On 10/31/2012 05:18 AM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> What do you think about CoolSoft's VirtualMIDISynth?
> http://coolsoft.altervista.org/en/virtualmidisynth
>
> The page mentions your GeneralUser soundfont, so I assume you already
> know about this program.
Yes, I am familiar with VirtualMIDISynth. It's not a VST plugin, so I
didn't really consider it as a solution, especially since I still have
an Audigy sound card which already has a SoundFont synth onboard (and a
very good one at that). Here are the disadvantages to the approach of
using the Audigy Synth/VirtualMIDISynth/FluidSynth/Qsynth as standalone
apps:
1. All standalone synth output must eventually be recorded onto an
audio track to be processed in any way, which eats up a lot more
hard disk space than necessary. Further changes to the synth's notes
require a re-record of the audio.
2. Audio from the synths must be recordable by the audio software.
Depending on audio device setup, this is not always easy to do, and
not always possible to do without losing sound quality. Having been
spoiled by Jack on Linux, I can't believe how weak Windows 7's audio
routing capabilities are in comparison. If I try to record Qsynth's
output, for example, I have to mute all other audio sources or those
will get recorded as well.
3. One has to remember which SoundFonts were used with which songs and
manually load them into the synth for each different song that is
worked on.
This is the method I must use currently if I want to incorporate
SoundFonts into my workflow. I end up using the Audigy synth because it
is the easiest to record from and it's accurate. I can't count on having
an Audigy synth available forever, though. Qsynth gets confused by my
virtual MIDI cable software and won't let me select the right MIDI
input, so I haven't been able to use that.
-~Chris
_______________________________________________
fluid-dev mailing list
fluid-dev@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
