Re: Tincamelan; Appalachian Microtonality Talk; The Expanse Beneath

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...>

/makemicromusic/topicId_unknown.html#4745

>
> To keep it on topic, here's another piece. It uses my own "Celestial
> Interference" tuning, which is a mode chosen from the chromatic
scale of the
> 14th root of 12/7 (the supermajor sixth).
>
> http://www.nonoctave.com/tunes/TheExpanseBeneath.mp3
>
> Ciao!
>
> - Jeff

***Nice sounds, Jeff! They really do sound quite a bit superior to
MIDI. I'll have to learn more about all these synths sometime...

best,

Joe

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>***Nice sounds, Jeff! They really do sound quite a bit superior to >MIDI. I'll have to learn more about all these synths sometime...

Remember: MIDI is *not* a sound. MIDI is only a specification for controlling sound *sources*. The quality of the resulting music certainly depends on the composition/improvisation as it is 'encoded' in MIDI, but the entire sound spectrum of the resulting music is rendered entirely by the end sound-producing medium - be it a computer soundcard, a hardware synth, a software synth, a sampler, or an application of sounds/samples to a MIDI file by another program (as in a MIDI-to-Wav application).

But you are correct: a dedicated sound source, with a lot of parameters to control (before or during the recording/playing of the sound) will, ultimately, bring a much higher quality to the end-product piece of music.

Cheers,
Jon