Will it be recorded from an acoustic or a digital one?

Did you copy me? XD kidding!!

Situation so far:

SCHUMANN - ADAAAADDDD

MOZART - AADAADAADA

CHOPIN - DDDDDDDDADA

BEETHOVEN - AAAADADDD

SATIE - DDDDDDDDDDD

LISZT - DADAAAAADA

on one there are no doubts... will it be so?? eheheh I am very curious

The requested test with prelude op. 28 no. 4 was published at this address http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/813-chopin-preludio-op284-acustico-o-digitale/. This time it is easier since you will have the possibility to compare the same sounds.

The results of this test will therefore be delayed until Tuesday, and will be released together with the prelude test.

In order for the first test to be passed, it is necessary to discover the acoustic piano track(s), and a maximum of 2 errors are allowed for the digital samples mistaken for analog ones (on 6 tracks, that seems like a large margin of error to me). In order for the prelude test to be passed, it is necessary to recognize the acoustic piano track(s) and a maximum of one error is allowed for the digital samples mistaken for analog ones.

Am I still in time?

1. Analog

2. Digital

3. Digital

4. Analog

5. Digital

6. Digital

Question: Have you played digitally thinking of disguising it as analog and vice versa?

tgdigit wrote:

Question: Have you played on digital thinking of disguising it as analog and vice versa?

Only the digital samples have been adjusted, the analog ones are original. No modifications made...

I mean with the touch, it's not easy to explain.

Trying to smooth out certain angularities, nasality of the digital [sound] with the touch... thinking about the quality of the acoustic result, rather than the musical one... I don't know if I'm making myself clear.

Of course, digital samples are elaborate but not the acoustic ones... With acoustics, nothing at all has been done.

but the results?? nobody is asking for them??where has the curiosity gone

Dear friends, unfortunately no one passed the test since the only acoustic piano present was mistaken for a digital one, and passing the test required recognizing the acoustic piano with a maximum of two errors allowed for digitals.

Satie's track number 5 is actually acoustic. It is part of the CD "Notturno" by pianist Nazzareno Carusi, EMI label, 2008.

I will list the libraries used for the tracks below.

Schumann - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - 3 Microphone Perspectives

Mozart - Garritan Authorized Steinway Professional - Microphone perspective: classic

Chopin - Galaxy II - Vienna Grand (Bosendorfer) + Mechanical noises

Beethoven - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - Close + Player Perspectives

Satie - Acoustic (I believe it is a Yamaha piano, perhaps a C7).

Liszt - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - Player perspective

These data are nonetheless very useful to me along with the prelude test to see which libraries are most similar to acoustic pianos; it is very interesting, because if most people do not recognize an acoustic from a digital even when warned of this possibility, then it is very likely that under normal listening conditions, the use of a digital would not be suspected at all.

Here are the statistics.

Schumann: Acoustic 58.3% - Digital: 41.7%

Mozart: Acoustic 66.7% - Digital: 33.3%

Chopin: Acoustic 16.7% - Digital 83.3%

Beethoven: Acoustic 58.3% - Digital 33.3% - Abstentions 8.4%

Satie: Acoustic 0% - Digital 100%

Liszt: Acoustic 66.7% - Digital 33.3%

The results of the Prelude test are also coming out...

TheSimon wrote:

The results of the Prelude test have also been released...

...where are they?

Sorry they are coming out, I have corrected the post, I am about to post them, give me 10 minutes...

At this point we can write C.V.D.

From what I understand, it is truly difficult to distinguish the sound of an acoustic piano from a digital one if good libraries are used.

Since I was unable to provide an answer, I wanted to ask you which parameters you adopted and which characteristics of the sound made you realize its nature.

Does it really take a good ear to identify that what is being heard is a sample of a sound, or to understand the (relative) narrowness of the timbral and volume variations that characterize the sound of a digital piano??

mmm... now let's call Carusi...

Difficult to distinguish: the weak link in HI-FI system quality is the speakers, and the piano is then a difficult instrument to reproduce faithfully, especially if the source is a low-bitrate mp3.

sisifo1987 wrote:

Since I wasn't able to provide an answer, I wanted to ask you what parameters you adopted and which sound characteristics made you understand its nature.

Actually, I am curious about Satie; frankly, she was the only one who made me suspicious... it's just that in the face of unanimity, I lost my inner struggle and wrote Digital. Obviously, what I wrote holds true, but the doubt had occurred to me: was it just me?

sisifo1987 wrote:

From what I understand, it is truly difficult to distinguish the sound of an acoustic piano from a digital one if good libraries are used.

In terms of results, it can be, but the path to reaching that result is completely different... so much so that the good TheSimon studied acoustic and then approached digital... in the case of a reverse path, the results are not so obvious

TheSimon wrote:

Dear friends, unfortunately no one passed the test since the only acoustic piano present was mistaken for a digital one, and passing the test required recognizing the acoustic piano with a maximum of two errors allowed for digitals. .

Satie's track number 5 is actually acoustic. It is part of the album "Notturno" by pianist Nazzareno Carusi, EMI label, 2008.

I will list the libraries used for the tracks.

Schumann - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - 3 Microphone Perspectives

Mozart - Garritan Authorized Steinway Professional - Microphone perspective: classic

Chopin - Galaxy II - Vienna Grand (Bosendorfer) + Mechanical noise

Beethoven - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - Close + Player Perspectives

Satie - Acoustic (I believe it is a Yamaha piano, perhaps a C7).

Liszt - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - Player perspective

These data are nonetheless very useful to me along with the prelude test to see which libraries are most similar to acoustic pianos; it is very interesting, because if most people cannot distinguish an acoustic from a digital even when warned of this possibility, then it is very likely that under normal listening conditions, the use of a digital would not be suspected at all.

Here are the statistics.

Schumann: Acoustic 58.3% - Digital: 41.7%

Mozart: Acoustic 66.7% - Digital: 33.3%

Chopin: Acoustic 16.7% - Digital 83.3%

Beethoven: Acoustic 58.3% - Digital 33.3% - Abstentions 8.4%

Satie: Acoustic 0% - Digital 100%

Liszt: Acoustic 66.7% - Digital 33.3%

The results of the Prelude test are also coming out...

Agreed, you won, but... but if we are talking about "normal listening" conditions, allow me, the issue becomes complex: what is meant by normal listening? Today one can listen in a thousand different ways, unlike a long time ago.

It's not an argument, believe me, I would like to play devil's advocate to stimulate discussion.

Is the acoustic track extracted from a CD? Then it is a digital track like any other.

Are we listening to files from the web? Then they are all digital.

Are we listening to an analog sound through headphones or speakers? It is the reproduction of the analog sound, which is always different from the original unamplified sound.

Do we set up a real piano in a hall, hide a digital piano inside, and then listen to it obviously amplified in the hall? It is a digital sound; rather, it is the reproduction of a digital sound.

Do we listen to a real piano in a hall, but for any reason, the sound is amplified and broadcast in the hall? Then it is not the sound of that piano, but its processing.

And so on, many other examples can be made.

Another consideration: Has our listening sensitivity changed since acoustic and electronic reproduction have existed in music? I think so.

I believe I have thrown a lot of fuel on the fire...

tgdigit wrote:

Has our listening sensitivity changed since the existence of acoustic and electronic reproduction in music?

Going back to the source, everything has truly changed since electric current was discovered

Frank wrote:

Going back to the beginning, everything has truly changed since electricity was discovered

Fine then, also since they invented the wheel.

But I didn't want to throw it away like that, even though I like the joke.

Look, without electricity electroacoustic or electronic music would not exist; it is its fundamental premise