KVR Audio

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 8:37 pm

There are better ways then zip... sure rar is better for transport.

But imposible to use as sampler format,

Stick to sf2.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 12:12 am

One of the first tools could be a small program to take an existing sound sample format (e.g. soundfont) and dump it in the XML format.

And then to re-encode the XML format into an existing sound sample format (e.g. soundfont).

This would make assembling soundfonts far easier than it is now (at least, if you have the patience to edit XML by hand

).

bobaudio · Post by **bobaudio** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 5:22 am

I've been thinking about the need for an open, easily readable, extendable format for some time.

I think XML, .flac for compression, and .zip(with no compression) to tie it all together.

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 7:36 am

1st, it only takes me a few minutes to create a
multisample and loop it.

Flac, zip... What the heck !!!

you want loseless than use RAR or WavPack.

WavPack is the best compressor for samples out there
loosless and loosy !

Go and learn the tools.

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:59 am

Hey Midiworks2, what with the pissy attitude?

Anyway.. Ive been thinking. While the XML+Wavs in a zip thing is perfectly doable it strikes me as a bit akward. But then, I dont have any XML experience what so ever.
Is it really that much easier to deal with compared to a straight up binary format?

Im also thinking that the first thing to write (after a working editor) is a synth edit module. That ought to take care of the "widespread adoption" part

Maybe I should get some input from the synthedit crowd..

thockin · Post by **thockin** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:57 am

If you do it in simple enough XML, you don't NEED an editor first. You can do a player first, to prove the utility of it.

The advantages XML has over a binary format are things like human editability, meta-data divorced from data, no need for a new binary format and tools to pack/unpack it, vastly flexible, vastly future-proof.

I don't much like XML the way it is abused today (buzzword of the year) but for THIS, it is perfect.

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:37 am

Pukeweed wrote:Hey Midiworks2, what with the pissy attitude?

Sorry about that...

Im also thinking that the first thing to write (after a working editor) is a synth edit module. That ought to take care of the "widespread adoption" part

Maybe I should get some input from the synthedit crowd..

Please explain !
This seams like a good idee.

I think it is not nessesary to reinvent the wheel...
There are great compression programs out there
but not many are good for samples.

thockin · Post by **thockin** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:49 am

You'll have to balance the desire to compress with the need to uncompress. It may be faster and easier to use an uncompressed format, such as tar. It's a very simple format. Perfect for what this would need.

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:00 am

Compression is actually the least of my conserns.

I just want a single file with wavs mapped to keybaord zones.

The problem with using soundfonts for keyboard mappings is that the SF format contains so much more and is rather complicated. Its not something I as a noob hobbyist can deal with.
Also, sound fonts are made to be complete instruments, and announcing soundfont support and then just lift the waves out of them is confusing and misleading. (I got a little miffed at the sampler in orion for this reason).
So, while it may be a bit redundant as a technology, I think it could be valuble psychologicly.

Thockin > You are right. The big benfit though is that there are a great many wav parsers out there and this would save me/us the trouble of specing out all the wav specific data.
The file loading could be as simple as hooking toghether a zip parser, an XML parser, and a wav loader.

okedokey..

thockin · Post by **thockin** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:39 am

Now someone needs to do it. Then they need to market it. I'm no XML wizard, but I know my data normalization, and I can make sure the format is extensible and sane. Implementing it will be up to someone else, though. I'm kinda busy

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:53 am

he he.. Im gonna go for a synth edit loader first. If I get it to run well I think alot will follow from that.

Ill do a draft on a spec and post it.

Thanks a ton for all the input guys.

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:57 am

Another thought..

Should the file allow for more than one map or not?

IE, should it be capable of storing banks or just presets.

Implementing banks in the spec is easy enough. Just have one XML file for each map. But is it really needed?

How often would you want to use the same wavs for more than one map? Well, theres drumkits...

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:17 am

I think I dont understand what you are trying to make.

Please explain a little more,
what would be the end result ?

Thanks

thockin · Post by **thockin** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:25 am

Puke,

Keep it simple. One multi-sampled instrument per file, I think.

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:37 am

thockin > ok. Its easy enough to add later anyway.

Midiworks > Ever used a rompler.. like rolands JV synths .. Im sure you have, roland, yamaha and korg has released tons of them.
When you make a patch in a rompler you start out by selecting a "tone" from a list, like "dark piano". A typical rompler has a structure like so:

Tone generator -> filter env -> amp env -> pan -> effects -> output.

Ok, I skipped some stuff. Anyway, the point is that a "tone" is a series of samples mapped out on the keyboard. This file format would have that function.

Multi wav fileformat?