![]() ![]() Hmmm, maybe I should do a five-way comparison one day with my real SC-55, the SB Audigy synths, FluidSynth, BASSMIDI, and Timidity. And my PC's Sound Blaster X-Fi card has two E-Mu hardware synths that use soundfonts (or more precisely, soundfonts were created for E-Mu/later Creative sound cards and only later used by soft synths), and I'm sure they sound different from either BASSMIDI or FluidSynth. Even different soundfont-based digital synthesizers have different ways handling the samples and thus sound different-I always preferred BASSMIDI to FluidSynth (and Timidity just sucks) until I got a real Roland Sound Canvas. But it can never be the same as the real thing. That said, for those people who aren't, like me, willing to drop a Benjamin on an old piece of Japanese electronics that may fail at any moment, a better SC-55 soundfont than other SC-55 soundfonts is just about the ideal midi solution for DOS games and pwads. ![]() Real hardware synths do not just take a set of samples and spit out noises, they have unique internal logics with signal processing, sound composition, and analog processing (amplification etc.) that are unique to that individual machine and only emulatable using a full-blown custom midi driver, if at all. What features does the SF2 format lack that prevents for a 'fully accurate' soundfont? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |