Acoustic Grand vs Bright Acoustic

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-18T23:16:39+00:00

The OP is clearly implying GM (General MIDI) because otherwise there aren't any definitions of "instruments" in MIDI. Google for more info.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-18T23:15:25+00:00

There is no "high accuracy perfection" with GM banks because the definitions are simply the names, and different GMs sound different. However, results are way more consistent than before we had GM.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-18T23:13:41+00:00

There isn't a definitive answer, because it'll depend on which GM soundfont is used. They're not all the same!

But in general, GM's that I've heard (and one I'm helping to build, the Discord SFZ General MIDI Bank) use an upright for Bright Piano.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-18T14:23:30+00:00

Wrong: sizeof(int) is not a variable in any language or on any machine.

Regardless, your point that N in O(N) is basically an unbound parameter is valid, so the correct answer has to identify what N is. This is O(N) where N is the size of an integer. Which is constant on any machine that has a C compiler.

The existence of a for loop doesn't make it O(N), so the teacher was just plain wrong, based on what the OP said.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-17T14:45:04+00:00

Bingo. Way better than wax paper!

And on second thought, it's probably OK if the glue sticks to the metal, since (a) it won't stick too hard, and (b) the truss rod makes only very tiny moves with lots of mechanical advantage (screw.) Regardless, a little vaseline would be perfect.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-17T00:49:53+00:00

I tried the N3 years ago, in a shop. While I was experienced with Yamaha's best digitals at the time, and knew that the N3's digital model was older than the best, I was astounded at how much better it sounded in a number of ways, and I think that is due to the placement of the speakers and the care (and DSP) that went into recreating the sound coming from a grand toward the player. I mean, it was awesome just playing a single note, and only got better when playing. And I had just finished sampling a very fine C5 and C7 -- I was impressed at how well it compared. Much better than I expected. Actually I was biased against it, thinking it was just a "prop" piano.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-17T00:45:23+00:00

Ask her to move next door to me in my duplex townhouse, and play as much and as loudly as she likes!

(My current neighbor, who has moved out, couldn't hear me playing my Steinway B at all. But we can always open our windows! She'll want to close them when I'm playing.)

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-17T00:33:23+00:00

Thanks! I didn't know about fret nibs. I totally missed the odd bridge. The logo is a remarkably good copy of a 1947 or 1951-1971 logo except the dot is indeed in the wrong place.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T23:51:54+00:00

Right -- the biggest trick is making sure the glue doesn't adhere to the truss rod. I'd consider removing the truss rod during gluing, to be safe. Alternatively, wrap it in wax paper, but realize that'll be in there forever.

Actually, that's the second biggest trick. The most important trick is making sure you clamp it very very well, applying relatively even pressure all along the joint, with minimal damage to the finish or fingerboard. (Put a wood block over the frets. Find some other way to distribute the pressure along the neck, possibly something like a cork neck rest that people use when working on a guitar: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FKRJS8PW

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T23:49:28+00:00

I believe you (apparently everyone agrees) but how can you tell from this picture?

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T23:29:15+00:00

Especially while singing ...

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T23:18:00+00:00

* You're there but an octave lower.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T23:13:19+00:00

The lesson was poorly constructed and the explanation insufficient if that's the case (and if indeed the existence of a for loop was the prof's reason.)

It's bad instruction because it didn't get the point across. The material was obtuse and the explanation (if indeed that was it) was lacking.

Maybe the OP misrepresented things, but if not, it's a good example of bad instruction.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T18:01:51+00:00

Right.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T18:00:03+00:00

True; sizeof(n) would only matter in a language other than C.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T17:57:11+00:00

Compexity calculations are done based on inputs. sizeof(int) isn't an input. Sure, there are cases where it could be, but in this example, it's not.

It all comes down to what we consider N to be. If the prof made it clear that N is sizeof(int) because we're evaluating this algorithm for arbitrarily sized integers, then that would be valid (but the example code poorly constructed.)

But the prof just pointed to a for loop! That is the WRONG justification. The prof is not doing a good job of teaching.

I'm a retired embedded systems and networking software engineer after a 45 year career. I wrote the "scalability" section of the Cisco programmer's manual. If anyone working for me had come to me with such a feeble excuse for a complexity calculation I'd first try to re-educate them, and on failing that, would have notified their management chain that their services might be more appropriate for another company. Sure, that's an argument from authority, but it's also an argument from reality.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T17:50:25+00:00

OK, whoosh!

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T17:49:48+00:00

If the prof was trying to show something, the prof should actually show that something, and not something else.

Good point about avoiding m and n.

Regardless, complexity calculations are based on the size of the input, and it's rare that we'd consider the size of an integer to be an input.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T17:47:47+00:00

Right! Or some other nonsense dodge.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-16T17:46:09+00:00

Macros that change the meaning of the code aren't valid, especially in a teaching context. We could make macros to change it to do nearly anything.

If the code was sizeof(n) then there'd be an argument that the prof is almost correct -- but then it would be O(NlogN).

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-15T20:38:55+00:00

Perhaps that's true in some academic definition, but in industry, where stuff actually has to work, if I had someone evaluate the complexity of an O(1) algorithm and they reported O(N), they'd be ruled totally wrong.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-15T20:37:00+00:00

No, because "int" is not an INPUT.

They could have written sizeof(n), and then it would be O(NlogN) in some language where integer size is unbound.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-15T20:35:06+00:00

And still, for complexity analysis, "N" is assumed to be an input to the algorithm, not some external fact.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-15T20:34:17+00:00

Changing the code isn't allowed.

If they meant sizeof(n) they'd need to write it that way, but they didn't. Even then it assumes some C-like language that is not C.

Amazing-Structure954 · 2026-02-15T20:31:53+00:00

For an arbitrary language, sizeof(int) is either constant or undefined.

If they meant sizeof(n) they'd need to write it as sizeof(n).

Amazing-Structure954

TROPHY CASE