[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth problem

From: Peter Hanappe
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth problem
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3

Hi Joerg,

Sorry that it took almost three month to reply to your mail :(
The good news is that the problem seems fixed now :)

The problem was that the decay phase of the amplitude envelope
was extended way too long causing the drop in the audio.
I commited the changes to CVS yesterday. I will do some more
debugging this weekend so I hope to release version 1.0.4 with
more fixes next week. If you have the time to test the fixed version
currently in CVS let us know how it sounds to you.

I would like to thank very much you for your web page and testing. It
was very helpful!


Joerg Anders wrote:
Hi all!

This is my first mail on this list. Perhaps some of you are
on the linux audio users list and you already know the problem.

FluidSynth is a good software. But is has problems with certain
patches. For instance patch 49 in GM (strings).

Please have a look at:


At the end of the page is an example file: strings.mid

It consists of 2 tied whole note chords played by strings (patch 49)

You'll find there the sound as MP3 rendered by:

        - hardware midi synthesizer:
        - TiMidity
        - FluidSynth

I used the (copyrighted) 8mbgmsfx.sf2 soundfont
(which is shipped with some soundcards).

Below you'll find the same with the free FluidR3
soundfont. (from: www.hammersound.net)

In both cases FluidSynth creates a wrong sound.
In contrast to all other sythesizers it creates
"attacking" strings.
Unfortunately, the string rendering is very important.
Please have a look at:


Here you'll find a piece of music played by a bigband.
Again all is renderd using the same soundfont.

But the FluidSynth rendering is practically unuseable.

Does anybody know a solution? Some users on
linux audio user list found out that this patch
(49) consists of 8 layers. Perhaps this is the reason why.(?)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]