sampling question,sf2 vs WAV: what type of sample is better?

[Epictetus]

as far as I know, sf2 has more programming data thrown in the samples, for example basic keymapping....whereas WAV doesn't have that. But if you take two samples exactly identical, and one is sf2 and the other WAV, does that means that the sf2 is exactly the same quality but a smaller file?

I ask this because I believe that sf2 samples vs WAV files are like high quality mp3s vs WAV files....the latter take more space. Am I correct?

So for a sampler that uses only, say, 192 mb of sampling RAM, doesn't make more sense to use sf2 instead of WAV ?

[Infa Red]

as far as I know, sf2 has more programming data thrown in the samples, for example basic keymapping....whereas WAV doesn't have that. But if you take two samples exactly identical, and one is sf2 and the other WAV, does that means that the sf2 is exactly the same quality but a smaller file?

I ask this because I believe that sf2 samples vs WAV files are like high quality mp3s vs WAV files....the latter take more space. Am I correct?

So for a sampler that uses only, say, 192 mb of sampling RAM, doesn't make more sense to use sf2 instead of WAV ?

Well this is kind of a 2 part answer here. In general, as far as music industry future proof standard and quality, .wav files are the way to go. I personally only use .wav files.

But for a specific reason or usage that was never going beyond that specific reason or purpose then saying "best" can only have a opinionated answer. Cause "best" would be broken into the operator's desires. Best for drive space (as you seem to be concerned about) or best for quality, or best for compatibility, or best for speed are all different things.

So I would keep all that in mind when choosing your desired format.

Now the second part issue/variable here is the settings/limitations of each device. Cause in this particular situation you bring up, I believe sf2 can do 24bit files (I'm unsure of their sampling rate limit though). Wav files can also do 24bit (actually 32bit float) files and can even be recorded as high as your devices capable recording sampling rate (96k, 192k, 384k, and higher !).

So here in a comparison to sf2 vs wav files, "best" would apply to how each one was recorded. If they were both recorded equally (lets say 24bit/96k), then I would say they should sound equal. BUT don't quote me on that. I have no experience with sf2 files, and imo if they record with less data, then rule of thumb is they aren't as good sounding.

If sf2 compresses, then uncompresses (which I think it does) I personally do not like that. But thats my opinion. Again, for safety reasons in all measures, I just stick to .wav files unless I have to use something else.

Hope this helps.

[Epictetus]

thanks for your input.

[SanderXpander]

The programming/mapping data that goes into an SF2 is pretty minimal compared to the audio data. It's basically a text file that says which sample goes where. I'd be surprised if it'd be over 1kb even but maybe that's too optimistic. Your HD/SSD cluster size is probably at least 4kb anyway and it's definitely less than that.

[Epictetus]

The programming/mapping data that goes into an SF2 is pretty minimal compared to the audio data. It's basically a text file that says which sample goes where. I'd be surprised if it'd be over 1kb even but maybe that's too optimistic. Your HD/SSD cluster size is probably at least 4kb anyway and it's definitely less than that.

Thanks.

What I am trying to understand is whether or not sf2 is a better choice (same quality but smaller file?) compared to WAV, in a sampler with a limited RAM capacity, since WAV files are quite large.

Example: let's say that my sampler has a 192 mb RAM capacity, and I choose to load in a nylon guitar patch. I have exactly the same sound in two different formats, sf2 and WAV, sampled at the same frequency, etc. Would the sf2 file be a smaller file than the WAV file?

[SanderXpander]

The sampler is going to convert it to PCM data anyway, it wouldn't really matter unless the loop points are different or the bit depth is different.

Most soundfonts consists of WAVs as far as I'm aware. If your player supports MP3 (somewhat unlikely) you could benefit from the smaller format but most of the time, after "importing" a sample it's converted to linear PCM (read: uncompressed WAV) anyway.

[Epictetus]

ok, thanks. So it means that sf2 has no particular advantage compared to WAV, except for the additional data about basic keymapping having already been done, etc.

[SanderXpander]

And looping info. But in raw file size, no.