[jOrgan-user] SFZ Editor Conversion of SF2

[John Beach]

Just FYI, I downloaded the SFZ editor and converted one of my own soundfonts to the format. Its graphic representation of the parts is different from the SF2 editors to which we are accustomed.
What is significant to report is that there is only ONE change made by the SFZ editor in converting a soundfont file. The attenuation of the ENTIRE instrument is reset to 75.6 which makes it
very soft, by comparison to the original Instrument in SF2 format. I don’t know why this particular change is made. Polyphone has the capability of opening an SFZ file and, upon doing so,
what I found was, literally, NO difference in any of the parameter settings which were made during creation of the SF2 in Polyphone.

So, again, unless someone can tell me why SFZ is better than SF2, my perception is that there is no discernible difference and the proof is in the analysis. I fully understand the preference
for real, recorded, organ-pipe samples as wave files and, I believe, that it is the basic quality of the wave file (recording of the individual pipe) that is the reason for quality difference.
I am not able to see or hear ANY difference in quality based on the concept of a “better” format.

John Beach

[Graham Goode]

Hi John,





There is no difference between a soundfont as sf2 vs it's converted SFZ.



The wave files will be mono. There will be a single loop. There will not be a release sample but a release created by the ADSR parameters.



BUT - SFZ as a format allows for Stereo, Multiple loops, Release samples... which you're never going to get from a converted soundfont as the sf2 specification does not cater for them. What I'm looking for is a tool that can take a folder of GrandOrgue or Hauptwerk wave files and make an SFZ from it... with everything listed in the first sentence of this paragraph. Then we can compare a soundfont 'version' with the extras 'version'.



Kind regards,

GrahamG

Just FYI, I downloaded the SFZ editor and converted one of my own soundfonts to the format. Its graphic representation of the parts is different from the SF2 editors to which we are accustomed.
What is significant to report is that there is only ONE change made by the SFZ editor in converting a soundfont file. The attenuation of the ENTIRE instrument is reset to 75.6 which makes it
very soft, by comparison to the original Instrument in SF2 format. I don’t know why this particular change is made. Polyphone has the capability of opening an SFZ file and, upon doing so,
what I found was, literally, NO difference in any of the parameter settings which were made during creation of the SF2 in Polyphone.
So, again, unless someone can tell me why SFZ is better than SF2, my perception is that there is no discernible difference and the proof is in the analysis. I fully understand the preference
for real, recorded, organ-pipe samples as wave files and, I believe, that it is the basic quality of the wave file (recording of the individual pipe) that is the reason for quality difference.
I am not able to see or hear ANY difference in quality based on the concept of a “better” format.
John Beach

[Aaron Laws]

Post by Graham Goode
Hi John,
There is no difference between a soundfont as sf2 vs it's converted SFZ.
The wave files will be mono. There will be a single loop. There will not
be a release sample but a release created by the ADSR parameters.
BUT - SFZ as a format allows for Stereo, Multiple loops, Release
samples... which you're never going to get from a converted soundfont as
the sf2 specification does not cater for them. What I'm looking for is a
tool that can take a folder of GrandOrgue or Hauptwerk wave files and make
an SFZ from it... with everything listed in the first sentence of this
paragraph. Then we can compare a soundfont 'version' with the extras
'version'.
Kind regards,
GrahamG

Thank you for that explanation.

In Christ,
Aaron Laws