Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Rosegarden-4 or Muse or...
From: Rocco (linuxmedia4_AT_netscape.net)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 18:49:26 EET
mathias_lundgren_AT_bredband.net wrote:
>>While were on the subject... I'm courious why none of the built in
>>synths in muse allow for panning? I mean, each soft synth can be panned
>>with the mixer. But *no* individual instruments on *any* of the
>>softsynths can be panned seperatly. It's a shame because the built-in
>>synth called "Fluid" (not "FluidSynth"... just "Fluid") sounds a lot
>>better than FluidSynth *or* timidity. I'd really like to use "Fluid" but
>>just can't see not being able to have control over each instruments
>>volume and planning. I even started up Muse and connected SoundFontCombi
>>(SoftSynth mixer) up to "Fluid" and had no control over the panning of
>>instruments.
> Hmmm, I wonder what version you were using. The 'Fluid' softsynth doesn't
> handle panning nor any regular controllers at all IIRC (I wonder if it did
> handle NRPN/RPN:s, perhaps I'm mistaken, there was something strange with
> that).
See the post I just sent (or maybe you already have by now)
> It's actually possible to load several soundfonts in one fluidsynth-instance
> (then assign different soundfonts to different channels).
That's great, but I'm (currently) in love with one soundfont and it's
145 Megs in size (and growing as I keep adding to it). :-) Several
versions of that loaded into FluidSynth can really drain the memory :-)
Rocco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 00:03:59 EET