Stradivari violin

This issue does not apply to violins only, but also to any family of musical instruments or groups of same instruments by the same maker. Yes, it is true as Rcprince points out, that some of the unique nuances of tone and expression that some instruments or groups of instruments by the same maker are lost or at least blurred by the recording process, but there is still plenty of information that is captured to make identification not only possible, but as Danvect points out, quite obvious. These "subtle" differences in timbre, as in the case of Strads vs. Guarnieris, are far more obvious than the differences between say, a Siemens and a Telefunken 6DJ8, differences that we audiophiles agonize over. The problem is that we as audiophiles have many more opportunities to compare different cables, tubes, cartridges etc., so as to form opinions concerning their "family" sounds, than opportunities to hear comparisons of different musical instruments or different equipment used by musicians. But plenty of recorded examples exist; we just need to know what they are.

While I can't claim to be an expert on vintage violins, I can speak with some authority on this issue as concerns woodwind instruments (I play them for a living). The sound of say, a Powell flute, regardless of vintage, is quite different from that of a Haynes or a Brannen; the differences are not that subtle, and are easily captured by the recording process. To hear a classic Haynes sound listen to any recording of Jean Pierre Rampal. An even better example of captured differences in the sound of different makes of flutes are the recordings fo James Galway. Listen to the 1972 recording of the Mozart Flute and Harp Concerto in C K.299 (Angel SC-3783). On this recording Galway, still playing principal flute with the Berlin Phil., is playing on a Powell flute. For comparison, listen to any of his solo recordings on RCA; he plays a Brannen on all of these. If the fact that the Brannen is far more brilliant, aggressive, and almost tin-whistle like is not obvious in comparison to the Powell's suppleness; then as Danvect says, you need a new system.

Other examples: Pepper Adams "Ecounter" Prestige 7677 (1969). Classic Pepper Adams; beautifull and robust baritone sax sound with plenty of warmth and growl. Pepper used a Berg Larson mouthpiece on his horn during the 60's and 70's. His mouthpiece was damaged in the early 80's and had to switch to a Dukoff. Listen to the dramatic difference in sound, and how much more edge and lack of bottom his sound has on "Urban Dreams", Palo Alto Jazz Records PA8009. Incidentally, these differences are not the result of different recording techniques; although this can obviously have an important effect.

Any of Phil Woods' recordings pre 80's. "Rights Of Swing" (1961)or even his great alto solo on Billy Joel's "I Love You Just The Way You Are", are great examples of the classic Selmer(Paris)made saxophone sound: bright but with lots of body and very complex. In the 80's Phil switched to a Yamaha alto. On "Heaven", Blackhawk Records BKH50401-D, the Yamaha's thinner and less complex sound could not be more obvious.

By and large, the differences that we are talking about here are far greater than the differences that dedicated audiophiles are able to hear by "tweaking" our systems. And once again we, IMO, come back to the reality that for the audiophile that wants to really sensitize him/herself to details such as these; the best education is a good amount of exposure to live music. In the live music experience, all the details and wonderfull complexities of fine musical instruments, are revealed that much more obviously.

To anyone really committed to learning about what makes instruments tick, so to speak, from the musician's perspective; there are plenty of resources. Periodicals such as "Woodwind Player", "Downbeat", "The Grenadilla Society", "Stradiverius Society", "Flute Talk" and others offer articles and interviews with leading professionals and discussions on this very topic.

Regards and Happy Holidays.

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.

Sugarbrie, instruments do indeed "burn in"; especially wooden ones. A new oboe or clarinet must be broken in slowly, played for short periods of time during the first few days of ownership; the sound then opens up as the wood relaxes. To not be carefull about this can cause the wood to crack. Unfortunately, in the case of clarinets and oboes this process also means that the instrument will eventually get "blown out". The wood relaxes to the point that the internal bore of the instrument changes, and this adversely affects the response and sound of the instrument and it starts to sound lifeless and less briliant with less core to the sound. This happens over years of use.

This fortunatelly does not happen to stringed instruments; although they do need to be broken in. In fact it is important that they be played regularly. This is one of the reasons that instruments that are part of institution-owned collections are loaned out; so that they get played.

Regards.