At 6:26 AM -0400 5/7/07, dhbailey wrote:
Raymond Horton wrote:
I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace
_live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of
which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live
players, even though the recordings were once made from live
players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as
some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as
far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer
reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original
source.
Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same
room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no
electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean
anything.
I'd go one step further, since live acoustic instruments influence
the vibrations in the air vastly differently than loudspeakers do,
and so I would have both the computer and the live musicians in
separate rooms, amplified through the same set of loudspeakers in
the room where the testing was being done, so that the listener
would hear both sound sources through the same speakers.
Hi, David. I think you missed Raymond's point. If the claim is to
replace live musicians, the comparison should be with live musicians,
as in acoustic and not amplified. The claim is NOT to replace
recording studio musicians; that happened a long time ago for those
to whom actual musicianship isn't important.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
