"ScottW" <ScottW48@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c23d7f22-8699-4a11-b646-b7e6a3b5b38a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 16, 1:10 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> "ScottW" <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0a3e166c-236c-44e3-8b7e-8a7eff7841d1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Do any two performances, even by the same conductor,
>>> sound the same?
>>
>> Chances of something as long and complex as an
>> orchestral work sounding the same = 0.
>>
>> Even short solo pieces are easy to ABX from performance
>> to performance.
>>
>>> We're talking about replicating. Even a recording won't
>>> sound the same as the original.
>>
>> Depends on how you define the origional. If you define
>> the original as being the electrical signal going into
>> the recorder than the possibilities of "sounds the same"
>> are good.
>
> The original sound.
>
>> However the action of microphones and mixing
>> are easy to pick out in a close listening test.
>
> Exactly. So it seems that to recreate the original
> sound, the best way is to use the original instruments.
> The players and conductor (not really required) appear to
> be technically replaceable with automatons.
So it would seem. Some instruments are fairly well replicated by wavetable
synthesis.
|
