right time to monolith ?

[Robert Puza]

When is the right time to: Convert samplemap to HLAC monolith format?
What can I no longer do in monolith? Working with monolith is probably better for the CPU. But what can I no longer edit if I have a monolith? I learned from David how to return monolith to its original state. But what is the difference from the point of view of instrument development?

And the second question: today it happened to me that the samples (named by note name, not number) are an octave higher than they should be.
I simply mark all the samples and manually move them an octave lower and save the sample map? is this the right procedure?

[d.healey]

With a monolith you can still adjust the various sample map properties as you can when using the original wav files.

Don't delete your original wav files though, you'll want to revert to those if you need to make changes to the samples themselves in the future.

@Robert-Puza said in right time to monolith ?:

I simply mark all the samples and manually move them an octave lower and save the sample map? is this the right procedure?

Yes

[Lindon]

@Robert-Puza said in right time to monolith ?:

When is the right time to: Convert samplemap to HLAC monolith format?

depends - my answer would be ...Never.

What can I no longer do in monolith?

Get to the Ch1 files...

Working with monolith is probably better for the CPU.

Nope...

But what can I no longer edit if I have a monolith? I learned from David how to return monolith to its original state. But what is the difference from the point of view of instrument development?

Depends - if you want to use the inbuilt sample install process in HISE - rather than rolling your own - then you will need the Hr1 files..

And the second question: today it happened to me that the samples (named by note name, not number) are an octave higher than they should be.
I simply mark all the samples and manually move them an octave lower and save the sample map? is this the right procedure?

yep.

[d.healey]

@Lindon said in right time to monolith ?:

Get to the Ch1 files...

HLAC is the ch files...

[Lindon]

@d-healey said in right time to monolith ?:

@Lindon said in right time to monolith ?:

Get to the Ch1 files...

HLAC is the ch files...

beg your pardon --- easily get to your CH1 files on disk...on the end user machine/roll-your-own installer

[Robert Puza]

@Lindon oooh. surprising answer. You don't make monolith? Why? Is the sound quality worse?

[d.healey]

@Robert-Puza I could be wrong, but I think Lindon is conflating monoliths and HR archives.

[Robert Puza]

@d-healey Ok.

[Lindon]

@d-healey yep you could be right - but I dont use either-

@Robert-Puza - I find the monoliths to not fit my needs, its overly complex and not actually required and the HR archives also dont fit my needs - but I may be an outlier here as I built my own (simpler) expansion system....

[d.healey]

@Lindon Monoliths are losslessly compressed wav files. They are not tied to any installation system. I'm unaware of any reason not to use them for sample based instruments.

[Lindon]

@d-healey said in right time to monolith ?:

@Lindon Monoliths are losslessly compressed wav files. They are not tied to any installation system. I'm unaware of any reason not to use them for sample based instruments.

sorry yes Im getting confused - Its a confusing day - head in c++ code....that i dont understand, so ignore me...

[Robert Puza]

@Lindon In any case, I'm interested in your opinion... I haven't thought about it yet and haven't tried skipping the procedure of converting to monolith. I'll try it..

[Christoph Hart]

I cannot think of any reason why you would not use the HLAC monolith except for when you meed to distribute the wav files to be used in another context.

It‘s faster in both loading, playback, uses less memory and the file handling is easier because you don‘t need single files.

[Robert Puza]

@Christoph-Hart Okay. I understand. monolith is my friend.