So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
freedoms at all.
But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
either. I withdraw from the discussion.
Well... If LS links to GPL code that it's authors do not own the
copyright to than this is true. However, as a copyright owner of code
that does not link to any GPL code you are free to release software
under absolutely whatever license you choose... including 'almost
exactly GPL but with x, y, & z differences'. Trolltech licesenses their
code under two different licenses, GPL, & a non-GPL license. But because
they own the copyright to their code this is not a problem.
5:12 p.m.
New subject: [Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano
On Friday 15 December 2006 13:22, Lars Luthman wrote:
I don't mean that they are violating any license
themselves,
they are of course allowed to do whatever they want with the
code that they wrote. I mean that the current license (GPL +
inconsistent add-on) can be interpreted as saying that no one
is allowed to distribute LinuxSampler at all except the people
that already have that right without any licensing (the
authors).
I could be wrong, but I don't think you're even allowed to use
the GPL on your software if you modify its terms, except to add
an exception to make it more lenient.... Don't forget, the GPL
itself (specifically, the preamble to the GPL) is a copyrighted
work, owned by the FSF, and they have to approve its use in
derivative but incompatible licenses. At least that's my
non-legally-educated reading of their FAQ.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
(about exceptions)
But that wouldn't be a GPL violation, that would be a violation
of the copyright on the GPL itself. So it wouldn't matter if
they wrote every line of the code themselves. But I also assume
someone already talked with the FSF about this when it first
happened.
In the end, the project needs a well-maintained fork just to end
the controversy. See also: WineX/Rewind/Cedega vs. Wine. Wine
went LGPL, the WineX guys forked the last BSDish licensed
version to use in their proprietary software, saying "Hey guys,
contribute code to us and we promise we'll share our stuff
back... eventually.... after enough of you buy it..." but
everyone flocked to the LGPLed version instead. The fact that a
LS fork hasn't happened yet makes me think not enough people
care about it to do so.
Rob
14 Dec
14 Dec
10:58 p.m.
Progress:
The free (beer) soundfont from
http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
is quite usable, much better than the Roland sounds I found at
hammersound. I'm gonna try the 80 MB version too, it's only $5 US.
-PW
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
17 Dec
17 Dec
6:53 a.m.
Paul Winkler wrote:
Progress:
The free (beer) soundfont from
http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
is quite usable, much better than the Roland sounds I found at
hammersound. I'm gonna try the 80 MB version too, it's only $5 US.
-PW
That's the best sounding one that I've found. I did find that I had to
tweak the tuning a bit to get it to sound right with other soundfonts
and synths.
Bill
18 Dec
18 Dec
5:27 a.m.
Hi Paul!
You could also try the ns_piano from naturalstudio:
http://www.naturalstudio.co.uk
Unfortunitely the soundfont is in an sfark or sfpack archive. It sounds a
bit like the pub or living-room piano, soft and warm. The recording-quality is
fine. Nothing for the big classical solo-parts, but still fine and free (as in
beer :-))
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
3:22 p.m.
Paul Winkler wrote:
Progress:
The free (beer) soundfont from
http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
is quite usable, much better than the Roland sounds I found at
hammersound. I'm gonna try the 80 MB version too, it's only $5 US.
-PW
This is the best piano that I have yet come across (The $5 one).
It has velocity layers, so the quiet notes sound more mellow then
the loud ones. This is a must for realism in any piano sound.
Tobiah
3:31 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:22 -0800, st wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
What do people think of the PersonalCopy soundfonts?
http://www.personalcopy.com/home.htm
Lee
Progress:
The free (beer) soundfont from
http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
is quite usable, much better than the Roland sounds I found at
hammersound. I'm gonna try the 80 MB version too, it's only $5 US.
-PW
This is the best piano that I have yet come across (The $5 one).
It has velocity layers, so the quiet notes sound more mellow then
the loud ones. This is a must for realism in any piano sound.
3:49 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 03:28:45PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:22 -0800, st wrote:
I have never managed to find a satisfactory GM soundfont for all
instruments that blends well.. The PC ones were OK but nothing
special. I think the FluidV3 was quite nice, but very heavy and
still not that great for blending..
As far as I remember the PersonalCopy piano sounded dreadful.
Unison was the nicest balanced of them all, but sounds very "midi
computer" style.
James
Paul Winkler wrote:
What do people think of the PersonalCopy soundfonts?
http://www.personalcopy.com/home.htm
Progress:
The free (beer) soundfont from
http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
is quite usable, much better than the Roland sounds I found at
hammersound. I'm gonna try the 80 MB version too, it's only $5 US.
-PW
This is the best piano that I have yet come across (The $5 one).
It has velocity layers, so the quiet notes sound more mellow then
the loud ones. This is a must for realism in any piano sound.
2 Jan
2 Jan
12:53 a.m.
A mini-review for those also looking for decent piano soundfonts:
So far with help from this list I've found the following usable,
in order of preference:
1) WST25FStein_00Sep22.SF2
Free and quite natural-sounding to my ears,
from http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
2) TrachtmanSteinC_XFade2_2001Aug16.sf2
$5 US, by far the most "hi-fi" of the three, but a bit
bright for my taste, also it's recorded a bit lower so you'll need to
increase the output volume.
from http://www.pianosounds.com/
3) NS_Piano.sf2
Free, has pleasant tone, if a bit lacking in the bass and treble;
also the stereo image is very narrow, almost mono.
the creator describes it as "a natural, woody, mellow sounding piano",
from http://www.naturalstudio.co.uk/ns_piano.html
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
9:04 a.m.
On Monday 01 January 2007 10:53 pm, Paul Winkler wrote:
A mini-review for those also looking for decent piano
soundfonts:
So far with help from this list I've found the following usable,
in order of preference:
1) WST25FStein_00Sep22.SF2
Free and quite natural-sounding to my ears,
from http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
2) TrachtmanSteinC_XFade2_2001Aug16.sf2
$5 US, by far the most "hi-fi" of the three, but a bit
bright for my taste, also it's recorded a bit lower so you'll need
to increase the output volume.
from http://www.pianosounds.com/
3) NS_Piano.sf2
Free, has pleasant tone, if a bit lacking in the bass and treble;
also the stereo image is very narrow, almost mono.
the creator describes it as "a natural, woody, mellow sounding
piano", from http://www.naturalstudio.co.uk/ns_piano.html
At $35 USD, StudioAX's Grand Piano One soundfont has pleased me since
the mid 1990's. It's available only through Internet download. The
following link takes you to the download section where you can listen
to MP3 demos. All upgrades are free and have worked for me since I
first got version 1.1.
http://studioax.desertsites.net/download.html
Stephen.
10:18 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:04:20AM -0600, The Other wrote:
On Monday 01 January 2007 10:53 pm, Paul Winkler
wrote:
That sounds pretty expensive by todays standards.
You can buy a full giga piano for $39.. (see Steiny D and Steiny
D close):
http://www.sampletekk.com/products.php?cat=44
Or lots of other nice pianos from $50...
Big downloads, but much greater accuracy than any soundfont.. All
should work fine with LinuxSampler.
I used to use the $5 Trachtman soundfont until I heard what a
giga piano sounded like. Now I would never go back.
James
A mini-review for those also looking for decent
piano soundfonts:
So far with help from this list I've found the following usable,
in order of preference:
1) WST25FStein_00Sep22.SF2
Free and quite natural-sounding to my ears,
from http://www.pianosounds.com/freesoundfont.htm
2) TrachtmanSteinC_XFade2_2001Aug16.sf2
$5 US, by far the most "hi-fi" of the three, but a bit
bright for my taste, also it's recorded a bit lower so you'll need
to increase the output volume.
from http://www.pianosounds.com/
3) NS_Piano.sf2
Free, has pleasant tone, if a bit lacking in the bass and treble;
also the stereo image is very narrow, almost mono.
the creator describes it as "a natural, woody, mellow sounding
piano", from http://www.naturalstudio.co.uk/ns_piano.html
At $35 USD, StudioAX's Grand Piano One soundfont has pleased me since
the mid 1990's. It's available only through Internet download. The
following link takes you to the download section where you can listen
to MP3 demos. All upgrades are free and have worked for me since I
first got version 1.1.
http://studioax.desertsites.net/download.html
Stephen. 
15 Dec
15 Dec
1:35 a.m.
Hallo,
Paul Winkler hat gesagt: // Paul Winkler wrote:
what are your favorite piano samples that work well
with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I've been using qsynth and making do with some Roland samples I got
from hammersound.net , but they're not all that great.
I like this:
http://www.naturalstudio.co.uk/ns_piano.html
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
2:51 a.m.
How's the stuff from pianosounds.com ?
The free direct download is _OK_ but not really up to the quality
of the gig files I refer to in my other post. (but for $5 who's
complaining!?)
James
4:31 p.m.
Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> writes:
what are your favorite piano samples that work well
with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I like Soeren Bovbjerg's Steinway soundfont with fluidsynth:
http://www.hum.aau.dk/~bovbjerg/piano4.html
I have to dial down the pressure sensitivity a bit on my keyboard to
stop it sounding like I'm always hammering the keys, though.
--
Adam Sampson <ats(a)offog.org> <http://offog.org/>
4:53 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:31:07PM +0000, Adam Sampson wrote:
Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> writes:
Thanks! But argh, this brings up a problem I've seen before: There
doesn't seem to be a linux-compatible extractor for sfark v1 files.
pw@kermit bovberg $ sfarkxtc BechsteinPiano.sfArk
======================================================================
sfArkXTc 1.03 (using sfArkLib version: 224)
copyright (c) 1998-2004 melodymachine.com, free for non-commercial use
======================================================================
Uncompressing BechsteinPiano.sfArk...
*** This file was created with sfArk V1, and this program only handles
sfArk V2+ files. Use sfArk instead.
Time taken 0.00 seconds
Result: File was created by incompatible sfArk version (not 2.x)
---FAILED--- (errorcode 5)
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
what are your favorite piano samples that work
well with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I like Soeren Bovbjerg's Steinway soundfont with fluidsynth:
http://www.hum.aau.dk/~bovbjerg/piano4.html 
5:29 p.m.
On Friday 15 December 2006 22:53, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:31:07PM +0000, Adam Sampson
wrote:
I found the same problem, and ended up using the windows version of sfark with
Wine. It's annoying, but works.
Nigel.
Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> writes:
Thanks! But argh, this brings up a problem I've seen before: There
doesn't seem to be a linux-compatible extractor for sfark v1 files. what are your favorite piano samples that work
well with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I like Soeren Bovbjerg's Steinway soundfont with fluidsynth:
http://www.hum.aau.dk/~bovbjerg/piano4.html 
17 Dec
17 Dec
1:29 p.m.
Paul Winkler wrote:
what are your favorite piano samples that work well
with linux
tools (fluidsynth, linuxsampler,...)?
I've been using qsynth and making do with some Roland samples I got
from hammersound.net , but they're not all that great.
How's the stuff from pianosounds.com ?
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Have you tried mda-piano? It's a freewhere vst, not a a sample set, but
to my (possibly naive) ear it sounds excellent.
http://www.pluginspot.com/documents/30.html
6572
days inactive
6591
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
28 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
Adam Sampson -
Bill Allen -
Brian Dunn -
Frank Barknecht -
Garett Shulman -
James Stone -
Julien Claassen -
Lars Luthman -
Lee Revell -
Mark Knecht -
Nigel Henry -
Paul Winkler -
Rob -
Ross Vandegrift -
st -
The Other -
Tim Howard