Roland invented the form. Most SMF's that come from the web, and a large majority of commercial SMF's are balanced on Roland products or computer sound sets. Let's face it, without the Sound Canvas, GM/GS would have died the death, as poorly as everyone else implemented it.
To my ears, little has improved. But it is fascinating to see a comparison that doesn't include the de facto standard for SMF playback, and basically concludes they ALL suck, to one degree or another
It certainly points out one of my 'stuck record' themes.
It doesn't matter WHAT you buy, you are going to NEED to tweak darn near everything to some considerable degree before it sounds even as good as a Sound Canvas. Let alone much better. And how easy the tools to do that tweaking is pf primary importance to anyone that isn't so cloth eared they don't CARE that it sounds worse than a Sound Canvas...
Hopefully, that's most of us.
The next time a lack of a Break/Fill seems a dealbreaker to you, ask yourself what you would have to put yourself through when faced with tweaking thirty or forty new SMF's or styles for an act... with the cumbersome to non-existent tools that other arrangers provide (or don't!). And little time to do it in.
If you want to showcase the best of the soundset and drumsets that your arranger provides, and you use commercial or web SMF's to any degree at all (and use converted or third party styles), you ARE going to have to tweak A LOT...
Bear that in mind, the next arranger you lust after. Sure, it sounds good on its' OWN styles, but how well does it deal with anything else...?
Previous Topic
Index