[Sk106]

Agree with many above. As authentic? No. The real thing and a recorded representation of it, can't even be theoretically compared.

A recording is a sonic photograph of a real world thing, but it is not that same thing. That’s where the maze stops, no matter what you do. A recorded piano (samples or whatever) comes out of loudspeakers, whereas the real thing doesn't; its 'right there' *points*.

A recorded or synthesized equivalence of a real thing can however be very useful for one's aim and purpose. Make it enough unique and one might argue that it is no longer a sonic photograph of a real world equivalence, but a sonic property in its own right … which needs a separate and dedicated playback device to be heard. So, a recorded piano can't be compared, but it can be more relevant to your needs, your presentation, and as such it can sound “better” .. but never more authentic.

I got access to an upright Malmsjö Piano .. that I just hate the sound of . Although it's in decent shape, its too dark, hard and cold. In my presentations, I use sampled or synthesized sources, or combinations of them ... but if I'm to play it live, then I use whatever piano is available. Playing it live is a different presentation of the same piece than a recorded presentation is. The recorded presentation of a piece is not "the original" to me. The original, consists of the composition itself, the message/story/intellectual emotion. Music doesn't exist as hardcore material, music appears, in the moment. A recording of it, is just one version of the composition/presentation.

Many times things are even called "recorded" when they really are not, but rather "generated" or spawned. Playing a piece into the computer from a MIDI keyboard, and using recorded samples of a piano to play it back, is kindof a spawned generation, and not a recording, to me. Not referring to things for what they are, using too much simplification, causes incredible confusion, so I tend to watch that.