[bob]

On Jan 3, 9:10=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

who were likewise blessed. Anyway, at one point, some wealthy friend of t=
he
kid's parents who was, apparently, a collector of rare violins had loaned=
the
boy (he was about 18 at the time) a Stradivarius, an Amati, and a Guarner=
i.
He brought all three to this stereo salon one Saturday morning, and I
happened to be there (this was probably 25-30 years ago?). He played each
instrument for us in turn. The boy was a world-class violinist even then =
and
he really made these instruments sing. The thing that impressed me was ho=
w
incredibly DIFFERENT they all sounded even though they looked somewhat
similar! The difference wasn't subtle at all and could be heard by anybod=
y
instantly! I recall that the Amati was light and airy sounding with somew=
hat
steely top and the Strad sounded rather dark and resinous =A0by compariso=
n. The
Guarneri, on the other hand sounded more like a good, modern, violin. I.E=
..
neither =A0light not dark but rather somewhere in the middle.

That may be true, but you are drawing a conclusion that isn't
supported by your evidence. It's possible that they really sounded
that different. It's also possible that your expectation of difference
influenced your perception. And it is very definitely possible that
the kid played the three violins very differently--and in fact played
them (perhaps just subconsciously) to emphasize the differences he
thought were inherent in the instruments. Note, by the way, that the
researcher cited in the Times article specifically made it impossible
for the violinists to know which violin he or she was playing.

I'm not arguing that they all really sounded the same. As analog
devices, I would assume they do not. But how an instrument is played
has an awful lot to do with how it sounds. Unless you can get a robot
to play all three exactly the same, you can't be sure that the
differences you hear are entirely, or even predominantly, inherent in
the instruments.

I was amused, in the Times article, by the rationalizations offered by
some musicians for why the reported test was flawed. They sounded an
awful lot like subjectivist audiophiles.

bob