Subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Re: giga files and large soundfonts
From: Christian Frisson (theremin_AT_free.fr)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 15:10:46 EEST
Christian Schoenebeck hat geschrieben:
> That's why we came to the decision that it might be better to define our own
> sampler patch file format (maybe XML based) before we implement write support
> e.g. for the Giga format.
> What are your opinions?
I had posted a thread on the linuxsampler-devel list entitled "Multisample
Format", on September of 2003:
But no one answered...
My fault, I couldn't find the linuxsampler-user list ;-)
So let's get back to one of my questions from there: do you think of a format
with all files (samples and definition file) packed all-in-one or leave the
patch file all by itself?
I'd have a go for the second option:
- it would help me build the multisampled instruments faster by scripting the
- by using another script that would slice the MIS samples and name them
correctly, we would just have to provide patch files and scripts, which are easy
So I'll stick with writing that script that will only slice the MIS files untill
you come up with that new XML-based format!
What is the sample extension supposed to be chosen then: proprietary *.wav or
*.aiff, raw files...?
Which one is the best uncompressed audio file format?
> > 5) Space, the final frontier!
> Space / bandwith is no problem. We planned to collect good patch files on
> this server:
I'll try to rob some space and bandwidth at my Uni to have a french-based server
> But I did not have the time yet to finish the site. Hopefully in three weeks
> or so though, when my exams are over.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 15:05:46 EEST