At 03:29 PM 2/5/2015, you wrote: >I've been focusing mainly on getting the majority of features of other similar >formats supported and not worrying much about some of the other details which >can't be shoehorned into the SoundFont model. I've been told before that this >is wrong and that most users would expect full support for whatever format >they are using and that partial support just wouldn't cut it. This is probably >true.
Depends on the context the feature is put in IMHO. I spoke of this in the thread in the context of "other inputs into FS". What you say may be true with formats-with-a-player (like Kontakt, or EXS24, or HALion, et. al) but SFZ has always been a format WITHOUT a player. It's understood that it's a format, done in text, used primarily for construction and mapping. I don't think very often that SFZ is thought of as "this is THE instrument", where you'd get this reaction "hey, this doesn't sound like it did elsewhere" - mainly because there THERE IS NO elsewhere. But, like I said, this is esoteric and I'd vote for MIDI rules and streaming, and perhaps other engine-related things, to go into FS first. Garth Hjelte Sampler User _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
