> That's not true, CDXtract converts modulation and filter data as well. Even > the LFO speed is converted very accurately. Translator is a fantastic tool > but the fact that its price is almost twice the price of CDXtract doesn't > mean > that it's 2 times better. If you are looking for a conversion software, see > which one you prefer by downloading the 2 demos. Both products are > used by thousands of users wordwide so they must be mature enough. Maturity of Translator and CDXtract is not in question. It is helpful, however, to know that CDXtract does such a marvelous job of converting SoundFont information. That's good to know. As many times as I've touted Translator for this purpose, it's strange the author of CDXtract never commented (I know he's a member of this list). No worries though. I stand corrected. But the most important point still stands: EXS24 SoundFont import is only sufficient for non-filter/mod-using drum kits. Anything else is only a partial translation and is unusable IMO. I've heard people say, "they sound fine to me." All I can say to that is if you haven't heard the SoundFont as it was intended, you're missing 80% of the quality and effect. So use either Translator or CDXtract for SoundFonts other than drums... Jer
Message
Re: [exs] Re: CDXtract vs Translator
2002-04-19 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.