Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] TiMidity++ and FluidSynth
From: Mark Constable (markc_AT_renta.net)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 14:06:35 EET
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:57 pm, Joerg Anders wrote:
> > Is it possible that Timidity does not sound quite as clean as
> > the hardware version because you have it's effects on by default ?
> > -EFreverb=0 -EFdelay=0 -EFchorus=0
>
> These three options were active.
Apologies.. maybe the extra volume in the Timidity sample
delueded me into hearing things that were not there. I do
notice a very subtle initial attack on the timidity example
strings which is not there in the hardware example... but
one has to "listen very hard" to notice it. FluidSynth is
not even in the race.
For me, except for the above slight defect of timdidty I
can hardly pick the difference and considering the hardware
could drop fast notes (as per your gap examples) then it
seems Timidity is still quite usable. I am quite amazed how
"right" it is compared to authentic Creative hardware.
> acreord -f wav -t S16_LE -r 44100 -d 60 -c 2 <file>.wav
> With "amixer" I set the "capture" slider to maximum and there
> is still a slider "music capture". I set this slider to
> maximum, too. That's all.
Sorry to be boring... you mean without plugging a lead from
your analog out into your analog in and then simply recording
as above ?
I've got an old SBlive but sfxload won't work (for me) on a
2.6 kernel... so I can't test this right now.
--markc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 14:05:18 EET