Re: Instrument equalization

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> A request from a performer to receive MP3 rather than MIDI has
> triggered an excursion into soundfont design and led me to question
> Lilypond’s default instrument-equalizer settings.
>
>          ("flute" . (0 . 0.7))
>          ("oboe" . (0 . 0.7))
>          ("clarinet" . (0 . 0.7))
>          ("bassoon" . (0 . 0.6))
>          ("french horn" . (0.1 . 0.7))
>          ("trumpet" . (0.1 . 0.8))
>          ("timpani" . (0.2 . 0.9))
>          ("violin" . (0.2 . 1.0))
>          ("viola" . (0.1 . 0.7))
>          ("cello" . (0.2 . 0.8))
>          ("contrabass" . (0.2 . 0.8))
>
> I think I grasp the technical function of the equalizer (squeeze the
> musical dynamic range into a smaller range of MIDI velocity values
> than the full 1-127), but I don’t understand the choice of default
> values.  For example, why should a cello at forte use less velocity
> than a violin at forte?  Were these chosen based on the perceived
> effect when rendered by a specific synthesizer?  If so, which one?
> Were they implemented with the belief that they would be appropriate
> for use with most synthesizers?  Are they?
>
> These definitely complicate the design of my soundfont.  (I would like
> velocity to control more than just volume, and having a different
> velocity range for different viol instruments requires more work.)  At
> the moment, I am inclined to defeat the equalizer in my Lilypond
> scores so that all instruments use the same mapping of dynamic to
> velocity, and account for the relative volume of instruments in the
> soundfont itself.  Any thoughts?

Yes.

It's fine to provide loadable equalizations for various sound fonts.
But out of the box, the mapping from instrument to Midi volume should be
predictable.  It's the task of the sound font and/or synthesizer to
properly balance comparable Midi volume settings.

-- 
David Kastrup