Re: [LAU] SFZ vs. GIG

On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:41:10 -0500
Neil <djdualcore@email-addr-hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Nils <list@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by portable in this context?
>
>
> By "portable" I mean I can give the instrument to another musician and
> reasonably expect them to have access to an app that supports the format.
>
> If we were talking about word processors .doc would be portable and .wks
> would not.
>
> -Neil

The answer is yes. There are sfz players on any system. On Linux it is the Linuxsampler.
The samples itself are as portable as possible. You just copy the files, no installation, registration in some registry or path needed.
Sfz internally works with relative paths, so you can move the whole dir structure around.

If you mean portable as in easy to manage there might be some problem. All sfz that I have are seperated in samples and actual sfz text file. This might be inconvinient to organize.
But this is such an obvious flaw that I expect sfz to support uncompressed archives so that you have just one file that you can move around.
Maybe other people can elaborate on that. My sfz knowledge is at its end now.

Nils
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon May 28 04:15:04 2012