Vertigo, I used the harmonica only because that seems to be what you are most familiar with.
I also said that you could substitute a trumpet for example.
This makes more sense,have someone blow a trumpet in your room, full tilt.
Did you cover your ears?
I am saying you would, the sound of the trumpet all on it's lonesome will blow you out of the room.
Now play any trumpet recordings you have, Miles, Mangione, Terry,does the recording overload the room?
Not like the sound of the real thing is it?
You can get loud and distorted and use a couple thousand watts, you can get the volume levels loud enough, but,does it sound anything like the real thing?
I know it won't, just like I know that the sound of the harp player in my band can alter the sound of his Marine band harp just by using different types of microphones, and if he runs it thru the PA or thru amp and then into the PA, like everything ,the more you mess with something the less "real" it is, and the further away from what the real thing is.He can make his Marine band sound completely different.It's just a marine band,like yours and Dylans, but you would not recognize it as such.
Recordings are not real.
Dylan's harp doesn't sound like your marine band.
Neither does John Mayals( I saw him live in concert last nite).
It has been altered in the recording process ,so it sounds the way the engineer wants it to sound, and how your equipment and room want it to sound.Dylans harp was mastered and mixed probably on big old studio JBL, or Altecs or whatever the engineer had.
You would have to have the exact same playback chain as the engineer to even have any clue of the sound of Dylan's harp at the time of the recording.
Which is saying that the sound of his recorded harp was as real as the best recording gear of the day could achieve and how the engineer felt it should sound,when listened to thru his refernce monitors.
So how can you say that your harp sounds exactly the same as Dylan's?
Nothing is the same anywhere in the chain.
You are only hearing a partial reproduction of the real sound.Sorry there is no absolute sound.
At least not in the context of listening to recordings.
A four inch cone can only move so much air , yet a Roger's LS3/5a can sound pretty good even when asked to play back a large symphony.
But the scale is ,obviously, nothing like the real thing.
Yet many people are quite pleased with the reproduced sound that the Rogers is capable of even on this demanding music.
Speakers compress the information, the impact, but they do enough things right to please us even with all their limitations.
The speakers have been and continue to be the weakest link, the biggest road block to recreating the real live performance in the room.
Strings--,ok, go find a jazz bassist, who plays an upright and ask him if he changes his strings when he does any recordings.
Strings especially bass strings all loose some of their life at different stages.They don't all go flat or dead the same.New bass strings usually are a bit on the brite and jangly side, but some electric players like this type of Guitar type snap and clarity.
So when the strings break in and they are all playing together , one not any brighter or less brite than the other, then things are fine, no need to change for a recording.Changing strings for a recording is a personal thing.Some would, some wouldn't.
I've seen some groups where the electric guitar player has several different guitars ,each voiced for a specific tone he is trying to get.
The very adept guitarist, Rocky from Mayall's band used one Gibson Les Paul, and got all the tone anyone would ever desire,using it's tone controls, foot pedals and his own technique to great effect.
Put Rocky or Clapton in your listening room and have them play some riffs that have also been recorded, and it should be obvious that the difference is nite and day.
Or put Jay Davenport in your room and let him pound out a beat,there again the difference between a real set of drums and the reproduced sound of the drums would be huge.
The point of all this is that the more complex the music the harder it is to accurately reproduce.Quite simple, but the same can be said for simple things like harmonicas and even acoustic guitar.
The differences are there none the less,a microphone, electronic recording gear and playback gear can only reproduce a fraction of the live sound.
There is a lot missing,stuff that can't be measured, and it's not just volume.
With enough watts and large speakers I'll bet I could flap your trousers with a recording of Bob's harmonica.
But is that real? |
One last kick at the can.
I'll bring out old Humpty Dumpty and try to use him to better convey my thoughts about this topic.
Well after he gave his best rendition of Blowin in the Wind, he toppled off the wall and fell into a bunch of pieces.
The techies of the day patched him back up as best they could,and to most folks, yes he looks as good as new.You recognize him as Humpty Dumpty.
Until you take a closer look and see that, he is no longer a whole entity, but is now a patchwork of his former self.
Now I would like to address another issue, and bring up quality control.
Are todays Marine Band harmonics the same, better or worse than the one Mr Zimmerman was using back in the day?
A lot of folks would say that most modern gear isn't.
Pre CBS has a lot of cache when it comes to guitars and amps.
Also,how close to spec does one Marine band measure to the next?
I'll bet that no two are alike,and that the way that they are played and how often will also affect the sound, including the timbre.So no two harps will sound the same even if they did sound the same when manufactured.Different blowing habits and extended use will alter the sound or timbre if you must.
I've known guys who can blow the reeds out of their harps.
And some prefer the build of spittle sound to one's that are cleaned.
Each muscian knows the sound he is going after,that some musicians don't bother with highend audio,is because they know it just doesn't sound as real as when they are playing.Which is a shame.
I remember seeing Buddy Rich abruptly halt a performance of Norwegian Wood because he didn't like the sound of a particular cymbal, and threw it to the ground and stomped on it.
This was down the road from the Zildgian plant so I think there was just a bit of showmanship antics involved.
Yet a visit to the same plant by my drummer back then(quite the treat and not open to everyone)disclosed the fact that there are different quality levels of Zildgian cymbals and that the ones that end up at your local music store are not the cream of the crop,which is not to say they are no good, they just are not the same quality as the ones that the "name" A list players have at their disposal.
The good players fortunate enough to buy direct and cherry pick their cymbals can hear the difference.
Most in a live audience would just be able to distinguish that yes indeed he hit the crash and it sounds different than the ride.
At home on their rigs ,maybe they might be able to tell the difference,but could they tell the difference between an A cymbal and one bought at a store that is not grade A?
I seriously doubt they could even at a live event.
They would recognize the timbre of the cymbal but not be able to differentaite much beyond that.
Even less chance of distinguishing a quality cymbal from a cheap one thru most hifi systems, and I would go further and have to say,all systems.
Once Humpty has been broken up, no amount of repair can ever re-create the original. |
Learsfool,
You say "Say 10 professional musicians who are very proficient pick up the exact same harmonica and play the same simple folk tune on it (no question of different styles coming into it) - you should be able to identify basic differences in each of their individual timbres that they produce on that same harmonica, even playing exactly the same thing. I do not of course suggest that you should be able to then identify each separate person again in separate hearing, this type of what some might call "critical" listening needs much training, but you should be able to tell the basic difference when a different person picks up that same harmonica.
To give another example - if I play the exact same thing on ten different horns, you should still be able to tell that it is me playing all ten of them, even if I chose the ten most different sounding models I could. My personal timbre (again, this is a separate thing from style) will come through, no matter which instrument I am playing on, despite the difference in the timbres of each individual horn. "
I sincerely don't get you when you say...
"My personal timbre (again, this is a separate thing from style) will come through, no matter which instrument I am playing on, despite the difference in the timbres of each individual horn. " ????
Can you elaborate on this by defining the terms you use and therefore show me how they are different, since , to my knowledge and understanding of these terms you are blurring their definitions, one over the other and "making distinctions without a difference"
That is...i don't see how "personal playing style" and "personal timbre" are two mutually exclusive things, which according to your statement above you obviously say they are not the same thing. You even speak of a third category which is the timbre of instruments.
So with that said how would you define:
1.Personal timbre
2.A persons playing style
3.Timbre(for instruments)
For me..."timbre" as i have used it in this example... to say that... (paraphrasing) "dylans recorded harmonica(played back through my stereo) and mine( played live)" (as a reference by which i measure the quality of my stereo)... sound identical! is me essentially saying...the quality of my stereo playback is of such a kind of quality as to render the timbres of these identical brands indistinguishable. This excites me because my system is able to reproduce the timbre of a hohner marine band harmonica. And ...i say it is a acceptable test because my comparison is between two identical brand instruments.
For me...a musicians style is one thing and instrumental timbres another.
I will give my definition of timbre again(as i have learned it in audiophile circles and in my own words):
How the materials, their execution in the design of the instrument... excite air.
So, for example a harmonica with a plastic comb will sound different from a harmonica with a real wood comb.
Or...
A guitar with a real spruce top and sides, bonded together with hot hide glue and real bone nut will have a different timbre from a synthetic guitar, with epoxy glue and plastic nut.
So, timbre is an objective thing. It is not relative. How the two above guitars differ in their sonic signature is the differences between their TIMBRES. So, an astute ear can measure his sound system's reproduction of the above instruments and say on a sliding scale whether or not a systems timbre reproduction is way off, pretty ok, very good, excellent, superb or astonishing.
Thats what i do and naturally, a good test is the sound of a live marine band harmonica with a recorded marine band harmonica.
I define a acoustic "musicians style" as :
How the musician creates emotional articulation by technique. ie, how hard/soft/fast/slow/which notes he hits , their arrangement, whether he bends, them or not, how he moves the instrument around, etc, etc
None of these personal playing style EFFECTS... AFFECTS! the objective timbre of an instrument!
I have no definition for "personal timbre" that is distinguishable from "personal playing style."
I think the problem has been that we have two different definitions of timbre in our minds or someone has a misunderstanding of what timbre is.
For example i cant understand how you could ever say this statement:
"I play in a band with a blues harp player.He has several harps, and plays in several scales, and he has several blowing techniques.
Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans."
???
I was trying to say my live marine band harmonicas timbre is identical to bob's marine band harmonica and you replied with the above statement. But i wasn't talking about style...i was talking about the timbre of a marine band harmonica!, which is an objective thing APART from style!. So, if the playback and live of the same instrument sound identical then my system is achieving my desired goal! What's the problem? Isn't that good? It obviously IS a good thing! and a GOOD test to use to measure progress.
RE***Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans."***
Why because your bandmate has a different playing style? Even if he does have a different playing style, can his playing style change the timbre of his marine band harmonica into a lee oskar harmonica? If not...then why didn't his marine band harmonica sound like a marine band harmonica when he was USING one?
. |
Hi Lacee,
RE***does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?***
Cut and paste where i did say ...or imply , that he did or would? You missed my point and you missed the context.
Let me try and add some clarity.
When i said (paraphrasing) "musicians will change their strings/use new harmonicas and not go into studio with tired old strings/harmonica's"...to reiterate the point...
I only said this as a RESPONSE to one of your previous statements which was an attempt to "discredit" my "reference" for measuring the quality of my stereo playback. ie, a live marine band harmonica.
In other words basicly you were saying that i can't know if my marine band harmonica has the same timbre as bob's because his might have 10,000 hrs on it (spit, oxidation, metal fatigue etc etc) and mine might have only 200 hrs and you are saying (or a host of other contingencies)...THEREFORE... your contention is that the playback and live harmonica comparison is invalidated and therefore not admissible!
And hence my response...
Which was to say that bob would not go into recording with a harmonica with 10,000 hrs on it! Generally speaking ...and maybe its even standard procedure for electric guitarists, acoustic guitarists and harmonica players to not use dirty oxidized metal parts which are crucial to the integrity of their sound. Most electric guitarists have a schedule based upon how much they play as to when its time to restring. Is this not true? do i really have to waste this much energy to defend this? (smile)
Why do you have to ask me if clapton buy's a new guitar each time he goes into studio? I don't see how or where your logic could follow from my initial statements for you to make such a silly statement.?
So with that said...i say... that my comparison need not be "thrown out". That is too extreme and goes too far!
Ever watch dylans rock movie "don't look back".? There is a scene where dylan is frustrated by the fact that he is minutes from going on stage but has to go up there with "tired harmonicas" he says...(after his buddy attempted to revive it by soaking it in water)(bob blows into it to re check it)
and says...
"it's passable, i'll use it (sounding irritated) its just a drag i dont have a new one"
Also...When i was talking "trumpets and harmonicas" i'm not sure if you got it or not but i was trying to "demolish" your argument by another form of argument called... "reducing it to the absurd"
You said i was (i'm going to paraphrase).... "incorrect... the timbre of a harmonica can be effected by the room" (if you kindly will, in the future , to facilitate the discussion, please only use the word timbre not tone when discussing instruments, since i claim the timbres of my harmonica and my stereo playback are indistinguishable)(timbre is more ideal to hifi discussions)
RE "incorrect... the timbre of a harmonica can be effected by the room" (which is to essentially say therefore again its faulty or inadmissible proof)
In response i would say that i have to disagree with you.
The harmonica's TIMBRE will not change as a consequence of whether the room is "dead, live, or in the middle". These effects will only affect WHAT IS A CAPTURED BY THE MIC (degrees of liveliness or deadness), it can not make the timbre of a hohner marine band harmonica sound like the timbre of a trumpet, can it? No, it cannot. Or would you like to argue that it can? Therefore...
Since it cannot, and since both my room and the ambience of the room that i perceive on the record are negligable (no hall reverb) to compare my live hohner to the hohner in the playback i submit is a high quality test by which to measure the degree to which my system can play back the TIMBRE of a hohner harmonica and should not be rejected on a claim that room changes an instruments timbre and especially to THE DEGREE to which you seem to imply it can!
So, my statement saying that the room effects are negligible are justified. (maybe the correct thing to say is it has NO effect! on an instruments timbre) A live room recorded down to the track at best might only obscure my ability / make it more of a challenge... to hear "past" the recording to the instruments timbre, as i judge its merits but it does not obliterate its timbre at all. These are two mutually exclusive things.
True...bob's harmonica might have 15 hrs and mine might have 100 , true...i cant know if the "liveliness" of my room compared with the recording room was within tolerances of less than 0.005-25 percent, true...the mic's directional p/u might be different from me playing it in my own mouth, true...no, i dont know which speakers it was mixed with , true i don't know which brand mic he used, true...i don't know how good the quality of their recording gear was...etc etc, on and on you can go...
but the point is...
1.I do have a live hohner harmonica!
2.I do have a stereo sound to judge and compare
3.All the rest is irrelevant!
The key is...Points 1-3 !!! read again.
EVERYTHING else...in the final analysis i will leave up to you to analyze (humpty dumpty or not), i like to keep it simple.
I play my hi end stereo composed of extremely fine parts, I play the recording of the harmonica track, i play the same brand live at home and ask....
How identical do they sound? I constantly compare them and continue to compare and build my system around how close i am getting to that goal.
Why does it sound real when it shouldn't according to you? I don't know, you tell me?
I suspect you are either less exposed to REALLY good sounding system's and what is both possible both from a recording perspective to pass on to a playback chain and naturally the scope of your belief is narrower as to what is possible.
Certain parameters of my system at moments mimic reality, mimic timbres and voices (here i just have to give another plug for the allaerts cart, its a cartridge of a different "order" "kind" from all the rest (at least the ones i've heard, it just performs a miracle?)
It's like all the other cartridges are "numbers" when it comes to timbre, but this cart is a "letter" its "doing something "other"" by contrast to them and to try and explain that is ineffable.
So, i give up!
I still can't believe that one person in india can talk to another person in australia without a wire? Well, i believe it but its just amazing!
I have been as narrow as to say in the past, reproduced music will never sound like live but i am more open to that possibility today than ever. Old poor recordings don't stand a chance but new recordings, with better technology, with more attention paid to how they will sound on new modern systems, for the future stand a chance.
RE the weight of real instruments compared to stereo playback weight of real instruments.
If i were to blind fold you and put headphones on ...that could overcome the sound from a real instrument in the room and you had to raise you arm whenever the instrument was played by feeling it on your body but not knowing if and when it played , how well could you do that? and for which instrument? Could you identify the instrument from a plethora of others? which ones do you think you could pick out? or not pick out based on the experiment described? If your life depended on it could you?
How does a lone harmonica feel? trumpet? kick drum? cymbal? violin? Now change the distance between the instrument and you...now can you do it? How much pleasure do you derive from music from this one parameter to the exclusion of the others? then how important does it make it in the big picture of reproduction? (i'm not assuming the answers)
I do feel i understand where you are coming from and i do think instruments weights can and are mimicked by systems to a higher degree than you seem to. It's one important parameter to address but i don't think systems are as bad as you think they are in this area and i think its an important area but i think timbres and matching db's to how the event was recorded is to be more fair to our systems when we judge them. We form conclusion at least to some degree, maybe alot...on unfair comparisons.
If i want to compare a trumpet or nirvana's "nevermind" it is important to crank it as loud as if nirvana were playing live BEFORE I judge. They probably play at between 95-100 db, if i did play my system back this loud i am one parameter, one step closer to imitating them and one step closer to being "fair to my system"!...next would be to close my eyes at both events(this is only rarely possible)...that would be another step closer to being "fair"...what about this..and that...How many other ways do we fail to recognize how unfair we are to our systems? How often do these parameters get overlooked? How often have people concluded it doesn't sound live but don't think to consider they are playing at only 73db? Lots....Lots.
System's today with quality recordings can mimic certain parameters of the live event and they will only get better!
If you never heard "better" you will naturally remain skeptical and maintain your position.
Hearing is believing.
.
|
Vertigo, I feel dizzy. More to follow; I need time to recuperate. |
