Great discussion! And some great comments. Ewha could not be more on the mark concerning the relative importance of concerns over the instrument's inherent sound
characteristics versus the performer's personal sound. And as Sugarbrie points out, no, we would not stop listening to a great performer because they are not using a particular instrument on a given occasion. The details of the music making always swamp, in scope and relevance, the details or differences between makes of instruments.
But that is not the root question in this thread. Can the recording process capture the differences between makes of instruments? Without a doubt! Is it brainwashing that we can hear them? Sounds like shades of the audio cable "double-blind test" issue to me. Of course we can really hear them!
I have always been fascinated by the parallels between the concerns of "tweaky" audiophiles (of which I am a proud example) and the concerns of musicians when choosing equipment. The way that we as audiophiles concern ourselves with tube types, sound of different cables and the reasons why, be they the silver or copper used or type of dialectric, isolation of components etc., is almost perfectly paralleled by the way that many professional musicians think about their "set-up". Does silver plating on a saxophone sound different that gold? Which brand of guitar string gives the player the characteristics that he is looking for? Is a different dimension for the rim of the trumpet mouthpiece going to fatten up the sound? What was it about the craftmen's touch that made pre 1960 Henri Selmer saxophones so great and why is it that modern instruments, in spite, of having certain advantages such as better micro-tuning and better key mechanisms, somehow sound less soulfull. Tubes vs. solid state? Hmmm?!
But ultimately it's all a means to an end. The musician wants the instrument to get out of the way as much as possible, and facilitate personal expression; which is the greatest contributor to his or her "sound". The audiophile wants the audio system to get out of the way as much as possible so that the recorded music can express itself as much as possible through the system; and that is the justification for all the tweaking. The music is always
what matters most.
Several years ago I watched on television a segment in one of the magazine shows, I don't remember which, maybe 20-20. It was an account of a successful modern vionlin maker's attempt to replicate the sound of a Stradiverius violin. Every conceivable aspect of the Strad's physical makeup was analyzed using modern computer program based techniques. Every dimension internal and external, wood was sourced from the region and era that the great Antonio used. Even the glue used was analyzed in a lab and "duplicated". After the instrument was completed it was played sided by side with the real Strad.; no clues were given as to which was which. Even over the very deficient speaker in my television, the differences could not have been more obvious. One instrument, of course the Strad, always sounded much more tonally complex and most importantly livelier, as if the player was better connected to it, and it responded more quickly. Now, the cinic might say "well the player new which was the Strad and that influenced the way that he played", and that caused the differences. Maybe, but I doubt it. Besides, all this would not be as much fun.
Happy Holidays.
characteristics versus the performer's personal sound. And as Sugarbrie points out, no, we would not stop listening to a great performer because they are not using a particular instrument on a given occasion. The details of the music making always swamp, in scope and relevance, the details or differences between makes of instruments.
But that is not the root question in this thread. Can the recording process capture the differences between makes of instruments? Without a doubt! Is it brainwashing that we can hear them? Sounds like shades of the audio cable "double-blind test" issue to me. Of course we can really hear them!
I have always been fascinated by the parallels between the concerns of "tweaky" audiophiles (of which I am a proud example) and the concerns of musicians when choosing equipment. The way that we as audiophiles concern ourselves with tube types, sound of different cables and the reasons why, be they the silver or copper used or type of dialectric, isolation of components etc., is almost perfectly paralleled by the way that many professional musicians think about their "set-up". Does silver plating on a saxophone sound different that gold? Which brand of guitar string gives the player the characteristics that he is looking for? Is a different dimension for the rim of the trumpet mouthpiece going to fatten up the sound? What was it about the craftmen's touch that made pre 1960 Henri Selmer saxophones so great and why is it that modern instruments, in spite, of having certain advantages such as better micro-tuning and better key mechanisms, somehow sound less soulfull. Tubes vs. solid state? Hmmm?!
But ultimately it's all a means to an end. The musician wants the instrument to get out of the way as much as possible, and facilitate personal expression; which is the greatest contributor to his or her "sound". The audiophile wants the audio system to get out of the way as much as possible so that the recorded music can express itself as much as possible through the system; and that is the justification for all the tweaking. The music is always
what matters most.
Several years ago I watched on television a segment in one of the magazine shows, I don't remember which, maybe 20-20. It was an account of a successful modern vionlin maker's attempt to replicate the sound of a Stradiverius violin. Every conceivable aspect of the Strad's physical makeup was analyzed using modern computer program based techniques. Every dimension internal and external, wood was sourced from the region and era that the great Antonio used. Even the glue used was analyzed in a lab and "duplicated". After the instrument was completed it was played sided by side with the real Strad.; no clues were given as to which was which. Even over the very deficient speaker in my television, the differences could not have been more obvious. One instrument, of course the Strad, always sounded much more tonally complex and most importantly livelier, as if the player was better connected to it, and it responded more quickly. Now, the cinic might say "well the player new which was the Strad and that influenced the way that he played", and that caused the differences. Maybe, but I doubt it. Besides, all this would not be as much fun.
Happy Holidays.