OK...
I really didn't mean to ruffle anyone by positing "But how does it
sound", and I certaintly wasn't thinking of spawning an "emotion" vs.
"science" discussion. The emotional value of the music didn't enter into
the original post for me, I was really genuinely curious as to how such
music might sound and so just asked.
After all, Stravinsky posited that his music really wasn't about
anything and had no emotion (I'm glossing here, I know) and I know we on
this list could argue ceaslessly about that.
But conversly, there's an anecdote about a student of Schoenberg's who
excitedly brought to Schoenberg a Schenkerian analysis of the first
movement of Beethoven's Eroica (a favorite piece of Schoenberg's): After
considering the analysis of the first movement which the student had
reduced to three chords (I-6, V, I), Schoenberg is said to have
remarked: "But where are my favorite parts?"
We all know that extensive applications of science/technology can result
in greatly emotional music--Xenakis' _Legende d'Eer_ was already
mentioned--it's just that because this is an email list using text and
words we are all hampered by easily sharing the sounds we produce when
our scos/orcs and setups aren't shareable.

Grant.

===
Mike Berry wrote

>The other issue is how the resulting impulse response is affected by
the
>walls of the room rapidly accelerating away from the microphones.
Expanding
>universe-like doppler shift.  Which brings up the use of extremely
dense
>matter, to both generate the impulse and balance the forces that are
causing
>the walls to accelerate.

But then there's the age old question: "But how does it sound?"

tolve