As far as I remember records were used to supply the information to a modern player type piano so that information about note identification, dynamics, peddling etc. is extracted from the record and applied to the piano. 

db

Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-11-22, at 2:56 PM, Donald Tait <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>   I might be mistaken, and if so would welcome correction, but my impression has been that the Zelph Rachmaninoff efforts involved his phonograph records, not rolls.
> 
>  Don Tait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Kulp <[log in to unmask]>
> To: ARSCLIST <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 11:49 am
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made
> 
> 
>   The Rachmaninoff seems like another case of if it ain't broke,don't fix 
> it,especially since ever since the dawn of  stereo,there have been constantly 
> improved recordings of his rolls.
> 
> As for the blues and hillbilly 78s in question,would it not be possible to apply 
> the same method Patrick Feaster applied to the picture of the now famous 
> Berliner/Schiller record image?
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Tom Fine
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made
> 
> The only comment I have on this line of thinking is, it's very hard for a 
> machine to create out of
> thin air something it "thinks" is "missing." When you get into something 
> involving human senses and
> brain together -- music, art, photography, moving pictures -- it's not just an 
> "artificial
> intelligence" thing but also an "artificial aesthetic" thing.
> 
> A small example of this idea is the controversial nature of the piano 
> re-creations of Rachmaninoff
> and Art Tatum by the Zenph:
> http://www.zenph.com/art-tatum-piano-starts-here
> 
> Keep in mind that the Zenph technology is re-creating things that are there 
> (actual notes played,
> actual space between notes and tempo as played back from the recording, 
> perceived stength of key
> strikes, which is perceived from audible audio, etc), and it's still 
> controversial. Trying to make
> up what an old recording chain couldn't or didn't capture is a very 
> controversial business. I think
> that's what Shiffy and Carl are describing.
> 
> Given a long history of disappointing computer/digital gadgetry as it relates to 
> audio, I advocate
> more modest steps. First, let's see if it's possible to "erase" damages and 
> destructions to a
> playable groove that time, abuse and original pressing problems have created. 
> Can we first of all
> get a groove back to how it was on the metal mother? Then, can we "play" it? 
> When we play it, what
> does it sound like? Can we then attack those audio limitations and distortions 
> with known methods
> and technologies? Then how does it sound? Once we get there, to the best of our 
> ability and our
> technologies' limits, I think we can think about creating out of thin air 
> "improvements" to the
> original recording. I'd like to see as a first step, removing the damages caused 
> by wear/abuse and
> original manufacturing problems/limitations. I say start there because I think 
> the kind of work Carl
> Haber is doing is in that ballpark.
> 
> Some topics to debate over turkey and cranberries.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made
> 
> 
>> There are so many angles from which one can consider these ideas, technical
>> and aesthetic. Looking back on my own reaction to early CD reissues, for
>> instance, the flawlessness that seemed to be a commercial requirement for
>> promotion of the new medium also removed the content further from actual
>> experience. It may have been the flaws in analog media that helped its
>> mechanical nature to seem more organic, and helped us to suspend disbelief.
>> Is it any wonder (social aspects aside) that the Grunge aesthetic soon
>> followed the new perfection of recording techniques, along with the
>> continuing re-adoption of imperfect old studio tools?
>> 
>> As a devotee of Walker Evans, it's not hard for me to make this leap. It is
>> the imperfections of age and use that give objects their humanity, symbolic
>> of lives and experience. Perhaps this is true even when those humanizing
>> flaws are technical side-effects rather than artifacts of human touch.
>> Having long ago accepted mechanical substitutes for actual experience, we
>> still rebel against inhuman perfection, a rebellion made more urgent and
>> necessary as the lived experience of living becomes ever more challenged by
>> the relentless substitution of perfected media representation.
>> 
>> Allow me to give thanks today for all that I've learned and the ideas born
>> from the discussions and arguments of this remarkable community. Best wishes
>> to all.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Art Shifrin
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:25 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made
>> 
>> Static (meaning fixed media, not their artistic content) works of art and
>> engineering that have significant damage have long been cherished despite
>> their material / structural flaws.  These include buildings, statues,
>> graphics, and a probably unlimited range of objects.  So it's completely
>> reasonable and reassuring that miserably made and or worn & damaged
>> recordings can be appreciated by those who can 'filter out' what's wrong.
>> I include 'reassuring' because if such appreciations were not occurring,
>> then the artifacts would be even more likely to be discarded and or
>> destroyed than if not.
>> 
>> At first thought I was thinking that the noises, distortions, and or
>> perturbations of recordings might be analogous to cracks in the media
>> (paint, wax, ink, et. al.) of graphics, or the materials of objects.  But
>> given how such things are 'seen', that's not necessarily so.  Given
>> adequate light, especially for large or enormous things if viewed from
>> adequately long distances, the flaws can even disappear.  Listening to a
>> mangled recording
>> far enough away from its transducer, and or with other acoustic impediments
>> might be comparable.
>> 
>> Tom's proposal to achieve improvements via modifying virtual grooves should
>> be extended to restoring what's missing, not 'merely' (the word's NOT
>> intended to be sarcastic or derisive) smoothing out flaws.  I presume that
>> sufficient computing power (software not included) exists can be mustered
>> to simulate the audio contents that were replaced by the 'side effects' of
>> the damage: make the grooves 'appear' as they did (or probably did) before
>> they were altered.  Then, when all of the audio's read back by the
>> image-to-sonic process, differences between the portions that underwent
>> various extents of repair / replacement could be minimized if not  be
>> distinguishable from one other.
>> 
>> A simple example of this principle is replacing the disruptions in 'silent'
>> (a misnomer) portion of a recording.  Slugging in state-of-the-art 'silence'
>> amongst any kinds of audible noise results in much more noticeable dropouts
>> than inserting the same kind of noise and room tone.  This should even
>> include periodic problems such as thumping that can't be completely
>> suppressed.
>> 
>> I think that it's comparable to film and video tape tape restoration when
>> production stills and captions replace what's missing.  It's noticeable but
>> less jarring than the alternative.
>> 
>> Think of each sample and bit depth as an audio 'still'.  String enough of
>> them together, play 'em fast enough, and they could hopefully sound as if
>> the grooves had never decayed or been damaged.
>> 
>> Happy Thanksgiving from
>> Shiffy, Marlene & Spencer
>> 
> 
>