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.
And have professional sound engineers who have nothing at stake either
way control the amplification.
To have a person who is trying to prove a point provide the sounds does
nothing more than gives us all a clear example of why independent
testing agencies are a good thing.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
