Two things to clarify.
New strings or a new harp are not mandatory when recording.
Certain things develope a "sound" when they've been played awhile(like components-that's another days argument).
But it's an individual thing,does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?
Does a jazz bassist buy new strings everytime he records?
Not if he is looking for that "mellow" or familiar tone sound.
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.
We can recognize a harmonica for what it is, and we can recognize the sound and differentiate one instrument from another,,most of our systems are quite good at this.
But there are so many subtleties involved in reproducing music that are missing when we sit down to listen.
My point is that we shouldn't be dillusional and think that we have arrived at the greatest level of resolution.
Because if we did arrive there then all the differences between your playing of a harmonica and Dylan,would be more than obvious, no matter where either of you fall on a scale of great harp players.
Playing exactly the same notes in the same fashion and even thru the same tape recorder in the same studio,you should still be different, and a great sound system should be able to reveal the difference.If you both sound the same, then something is wrong in the chain.
This is one of the problems I have with a recording system that eventhough it sounds great, it substitutes bits of the music with repeated bits of what it thinks is good enough to fill in the spaces.
Upsampling is great, I've heard some ripped cds that sound better than the original cd did.The system was reveling enough to show the difference.
Yet digital recording puts a ceiling on the high frequencies and in so doing a great deal of musical information is MIA.
Analog rolls off the lower freqencies so that bass notes won't jolt the tone arm off the record,and it too relies on RIAA standards.
Neither system is without it's flaws,all systems are flawed, and nothing today sounds like the real thing.
There is too much missing information and a lot of important musical overtones and harmonics ,present in real life, are not in any recording that was designed to limit what it is recording.
Here's about the simplest example I can give.
Have someone stand in front of you when you blow your harmonica(Or horn or any live instrument)and ask them if they feel the air striking their face.The sonic impact, the pressure, the visceral whole body experience.
Then play a similar recording of Dylan and ask them if they physically feel any of the above.
The differences between live and recorded are still vast.
However improvemnts have made the listening to reproduced music much more enjoyable that it used to be, and some exotic systems can fool some folks into thinking that the musicians were right in the room.If they only ivolve a few of their senses. As stated the impact of a symphony at full blast, exactly recreated in a listening room isn't going to happen is it?
Then why say that it did?
Especially thru small mini monitors.
Well I would partly agree that the listener felt a sense of the recorded venue and a sense of the dynamics of the event, but it is so far removed from the event as to render such statements as misleading at the least, and more as wishful thinking at best.
The musicians ,or I should say, a part of them was in the room.
The parts that todays technology is limited to reproducing.
New strings or a new harp are not mandatory when recording.
Certain things develope a "sound" when they've been played awhile(like components-that's another days argument).
But it's an individual thing,does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?
Does a jazz bassist buy new strings everytime he records?
Not if he is looking for that "mellow" or familiar tone sound.
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.
We can recognize a harmonica for what it is, and we can recognize the sound and differentiate one instrument from another,,most of our systems are quite good at this.
But there are so many subtleties involved in reproducing music that are missing when we sit down to listen.
My point is that we shouldn't be dillusional and think that we have arrived at the greatest level of resolution.
Because if we did arrive there then all the differences between your playing of a harmonica and Dylan,would be more than obvious, no matter where either of you fall on a scale of great harp players.
Playing exactly the same notes in the same fashion and even thru the same tape recorder in the same studio,you should still be different, and a great sound system should be able to reveal the difference.If you both sound the same, then something is wrong in the chain.
This is one of the problems I have with a recording system that eventhough it sounds great, it substitutes bits of the music with repeated bits of what it thinks is good enough to fill in the spaces.
Upsampling is great, I've heard some ripped cds that sound better than the original cd did.The system was reveling enough to show the difference.
Yet digital recording puts a ceiling on the high frequencies and in so doing a great deal of musical information is MIA.
Analog rolls off the lower freqencies so that bass notes won't jolt the tone arm off the record,and it too relies on RIAA standards.
Neither system is without it's flaws,all systems are flawed, and nothing today sounds like the real thing.
There is too much missing information and a lot of important musical overtones and harmonics ,present in real life, are not in any recording that was designed to limit what it is recording.
Here's about the simplest example I can give.
Have someone stand in front of you when you blow your harmonica(Or horn or any live instrument)and ask them if they feel the air striking their face.The sonic impact, the pressure, the visceral whole body experience.
Then play a similar recording of Dylan and ask them if they physically feel any of the above.
The differences between live and recorded are still vast.
However improvemnts have made the listening to reproduced music much more enjoyable that it used to be, and some exotic systems can fool some folks into thinking that the musicians were right in the room.If they only ivolve a few of their senses. As stated the impact of a symphony at full blast, exactly recreated in a listening room isn't going to happen is it?
Then why say that it did?
Especially thru small mini monitors.
Well I would partly agree that the listener felt a sense of the recorded venue and a sense of the dynamics of the event, but it is so far removed from the event as to render such statements as misleading at the least, and more as wishful thinking at best.
The musicians ,or I should say, a part of them was in the room.
The parts that todays technology is limited to reproducing.