Re: [tuning] Chromelodeon

In replying to Daniel Wolf's message, Bill Alves wrote, "Of course a sampler will never sound exactly like a Chromelodeon because its sound goes through a loudspeaker."
Sampling, as is done on all digital recordings, is one thing, and synthesizing is something else. The latter may or may not be digital. There are those who believe fervently that analog recordings are superior to digital, but without trying to stir up that argument, it was sometimes said even before digital recording that reproduced sound could never be the same as a live performance. The question is, even if it is not exactly the same, can you hear the difference? Demonstrations have been done with A versus B comparisons which have managed to fool many listeners, even with their eyes open. Perhaps you are one of those who is not easily fooled. Or perhaps you need a better loudspeaker, or some other part of the equipment chain.

John F. Sprague wrote:

>In replying to Daniel Wolf's message, Bill Alves wrote, "Of course a
>sampler will never sound exactly like a Chromelodeon because its sound
>goes through a loudspeaker."
>Sampling, as is done on all digital recordings, is one thing, and
>synthesizing is something else. The latter may or may not be digital.
>There are those who believe fervently that analog recordings are superior
>to digital, but without trying to stir up that argument, it was sometimes
>said even before digital recording that reproduced sound could never be
>the same as a live performance. The question is, even if it is not
>exactly the same, can you hear the difference? Demonstrations have been
>done with A versus B comparisons which have managed to fool many
>listeners, even with their eyes open. Perhaps you are one of those who is
>not easily fooled. Or perhaps you need a better loudspeaker, or some
>other part of the equipment chain.
>

John, I'm well aware of the difference between sampling and synthesizing,
analog and digital, as I work with it and teach it nearly every day, but
that is neither here nor there with respect to the point I was making.
Perhaps an ideal setup could be created with a really great amp and
loudspeakers that would fool me in an AB test. I've heard some really good
setups in studios that I've worked in, but they were very rarely truly
indistinguishable from a live performer. In a more realistic setting as
Johnny Reinhard might be contemplating that includes affordable speakers on
a stage, then, yes, I think most people could easily tell the difference.

While we're at it, not to muddy up the waters further, but there are
several other subtle properties of an instrument like the Chromelodeon
which would likely be very difficult for most samplers to reproduce. For
example, the resonances of the cabinet, which depend on the combination of
keys held down and which would not simply be additive as they would be
reproduced on a sampler. Then there are the sounds of the keys releasing,
noise of the pumping and air escaping, and (unless one is prepared to
separately sample each key) the differences between different reeds. I
point these things out not to shoot down the possibility of an effective
reproduction of the chromelodeon for the purposes of live performance, but
to illustrate further the difficulties of "exact" electronic reproduction.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bill Alves wrote:

> While we're at it, not to muddy up the waters further, but there are
> several other subtle properties of an instrument like the Chromelodeon
> which would likely be very difficult for most samplers to reproduce. For
> example, the resonances of the cabinet, which depend on the combination of
> keys held down and which would not simply be additive as they would be
> reproduced on a sampler. Then there are the sounds of the keys releasing,
> noise of the pumping and air escaping, and (unless one is prepared to
> separately sample each key) the differences between different reeds. I
> point these things out not to shoot down the possibility of an effective
> reproduction of the chromelodeon for the purposes of live performance, but
> to illustrate further the difficulties of "exact" electronic reproduction.

Maybe a job for physical modeling? - it's worth a try.

As a side note, yesterday I bought a 1975 Rhodes
Electric Piano, Stage Model. I can understand why these
babies haven't been adequately modeled. Too many moving
parts. It may be impossible to model a chromelodeon.

I haven't started to tune the Rhodes yet, it needs some
TLC (very heavy action) and I'm not sure what key I'll tune it to.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm