hey, Jeff! The link to your SF is broken. Could you link to it again, please?
teej
Nevermind, bud. i found it. Very nice! I’m just now getting around to trying SFs other than drums. heck, i’m only a year behind everybody else here… so i’m… ummm… making headway. 
I’m with Jeff. I didn’t care for nsPiano either. But i was very impressed with the Grand Piano, Oohs, Voices, and even Kalimba in PapelMedia’s All Soundfont Demo. Very nice!
Seems to me, i remember Bubba (and maybe someone else) mentioning a great bass SF. Maybe is was on the AM forum. Anyway, anyone remember what the name was?
Thanks for all the info, gentlemen. This thread was a good read last night as i was experimenting with non-drum SFs.
teej
I downloaded the ns piano but it dosnt make any sound and it keeps crashing n,I think maby I need a better sounfont player any sugestions.
Litmus
Use sfz (assuming you aren’t already)!
at at rgcaudio.com
HTH
DSP
Yup… SFZ (assuming you’re not using a Live card).
teej
I recently found " target="_blank">http://www.soundfonts.it/] http://www.soundfonts.it/ where there are some nice things. There are lists of soundfonts, some are interesting. Best of all are the vst plugins - a Wurly, a Rhodes, and some excellent effects. It’s donationware so free to try, though there are nag screens until you contribute.
Happy tracking!
TusterBuster
The soundfonts listed at soundfonts.it haven’t been updated in some years, and the list isn’t maintained. Guido told me he’s interested in simulation these days, not soundfonts.
Marce, I have to agree with you; that Steinway sounds pretty #### good.
It’s fairly dry on its own, (as all soundfonts should be), but add Acoustic Mirror with the Royal Albert Hall convolution, and you have a piano to die for.
I don’t know if SBLive adds extra layers, or as Bubbagump says, it’s all in the soundfont, but there’s no doubt that my Audigy sounds completely different from SFZ for many soundfonts.
One forum I visited said that it’s because the SBLive/Audigy uses hardware as opposed to the software SFZ, and this means that the phase relationship of the harmonics is much tighter and more accurate, and hence much more “real”.
(It was something to do with the fact that SFZ is working to time constraints determined by the Asio driver which limits its processing abilities, whereas the hardware has time in hand and can do the job properly. But, I must confess, I really didn’t understand the explanation, so I’ve probably got it wrong).
Anyway, I wouldn’t know, it’s beyond my knowledge I’m afraid.
But, there is a difference, that much I do know.
One forum I visited said that it's because the SBLive/Audigy uses hardware as opposed to the software SFZ, and this means that the phase relationship of the harmonics is much tighter and more accurate, and hence much more "real". My wild guess is that's a wild guess and not correct.
In my experience, one significant difference is that the SBLive doesn't do dynamics the same way -- the velocity response curve is very different from sfz. I find sfz to be a lot more natural sounding and better than SBLive, but that's based on listening to SBLive renderings and comparing them to sfz renderings which might be misleading.
A serious limitation of the soundfont format is that you can't program a filter peak as a function of velocity. Go figure!!! There's a workaround, building lots of zones and adjusting the filter peak for each zone. Many piano soundfonts that I don't like suffer from this problem: too few velocity layers (often just one!) and the p, pp, and ppp velocities have way too much treble. But just adjusting the filter is at best a rough approximation for the differences between a hard strike and a soft one.
For me, a piano HAS to sound at its very best when played very softly, and has to sound just as good when played loudly, and all points inbetween. A piano without natural sounding dynamics is just no fun to play, except for certain styles like boogie-woogie, where you can get away with limited dynamics.
In my experience, one significant difference is that the SBLive doesn't do dynamics the same way -- the velocity response curve is very different from sfz. I find sfz to be a lot more natural sounding and better than SBLive, but that's based on listening to SBLive renderings and comparing them to sfz renderings which might be misleading.
A serious limitation of the soundfont format is that you can't program a filter peak as a function of velocity. Go figure!!! There's a workaround, building lots of zones and adjusting the filter peak for each zone. Many piano soundfonts that I don't like suffer from this problem: too few velocity layers (often just one!) and the p, pp, and ppp velocities have way too much treble. But just adjusting the filter is at best a rough approximation for the differences between a hard strike and a soft one.
For me, a piano HAS to sound at its very best when played very softly, and has to sound just as good when played loudly, and all points inbetween. A piano without natural sounding dynamics is just no fun to play, except for certain styles like boogie-woogie, where you can get away with limited dynamics.
| Quote (Ali_T @ April 11 2005,22:34) |
| Marce, I have to agree with you; that Steinway sounds pretty #### good. It's fairly dry on its own, (as all soundfonts should be), but add Acoustic Mirror with the Royal Albert Hall convolution, and you have a piano to die for. I don't know if SBLive adds extra layers, or as Bubbagump says, it's all in the soundfont, but there's no doubt that my Audigy sounds completely different from SFZ for many soundfonts. One forum I visited said that it's because the SBLive/Audigy uses hardware as opposed to the software SFZ, and this means that the phase relationship of the harmonics is much tighter and more accurate, and hence much more "real". (It was something to do with the fact that SFZ is working to time constraints determined by the Asio driver which limits its processing abilities, whereas the hardware has time in hand and can do the job properly. But, I must confess, I really didn't understand the explanation, so I've probably got it wrong). Anyway, I wouldn't know, it's beyond my knowledge I'm afraid. But, there is a difference, that much I do know. |
Yeah, you have some advantages using hardware, but believe me, looking to the future, look at sfZ or similar. Working with very big soundfonts of single instruments (200 and more mb) simply gives problems, things that with software samplers you dont have.
A thing that can the reason of some diffrences between sfZ and Sblive is the way they implement some things.
By example, if you wish apply a filter cuttof to a soundfont in realtime, in SBLive you need to insert NRPN messages in your midi sequences. SFZ, following a more compatible/open midi standard had implemented them trough the CC74 (brightness). So, if you have a midi file made for your SBlive using NRPN's simply it will sound diffrent trough SFZ, you need to change all this NRPN's to CC74.
This is an example, there are some others, but if you are really interested in compatibility, look at kvraudio.com forums in the "RGC audio" section, you will found that there are a lot of tricks to do. About the dynamics that Jeff mentioned, you can adjust them in SFZ trough a registry hack.
If you really prefer "Hardware Samplers" look a EmulatorX cards, they will be the more backward compabible with soundfonts, and also with giga and many others. And you have samples running trough a VSTi but accelerated by hardware DSP's.
hey Marce! I tried to DL that Splendid Grand sf, but the link no longer works.
teej
Hi Teej, appear they make some changes in the links, but here is the 72 mb version:
http://www.soundcreationsinc.com/tech/splendid/splendid.html
if you want the 256mb and 136 mb piano plus some others ones, they are selling a 15$ CD here
http://www.soundcreationsinc.com/tech/splendid/grand._collection.html
well, luck!
Thanks, Marce. I DL’d and unpacked the font. Twice actually. SFZ doesn’t seem to like it. The font will load into SFZ but won’t play. Same with KX. I’m looking for another DL site in case the copy available here is corrupt.
teej
Look at sf2midi.com, i believe that somebody upload it with a name like “splendidg” or so.
Cool. Thanks, marce! DLing now.
teej
It works just fine for me.
Try using SFZ in PR16 mode, rather than DFD. Be sure you have enough RAM available.
Jeff
Just in case Anyone is interested:
There is a freebie piano soundfont available for download that is the more big between the free ones, and have a very nice sound. I dont have enough RAM/Cpu power to run it in realtime, but is good if you want render or have enough Horsepower to try it.
You need to (free) register here:
http://audioshots.com/auditor…75bf1d4
and then look for the section “Very Large Files” (this section is invisible if you are not registered)
The thing weight 391mb compressed (near to 900 mb uncompressed) is in Giga format but i succesfully converted it to SF2 and loaded in sfZ.
An informative quote from the site:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The Maestro Concert Grand Title: Maestro Concert Grand Author: Mats Helgesson Year: 2003 info This is a sampled reproduction of a Yamaha CF-3 grand piano from the early 90s. It was chromatically sampled, to maintain the tempered tuning. technical The Giga file is 895 mb. Maestro Concert Grand contains 452 stereo samples. It was recorded with a pair of Neumann KM84 microphones in X/y stereo. x/y provides excellent mono compatibility. The samples are sorted in 5 velocity layers, of which velocity 0-30 are piano, 30-59 are mezzo piano, 60-89 are mezzo forte, 90-108 are forte and 109-127 fortissimo. Maestro Concert Grand is the second sample set with pedal up and down sounds separate from the key samples. It gives you, the artist, the choice of adding additional pedal noise in your recordings for added realism. They are located in a second patch, below the piano key range, at midi key number 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. note: This is changed with Concert Grand v2, which has separate versions of the piano, and additional release samples in four veocities, adding 352 samples. contact Any questions about the giga file goes to: Mats Helgesson e-mail: xo@telia.com legal All samples are Copyright © Mats Helgesson, 2003. All rights reserved. You may not sell this sound set or any of the samples provided with it. You may not modify and spread this soundfont without the author´s written permission. You are however allowed to send/give it for free to any friends of yours, with this readme file included. If you want to publish this soundfont, please contact the author, Mats Helgesson, on the following e-mail address: xo@telia.com To download right click and select save as - Warning this Self extracting rar is 391MB DOWNLOAD 391MB Don’t post this link in other forums, only link to the post, thank you |
Thanks, guys. The DL from sf2midi worked fine. Not sure what happened on my first two attempts, but all i got was silence from it.
I’m using PR16, Jeff. And i’ve got a gig of RAM. Hey, maybe you can help me understand the diff in the Quality settings, tho’. I generally set it to Draft while i’m mixing and then switch to something higher when i render. But i gotta be honest, i can’t hear a diff. What do you use?
I like this Splendid font. It has more high end than nspiano; maybe too much for the type of music i record. But i’d rather take out some highs than try to add them.
Thanks for the link, marce. But 391 meg??? Yikes!
teej
UPDATE:
I DL’d the Maestro font. Was a bit of a hassle having to convert to SF, but Wow! very nice. very smooth. Thanks, marce! I give this one a big thumbs up! 
I generally set it to Draft while i'm mixing and then switch to something higher when i render. But i gotta be honest, i can't hear a diff. What do you use?
This is the concept behind the diffrent quality settings. It is more noticeable when you have a soundfont with few sampled notes and sfZ need to make some pitch up&down. But with extensively sampled soundfont sfZ dont do much pitching and diffrent you can found that is not much diffrence between draft and "512" quality. If they become audible, i believe that you will hear something like metalic artifacts like in a low quality mp3. But i havent hear them until now.
This is the concept behind the diffrent quality settings. It is more noticeable when you have a soundfont with few sampled notes and sfZ need to make some pitch up&down. But with extensively sampled soundfont sfZ dont do much pitching and diffrent you can found that is not much diffrence between draft and "512" quality. If they become audible, i believe that you will hear something like metalic artifacts like in a low quality mp3. But i havent hear them until now.
I suspect that the quality setting is ignored when playing in live mode, because no matter how I set it, the CPU usage is the same. I haven’t paid enough attention to be sure whether it increases the time when rendering, but I suspect it does. According to Rene, the author, a quality setting of 8 takes 8 times as much CPU time to render any note mapped from a different key. If I understood what he said.