Hmm... 130 orchestra members, each in their own home, good microphones, good headsets. Audio from all members gets centrally mixed and sent back to members. Likewise composer video. I wouldn't be worried about sound floor, a bit of adaptive mixing should well be able to take care of that. Depending on distance, I would be worried about latency. Differential latency is likely a big killer, but also absolute. There are i think a bunch of those remote orchestra experiments, but i have not seen good quantitative number about its impact (differential/absolute). There was a nice exhibition 2? years ago at SF MOMA of a (prerecorded) small 6..8? people orchestra doing this gig within a larger home, each in a different room. Would love to put a configurable latency mixer into such a setup and see what happens when i play with latency and jitter ;-) Toerless On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:32:17PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > On 3/18/2020 2:02 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > .... > > That would be cool. The mainstream systems don???t support that because the noise floor gets so high as you start mixing lots of participants but some universities have experimented with simular things. Google Stanford Laptop Orchestra. > > Thanks. > Totally not my field, but... > I think the concern about the noise floor makes sense if one were trying > to get good fidelity for a soloist. But in the normal use case for a choral > rehearsal, > unlike the business meeting scenarios that seem to predominate, most of the > time > at least 10%, and more likely 75-100% of the participants would be singing, > so there'd > an awful lot of signal atop whatever the noise floor added up to. (Another > reason > why I think it might make sense to pre-process the divisi separately.) > Plus, if one is > used to performing with an orchestra, one learns to filter out an awful lot > of noise > while taking all the timing cues from the conductor. :-) > > Randy -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
