On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:44:13 -0700, Ryan wrote:

Well, I don't know Phil. Your idea sounded interesting at first, but
then towards the end you describe how hard it would be to use
"realisitic" models anyway, so you kind of defeat your own suggestion.

Absolutely. It would perhaps be a more ideal method, though it's far more
complicated and messy. I wonder how well the most simple model would work?
A computers 'interpretation' with a simple string and player model would
be interesting to hear, even though it may not bear much relationship to
the original music.

There are a number of programs out there that purport to do polyphonic
pitch detection -
http://www.music-notation.info/en/co...udio2midi.html

But, they rely on differentiating the different instruments by their
range, rather than their harmonic content, and I have no idea how well the
polyphonic pitch detection works. Perhaps combining the two approaches
of the pitch detection they do, and yours of harmonic 'fingerprints' to
identify the instruments?

Plus, this would be even more comp sci and math I'd have to learn. I
do appreciate your ideas however, and I thank you.

I was thinking maybe when I can afford it I would just spring for the
Vienna Symphonic Library Orchestral Cube. It purports to provide
samples of everything I want, recorded by world class players in
anechoic chambers. It would be ideal if it wasn't for the three
thousand dollar price tag.

Anyway, I'm starting to think maybe I should just do the work with my
ear instead of my computer. Most of the posters here tend to think a
software solution would be next to impossible. Might as well brush up
on my ear training and spend the time using my right side of the brain
instead of the left. Hell, from the looks of it I could spend three
years figuring out this software, it would probably only take me three
days to do a rough guess transcription. Maybe I'm finally figuring out
how much harder it is to find a lazy way of doing things.

Laziness is the mother of invention.