At 01:21 PM 2/5/2015, you wrote: >Sure, we could "just transfer it in", but then again, the results would >be slightly wrong. Just as an example, sfz seems to have a three band EQ >built into every voice [1], which SF2 voices do not. This is stuff we >would have to add into the playback engine.
>If we should bring SFZ into the engine, then my wish would be that the >goal should be to play it as perfect as SF2 files are played today. I understand what you mean, but I don't agree. You don't have to import every opcode, and people understand that. There are several base-level sample players that import SFZ in a limited way - just the basics. EQ's are pretty esoteric and if FS doesn't regard it, so be it. In fact, the only reason EQ's would exist in a SFZ file is if it were converted from something else, usually a Kontakt file. There is no sampler that truly uses SFZ as a native format so programming EQ's can't be done in SFZ in realtime. One would do it in Kontakt and then convert it using Translator into SFZ. Further, SFZ has perhaps a hundred of opcodes that SoundFont/FS doesn't support, but my point is that just the ability to quickly form your own instrument - I mean, Notepad and 10 seconds later - and have it running in FS is the advantage. But I understand you guys' authority over what happens, I support that. But my input would be I'd suggest simply using SFZ import just in part. I don't think there's a reason for an all-or-nothing approach, even SFZ wasn't designed that way. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Thanks for asking for input. Garth Hjelte Sampler User _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
