"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Spiderant wrote:

I think you will find most of this group will tell you that your
philosophy
professor is completely wrong.

Ian
--
Ian Bell

I posted this question, which has intrigued me for quite a few years, in
this newsgroup because it seems that a lot of the posters here know what
they're talking about. If someone would tell me a proper explanation as to
why my professor was wrong, I would really appreciate it.

But let me rephrase my question a bit. If a microphone is placed before an
orchestra, and the microphone is connected to an oscilloscope, from what I
know of oscilloscopes, the signal is not going to show every individual
instrument, but only the combined sounds coming from the orchestra.
Consequently, no matter what I do with that signal after it is recorded, and
even if I had as many speakers as instruments in an orchestra, I never again
break the signal up to reproduce the original instruments. The recording is
forever going to be only a shadow of the orchestra. Again, this seems quite
logical to me.

Now, as I believe Chris Morriss suggested in another posting, the diaphragm
of an ear is not unlike the diaphragm of a microphone. Consequently, when
listening to a live concert, I too would only hear the combined signal
coming from the orchestra. However, as I mentioned to Mr. Morriss, when we
go to a concert, it is not a static event. We're constantly turning our
heads and thereby altering the signal coming to our eardrums. Therefore,
even if we can only experience the combined signal while attending a live
recording, this shadow is constantly shifting and changing along with the
shifts of our heads and it becomes possible to discern the individual
instruments that a static recording can never reveal.

Again, please correct me if this analagy is incorrect.

Roland Goetz.