Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] outsor@city-net.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...=1&ref=science

This has much to teach audiophiles also. The same issues of the validity
of subjective experience and the power of factors not inherent in the
sound as it reaches the ear are very similar.

In the popular kinds of tales one sometimes encounters with subjective
lines of reasoning musicians are often said to be good sources for
listening tests.

As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who play
them that is also a test of that notion.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:37:10 -0800, wrote
(in article ):


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...n-old-and-new-
viol
ins-stradivarius-lags.html?_r=1&ref=science

This has much to teach audiophiles also. The same issues of the validity
of subjective experience and the power of factors not inherent in the
sound as it reaches the ear are very similar.

In the popular kinds of tales one sometimes encounters with subjective
lines of reasoning musicians are often said to be good sources for
listening tests.

As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who play
them that is also a test of that notion.


Back in the day when I used to frequent the local audio salons, there was a
kid who also frequented the same establishment as I. He was one of those
musical geniuses that we hear about from time to time, and his talent was the
violin. Apparently his parents were very rich and cultured and knew others
who were likewise blessed. Anyway, at one point, some wealthy friend of the
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 Guarneri.
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 how
incredibly DIFFERENT they all sounded even though they looked somewhat
similar! The difference wasn't subtle at all and could be heard by anybody
instantly! I recall that the Amati was light and airy sounding with somewhat
steely top and the Strad sounded rather dark and resinous by comparison. The
Guarneri, on the other hand sounded more like a good, modern, violin. I.E.
neither light not dark but rather somewhere in the middle. I had no idea
that three violins, all made in the same town (Cremona Italy), over roughly
the same period of time could be so radically different.

Now I realize that this is not what the article is talking about. They were
comparing these Cremonese masters to modern violins and not to each other,
but my point is that whether they are better or worse or pretty much the same
quality as an artisan-built modern violin (as opposed to factory massed
produced one), one who has heard all three of the famous Cremonese violin
makers' products certainly can't say that all sound alike. They don't. Now, I
don't know about modern violin sound, I've never heard the same player play
three modern instruments, but I suspect that different instruments from
different makers TODAY vary in sound characteristics just as these
baroque-era violins do.

This begs the question: Now that I have heard a Strad, and Amati, and a
Guarneri contrasted against one another, can I pick one out and identify it
when I hear it? Can I listen to a recording, for instance, of the Sibelius
Violin Concerto, and say "That's an Amati!' ? Not on your life. It just
sounds like a violin to me. Can anybody do that? Maybe, but I'd guess
generally not. A player/owner of a Strad or any other good instrument MIGHT
be able to pick-out his own instrument in a DBT if he heard it played by
someone else, but then again, maybe not.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

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

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Stephen McElroy Stephen McElroy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

In article , bob
wrote:

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.


Complaints about the hotel room in which the test took place instead of
a proper hall or salon? I thought audiophiles were constantly criticized
for not paying attention to the room.

Stephen

  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 4, 1:10=A0pm, Jenn wrote:

A hotel room? =A0Not an appropriate place to test what it is that makes a
Strad a Strad: =A0subtle tonal differences in a performance hall, and the
projection power across all frequency ranges and timbres in such a hall.


This is not a fact; it's a claim. What's more, it's a claim for which
we have (surprise, surprise) no empirical evidence.

Now, it might be the case that Strads sound better than modern violins
when pushed to their limits in a large hall. But I've never heard
anyone enthusing about the glorious sound of a Strad who noted, "Of
course, you can only really hear the difference in a large hall."

Which one would you rather take home? =A0This brings into question the
issue of playability, set up, strings, familiarity, etc.

Then there is the issue of which specific instruments are used. =A0Not al=

l
Strads or Guarneris or Costcos are equal, obviously.

I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


Because there's no bias here. Every violin was tested in the same
environment. Hence, no bias. It would be impossible to test violins in
all environments, of course, but someone who wants to claim that a
different environment would produce a different result assumes the
burden of proof.

bob

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:05:11 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

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

who were likewise blessed. Anyway, at one point, some wealthy friend of the
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 Guarneri.
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 how
incredibly DIFFERENT they all sounded even though they looked somewhat
similar! The difference wasn't subtle at all and could be heard by anybody
instantly! I recall that the Amati was light and airy sounding with somewhat
steely top and the Strad sounded rather dark and resinous by comparison. The
Guarneri, on the other hand sounded more like a good, modern, violin. I.E.
neither light 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


Yes, the article certainly did sound like an audio gear shoot-out, didn't it?
I agree with you, after all, it was a long time ago and like I said, just
because those three violins had different characters from one another does
not mean that I or anyone else could tell which was which in a blind testing
or tell which one we were listening to if we heard one of those violins in a
recording, for instance.

I know that they had different characters on that day, played by that
violinist. Other than that, I cannot say much more. there are so many
variables. I've heard that even changing a violin string set from cat-gut to
nylon or some other material will significantly alter the sound of a violin.
It makes sense, but I don't know it to be true.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

In article , bob
wrote:

On Jan 4, 1:10*pm, Jenn wrote:

A hotel room? *Not an appropriate place to test what it is that makes a
Strad a Strad: *subtle tonal differences in a performance hall, and the
projection power across all frequency ranges and timbres in such a hall.


This is not a fact; it's a claim. What's more, it's a claim for which
we have (surprise, surprise) no empirical evidence.


Feel free to ask some players who hear and play Strads.


Now, it might be the case that Strads sound better than modern violins
when pushed to their limits in a large hall. But I've never heard
anyone enthusing about the glorious sound of a Strad who noted, "Of
course, you can only really hear the difference in a large hall."


Large isn't the issue.

Which one would you rather take home? *This brings into question the
issue of playability, set up, strings, familiarity, etc.

Then there is the issue of which specific instruments are used. *Not all
Strads or Guarneris or Costcos are equal, obviously.

I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


Because there's no bias here. Every violin was tested in the same
environment. Hence, no bias. It would be impossible to test violins in
all environments, of course, but someone who wants to claim that a
different environment would produce a different result assumes the
burden of proof.


If one is testing the tonal qualities of a performance instrument, it
makes sense to perform the test in the environment where the instrument
is to be used. Otherwise, it's like testing the handling ability of an
automobile while the auto is in a garage in park. If one tests the very
thing that makes an instrument special in an environment that is built
to mask those very qualities, the test is biased.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 4, 12:49=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:10=A0pm, Jenn wrote:

A hotel room? =A0Not an appropriate place to test what it is that makes=

a
Strad a Strad: =A0subtle tonal differences in a performance hall, and t=

he
projection power across all frequency ranges and timbres in such a hall=

..

This is not a fact; it's a claim. What's more, it's a claim for which
we have (surprise, surprise) no empirical evidence.


No it's a fact. Extensive research has been done in the field of
concert hall acoustics and measured parameters have been established
by which one can judge the acoustics of concert halls. Do you really
believe a hotel room will measure up? It is testable. There is no way.
any solo instrument that is suited for the concert hall will overload
your garden variety hotel room. That is a fact.



Now, it might be the case that Strads sound better than modern violins
when pushed to their limits in a large hall. But I've never heard
anyone enthusing about the glorious sound of a Strad who noted, "Of
course, you can only really hear the difference in a large hall."


Now that is quite an anecdotal claim at best.



Which one would you rather take home? =A0This brings into question the
issue of playability, set up, strings, familiarity, etc.


Then there is the issue of which specific instruments are used. =A0Not =

all
Strads or Guarneris or Costcos are equal, obviously.


I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


Because there's no bias here. Every violin was tested in the same
environment. Hence, no bias.



Well not sure how you can say that nor am I sure how this can be
called a double blind test. I'm pretty sure it was a human being
playing the violins. So someo in the room who clearly had influence on
the source signal was involved and fully aware of what instrument he
had in his hand. How is this not a huge variable and source for bias
effects?


It would be impossible to test violins in
all environments, of course, but someone who wants to claim that a
different environment would produce a different result assumes the
burden of proof.



Do you really believe a different envirement would not affect the
sound? yes it is impossible to test "every" envirement. OTOH it would
not have been imp[ossible to do the test in an envirement that at
least was like the envirement in which the violins would be used.


This test is so saddled with uncontrolled variables I don't know how
anyone could ever draw any meaningful broader conclusions other than
the testees had particular preferences for particular violins played
by particular performer in a particular hotel room.


I'm all for making these kinds of judgements blind. But if one is
looking for broader meaning this test does not fit the bill.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
August Karlstrom August Karlstrom is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On 2012-01-04 21:49, bob wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:10 pm, wrote:
I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


Because there's no bias here. Every violin was tested in the same
environment. Hence, no bias. It would be impossible to test violins in
all environments, of course, but someone who wants to claim that a
different environment would produce a different result assumes the
burden of proof.


I think a general problem with blind tests in audio evaluation as they
are often being performed is that the conditions are typically regarded
as suboptimal according to the test subjects. It would be better if the
subjects - those who claim that they are able to hear a difference - got
to decide the exact conditions for the test as long as it will yield
unbiased and statistically valid results.


August



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

I know that they had different characters on that day, played by that
violinist. Other than that, I cannot say much more. there are so many
variables. I've heard that even changing a violin string set from cat-gut to
nylon or some other material will significantly alter the sound of a violin.
It makes sense, but I don't know it to be true.


Oh, it's absolutely true. Strings on any stringed instrument make a
huge difference.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:06:52 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

I know that they had different characters on that day, played by that
violinist. Other than that, I cannot say much more. there are so many
variables. I've heard that even changing a violin string set from cat-gut
to
nylon or some other material will significantly alter the sound of a
violin.
It makes sense, but I don't know it to be true.


Oh, it's absolutely true. Strings on any stringed instrument make a
huge difference.



Then it is entirely possible for these three: Stradivarious, Amati, Gurneri
to sound quite different from one another by virtue of the strings
themselves, and not just because of the usual "suspects" of wood type, glue,
varnish formulea, etc.
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:55:01 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article , bob
wrote:

On Jan 4, 1:10*pm, Jenn wrote:

A hotel room? *Not an appropriate place to test what it is that makes a
Strad a Strad: *subtle tonal differences in a performance hall, and the
projection power across all frequency ranges and timbres in such a hall.


This is not a fact; it's a claim. What's more, it's a claim for which
we have (surprise, surprise) no empirical evidence.


Feel free to ask some players who hear and play Strads.


Now, it might be the case that Strads sound better than modern violins
when pushed to their limits in a large hall. But I've never heard
anyone enthusing about the glorious sound of a Strad who noted, "Of
course, you can only really hear the difference in a large hall."


Large isn't the issue.

Which one would you rather take home? *This brings into question the
issue of playability, set up, strings, familiarity, etc.

Then there is the issue of which specific instruments are used. *Not all
Strads or Guarneris or Costcos are equal, obviously.

I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


Because there's no bias here. Every violin was tested in the same
environment. Hence, no bias. It would be impossible to test violins in
all environments, of course, but someone who wants to claim that a
different environment would produce a different result assumes the
burden of proof.


If one is testing the tonal qualities of a performance instrument, it
makes sense to perform the test in the environment where the instrument
is to be used. Otherwise, it's like testing the handling ability of an
automobile while the auto is in a garage in park. If one tests the very
thing that makes an instrument special in an environment that is built
to mask those very qualities, the test is biased.



I don't think that analogy works. A violin will sound like a violin in a
small space or a large one. Keep in mind that musicians in the 17th century
most often played in trios, quartets, quintets, etc. in people's homes. The
idea of the full symphony orchestra, in a large concert hall was a product of
the second half of the 18th century and found it's golden era in the 19th and
20th centuries. I don't think that these Cremonese violin makers ever
"voiced" their instruments in large halls. Most were built, tested and tuned
in the violin maker's shop.

These violins, violas, cellos, and bass viols were simply what these men did
for a living. I'm sure that none ever thought that these instruments would
some day be revered icons if the violin makers' art.

Also there is, apparently, a company near Boston which molds instruments in
the violin family from carbon fiber - no wood. Those who own and perform with
them report that they sound better (whatever they mean by that) and they play
louder than any classic instrument, including those from the Cremonese
masters. One concert cellist even went so far to say that he never performs
with his Amati anymore because the carbon fiber cello is immune to
temperature and humidity changes and he can ship it as luggage rather than
book a seat for it in first class like he had to do with his wooden
instruments. He said that it always sounds the same and requires no time to
"acclimatize" to it's new surroundings. In the interview I heard, he said
that he could play a concert in Calgary Canada in January one night, and then
throw the cello in the baggage compartment of a commercial jet, and play
another concert in Guatemala the next night with the cello suffering no ill
effects of either the temperature change from cold and dry to hot and humid,
or the flight in the belly of the airplane at 35,000 feet!
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

Then it is entirely possible for these three: Stradivarious, Amati, Gurneri
to sound quite different from one another by virtue of the strings
themselves, and not just because of the usual "suspects" of wood type, glue,
varnish formulea, etc.


Without a doubt. Substitute nylon strings for steel strings 4-6 on a
guitar and take a listen.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...=2&ref=science


As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who play
them that is also a test of that notion.


No, it's not.

A hotel room? Not an appropriate place to test what it is that makes a
Strad a Strad: subtle tonal differences in a performance hall, and the
projection power across all frequency ranges and timbres in such a hall.

Which one would you rather take home? This brings into question the
issue of playability, set up, strings, familiarity, etc.

Then there is the issue of which specific instruments are used. Not all
Strads or Guarneris or Costcos are equal, obviously.

I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


I've been lurking because I've had bigger fish to fry.

Jennifer, we've trained you well. ;-) You know that this evaluation lacks
sufficient controls!

This becomes an issue because of the claims that Science was being done. The
article says: "But Dr. Fritz said that to her knowledge, no one had
conducted a well-controlled study putting the same question to the real
experts: violinists."

The idea that instrumentalists are the real experts as to how their
instruments sound is bogus. In general instrumentalists have no really exact
idea about how their playing sounds to the audience because they can't be in
the audience and playing their instrument on stage at the same time. Good
instruments know how what they hear translates into what the audience hear,
but that is still very inexact as compared to what a person in the audience
actually hears. If I were going to pick sensitive listeners, I might get
some audiophiles and have them lectured by conductors, instrumentalists, and
instrument technicians, with demos.

There's also the issue of the differences in instrument timbre that suits a
large venue versus the timbre that suits a small one.

IME all other things being equal the larger and or the more reverberant the
hall, the less sensitive the evaluation. The hotel room evaluation will
probably focus more on small details and less on the big room picture. The
hotel room might be more like near field monitoring.

Technically speaking, the instrument and the instrumentalist are in a
feedback loop. The instrumentalist usually has in mind some sonic target,
and he alters how he plays the instrument to suit. If he isn't comfortable
with the instrument, odds are that his playing is going to be less than his
best.

As far as stringed instruments go, the type, quality and playing history of
the strings can be very significant. Students play strings until they break,
experts play them until they start sounding bad. Not all cats are the same
and not all cat gut is the same. Even nylon strings can differ among
themselves because they are commonly made from either clear or rectified
nylon.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 5, 5:07=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

...

In article ,


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...ween-old-and.=

...







As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearin=

g
subtle variations in sound. =A0Here is a test of violins and those who=

play
them that is also a test of that notion.

No, it's not.


A hotel room? =A0Not an appropriate place to test what it is that makes=

a
Strad a Strad: =A0subtle tonal differences in a performance hall, and t=

he
projection power across all frequency ranges and timbres in such a hall=

..

Which one would you rather take home? =A0This brings into question the
issue of playability, set up, strings, familiarity, etc.


Then there is the issue of which specific instruments are used. =A0Not =

all
Strads or Guarneris or Costcos are equal, obviously.


I'm surprised that those here who preach about biased tests in audio
aren't all over this.


I've been lurking because I've had bigger fish to fry.


I love stories about big fish. ;-)



Jennifer, we've trained you well. ;-) =A0 You know that this evaluation l=

acks
sufficient controls!


There certainly is a big problem with calling this a double blind
test.



This becomes an issue because of the claims that Science was being done. =

The
article says: "But Dr. Fritz said that to her knowledge, no one had
conducted a well-controlled study putting the same question to the real
experts: violinists."

The idea that instrumentalists are the real experts as to how their
instruments sound is bogus. In general instrumentalists have no really ex=

act
idea about how their playing sounds to the audience because they can't be=

in
the audience and playing their instrument on stage at the same time.


It is ironic that outside of some organists, musicians never actually
get to hear themselves live as do the audience. However there is far
more to the picture. Musicians are far more exposed to live music
played by other musicians than just about any other people on earth.
So they are, generally speaking, very familiar with the sound of live
instruments if not the sound of themselves playing their instrument
live. They do however listen to themselves played back quite a bit and
that is something they can compare to other musicians played back. All
in all there is a vast sphere of experience of listening that makes
the assertion that musicians are the best judge of the sound of
musical instruments very reasonable on it's face.


Good
instruments know how what they hear translates into what the audience hea=

r,
but that is still very inexact as compared to what a person in the audien=

ce
actually hears.


"Good instruments?" I'm sure you meant to say something different
here. But I'm not sure what it was.


If I were going to pick sensitive listeners, I might get
some audiophiles and have them lectured by conductors, instrumentalists, =

and
instrument technicians, with demos.


That does not sound like such a bad idea on it's face. One thing we
have to consider with musicians, particularly older ones is hearing
loss.



There's also the issue of the differences in instrument timbre that suits=

a
large venue versus the timbre that suits a small one.

IME all other things being equal the larger and or the more reverberant t=

he
hall, the less sensitive the evaluation.



I am concerned about the limitations of your experience with concert
halls. 1. Size per se is not a dominant issue except when we are
talking about the room simply being to small as is likely the case
with this experiment. Some larger halls are quite dead, to dead. there
is a set of objective measurements by which any venue can be judged
for it's acoustic excellence. In the most excellent halls the balance
between direct and reverberant sound is such that one can hear very
easily the nuance and subtlety of the performer and the instrument.


The hotel room evaluation will
probably focus more on small details and less on the big room picture. Th=

e
hotel room might be more like near field monitoring.


The analogy doesn't work. The hotel room severely limits the dynamics
of the performance. the room is to easily overloaded. This is a huge
problem, especially when comparing Strads with modern instruments. One
of the things Strads are most noted for is their ability to cut
through and be heard in concerto in a large concert hall. That just
isn't going to be put to the test in a hotel room playing solo. I am
surprised that they would go through so much trouble to test Strads
against modern instruments and make the mistake of using a hotel
room.


Technically speaking, the instrument and the instrumentalist are in a
feedback loop. The instrumentalist usually has in mind some sonic target,
and he alters how he plays the instrument to suit. If he isn't comfortabl=

e
with the instrument, odds are that his playing is going to be less than h=

is
best.



A very valid and important point. this was not a test of violin sounds
per se but a test of particular violins being played by particular
musicians under somewhat convoluted conditions in a hotel room. And
the musicians may or may not have been influenced by what they may or
may not have thought they were playing on. (this test simply was not
double blind and there is no way to account for what biases the
musicians brought to the performances) It is pretty hard to draw any
global conclusions based on this one test.



  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:43:50 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

It is ironic that outside of some organists, musicians never actually
get to hear themselves live as do the audience. However there is far
more to the picture. Musicians are far more exposed to live music
played by other musicians than just about any other people on earth.
So they are, generally speaking, very familiar with the sound of live
instruments if not the sound of themselves playing their instrument
live. They do however listen to themselves played back quite a bit and
that is something they can compare to other musicians played back. All
in all there is a vast sphere of experience of listening that makes
the assertion that musicians are the best judge of the sound of
musical instruments very reasonable on it's face.


While this is true, it has been my experience that most musicians don't
really care about sound quality, per se. Few actually have the kind of stereo
systems that laymen and audiophiles think that they would have. I've asked
many musicians of my acquaintance (I do a LOT of recording) why they are
satisfied with so-called rack systems, boom boxes, table radios etc. . The
answer has often been: "because I can hear what I'm listening for perfectly
adequately with what I've got." Or "I dunno, I guess I don't really care
about reproduced sound." I have found that strange, but most musicians don't
find it strange at all. But they have wondered why I would want to record
other musicians and why I obsess over the sound of my equipment. They don't
understand my point of view either, so I guess we're even.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 6, 5:49=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:43:50 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

It is ironic that outside of some organists, musicians never actually
get to hear themselves live as do the audience. However there is far
more to the picture. Musicians are far more exposed to live music
played by other musicians than just about any other people on earth.
So they are, generally speaking, very familiar with the sound of live
instruments if not the sound of themselves playing their instrument
live. They do however listen to themselves played back quite a bit and
that is something they can compare to other musicians played back. All
in all there is a vast sphere of experience of listening that makes
the assertion that musicians are the best judge of the sound of
musical instruments very reasonable on it's face.


While this is true, it has been my experience that most musicians don't
really care about sound quality, per se. Few actually have the kind of st=

ereo
systems that laymen and audiophiles think that they would have.



Yeah but this isn't about the sound quality of their stereo systems.
This is about the sound of musical instruments. I think musicians do
care about that. Actually I know a few myself that care quite a bit
about that.



  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:03:59 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 6, 5:49=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:43:50 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

It is ironic that outside of some organists, musicians never actually
get to hear themselves live as do the audience. However there is far
more to the picture. Musicians are far more exposed to live music
played by other musicians than just about any other people on earth.
So they are, generally speaking, very familiar with the sound of live
instruments if not the sound of themselves playing their instrument
live. They do however listen to themselves played back quite a bit and
that is something they can compare to other musicians played back. All
in all there is a vast sphere of experience of listening that makes
the assertion that musicians are the best judge of the sound of
musical instruments very reasonable on it's face.


While this is true, it has been my experience that most musicians don't
really care about sound quality, per se. Few actually have the kind of
stereo systems that laymen and audiophiles think that they would have.



Yeah but this isn't about the sound quality of their stereo systems.
This is about the sound of musical instruments. I think musicians do
care about that. Actually I know a few myself that care quite a bit
about that.


Well, of course they do, but my point is that this concern about the
sound quality of their instruments doesn't seem to require the kind of
reproduction quality that most of us would think would be required.
IOW, the things that tell them the "qualities " of the instrument
sound that they are interested in doesn't require much Fi. Case in
point: I used to record a symphony orchestra with a fairly well known
conductor. Since I was the "symphony archivist" it was part of my job
to provide 'study tapes' to the conductor. I figured that he would
have some megabuck system and that the study tapes I made for him
would be one-off 15 ips, half-track copies of the master. WRONG! He
only wanted cassettes. When I visited his home for a party one time, I
saw his "system". It was a boom box- and a fairly cheap and hideous
sounding one at that! "How can you hear what the orchestra is doing on
that?" I asked. His answer was that it was more than adequate for his
purposes. I guess my expectations had been formed by seeing "Once More
With Feeling" with Yul Brenner as egomaniacal conductor Victor Fabian
too many times. Now HE had a proper stereo system!

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

In article , Scott
wrote:

This is about the sound of musical instruments. I think musicians do
care about that. Actually I know a few myself that care quite a bit
about that.


Well, that has to be the largest understatement of the new year! ;-)
For virtually any serious musician, the sound is the biggest concern.
We obsess over it: the instrument (or voice) and all of its component
parts, the technique, the listening, the boring drills to center
everything, etc.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 7, 7:23=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:03:59 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Jan 6, 5:49=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:43:50 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):


It is ironic that outside of some organists, musicians never actually
get to hear themselves live as do the audience. However there is far
more to the picture. Musicians are far more exposed to live music
played by other musicians than just about any other people on earth.
So they are, generally speaking, very familiar with the sound of live
instruments if not the sound of themselves playing their instrument
live. They do however listen to themselves played back quite a bit an=

d
that is something they can compare to other musicians played back. Al=

l
in all there is a vast sphere of experience of listening that makes
the assertion that musicians are the best judge of the sound of
musical instruments very reasonable on it's face.


While this is true, it has been my experience that most musicians don'=

t
really care about sound quality, per se. Few actually have the kind of
stereo systems that laymen and audiophiles think that they would have.


Yeah but this isn't about the sound quality of their stereo systems.
This is about the sound of musical instruments. I think musicians do
care about that. Actually I know a few myself that care quite a bit
about that.


Well, of course they do, but my point is that this concern about the
sound quality of their instruments doesn't seem to require the kind of
reproduction quality that most of us would think would be required.


Of course it doesn't. Because there is no reproduction involved when
they play their own instruments.


IOW, the things that tell them the "qualities " of the instrument
sound that they are interested in doesn't require much Fi.



Of course not. They get that info first hand with the actual
instruments.


Case in
point: I used to record a symphony orchestra with a fairly well known
conductor. Since I was the "symphony archivist" it was part of my job
to provide 'study tapes' to the conductor. I figured that he would
have some megabuck system and that the study tapes I made for him
would be one-off 15 ips, half-track copies of the master. WRONG! He
only wanted cassettes. When I visited his home for a party one time, I
saw his "system". It was a boom box- and a fairly cheap and hideous
sounding one at that! "How can you hear what the orchestra is doing on
that?" I asked. His answer was that it was more than adequate for his
purposes.



I'm sure it is. I'm sure it's about performance and to a large degree
most musicians can get that info from pretty low fi play back. I doubt
he was using it to judge the sound quality of the violin section. he
already has that info from being there live.


I guess my expectations had been formed by seeing "Once More
With Feeling" with Yul Brenner as egomaniacal conductor Victor Fabian
too many times. Now HE had a proper stereo system!-



There are musicians in the real world that are also audiophiles. But
they don't go hand in hand. Either way we are not likely to find any
other group of people nearly as intimately familiar and intensely
concerned about the sound of musical instruments as they sound in live
concerts as musicians.

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dave C Dave C is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

snip


Well, of course they do, but my point is that this concern about the
sound quality of their instruments doesn't seem to require the kind of
reproduction quality that most of us would think would be required.
IOW, the things that tell them the "qualities " of the instrument
sound that they are interested in doesn't require much Fi. Case in
point: I used to record a symphony orchestra with a fairly well known
conductor. Since I was the "symphony archivist" it was part of my job
to provide 'study tapes' to the conductor. I figured that he would
have some megabuck system and that the study tapes I made for him
would be one-off 15 ips, half-track copies of the master. WRONG! He
only wanted cassettes. When I visited his home for a party one time, I
saw his "system". It was a boom box- and a fairly cheap and hideous
sounding one at that! "How can you hear what the orchestra is doing on
that?" I asked. His answer was that it was more than adequate for his
purposes. I guess my expectations had been formed by seeing "Once More
With Feeling" with Yul Brenner as egomaniacal conductor Victor Fabian
too many times. Now HE had a proper stereo system!


My view is that the difference between live performance in a great
environment, with genuinely talented musicians, is so far ahead of any
reproduction with all the compromises, engineering decisions and playback
room colourations, that a half decent boom box might well deliver the
"essence" of the performance. The actual performance delivers everything
else. If I were in the position of being able to experience live
performances of this calibre more than several times a year it is likely I
would be less obsessive with the exact positioning of the speakers and more
tolerant of all the "other" uses my listening room gets put to - oh
alright maybe not!

Dave
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 07:03:52 -0800, Dave C wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

snip


Well, of course they do, but my point is that this concern about the
sound quality of their instruments doesn't seem to require the kind of
reproduction quality that most of us would think would be required.
IOW, the things that tell them the "qualities " of the instrument
sound that they are interested in doesn't require much Fi. Case in
point: I used to record a symphony orchestra with a fairly well known
conductor. Since I was the "symphony archivist" it was part of my job
to provide 'study tapes' to the conductor. I figured that he would
have some megabuck system and that the study tapes I made for him
would be one-off 15 ips, half-track copies of the master. WRONG! He
only wanted cassettes. When I visited his home for a party one time, I
saw his "system". It was a boom box- and a fairly cheap and hideous
sounding one at that! "How can you hear what the orchestra is doing on
that?" I asked. His answer was that it was more than adequate for his
purposes. I guess my expectations had been formed by seeing "Once More
With Feeling" with Yul Brenner as egomaniacal conductor Victor Fabian
too many times. Now HE had a proper stereo system!


My view is that the difference between live performance in a great
environment, with genuinely talented musicians, is so far ahead of any
reproduction with all the compromises, engineering decisions and playback
room colourations, that a half decent boom box might well deliver the
"essence" of the performance. The actual performance delivers everything
else. If I were in the position of being able to experience live
performances of this calibre more than several times a year it is likely I
would be less obsessive with the exact positioning of the speakers and more
tolerant of all the "other" uses my listening room gets put to - oh
alright maybe not!

Dave


Well, that's certainly more than probable, but I feel that were I a conductor
who had created such great sound, that I would want to be reminded of it by
being able to re-experience at least some of that "magic" via a good
recording and great playback equipment.

The bottom line is of course, and what I came to realize (though not perhaps,
fully understand), is that he doesn't listen to the performance to hear sound
- at least not as we understand it. He listened to hear the ORCHESTRA. Were
the violins loud enough? Did the piccolo part come through? Did the principle
french horn botch that solo in the third movement? The violin soloist, for
instance listens not to the tone of his/her instrument - he/she needs but to
pick it up and bow it to hear that, He's/she's listening for their own bowing
technique, their own intonation and fingering as well as how they sound
playing in ensemble with the other violinists. They can hear those things on
a table radio. So anything better than that just doesn't impress or interest
them because it actually gives them no more USABLE information. It gives us
more information because a good system allows us to hear more SOUND. more of
the violin bow's resin, more bass from the contrabassoon, etc. Two different
things.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...=1&ref=science

This has much to teach audiophiles also. The same issues of the validity
of subjective experience and the power of factors not inherent in the
sound as it reaches the ear are very similar.

In the popular kinds of tales one sometimes encounters with subjective
lines of reasoning musicians are often said to be good sources for
listening tests.

As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who play
them that is also a test of that notion.


Another recent article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...-and-new-ones/

seems relevant:

"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and new
ones
Antique Italian violins, such as those crafted by Antonio Stradivari or
Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesu", can fetch millions of dollars. Many
violinists truly believe that these instruments are better than newly made
violins, and several scientists have tried to work out why. Some suspected
at the unusually dense wood, harvested from Alpine spruces that grew during
an Ice Age. Others pointed the finger at the varnish, or the chemicals that
Stradivari used to treat the wood.

"But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and Joseph
Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a
Stradivarius's sound: nothing at all.

"The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old ones by
Stradivari and Guarneri. They couldn't tell the difference between the two
groups. One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly preferred
instrument.

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 11, 12:58=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...etween-old-and...


This has much to teach audiophiles also. =A0The same issues of the vali=

dity
of subjective experience and the power of factors not inherent in the
sound as it reaches the ear are very similar.


In the popular kinds of tales one sometimes encounters with subjective
lines of reasoning musicians are often said to be good sources for
listening tests.


As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. =A0Here is a test of violins and those who =

play
them that is also a test of that notion.


Another recent article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no.../01/02/violini...

seems relevant:


It's an article on the same test and it's a really really bad article.
Down right irresponsible journalism. Just a few problems just on the
face of it. The headline
"Violinists can=92t tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and
new ones" Really? The test made no attempt to determine this at all.
And seriously, "new ones?" As if they randomly grabbed off the shelf
any new violin...Then there is my favorite quote. "They couldn=92t tell
the difference between the two groups. One of the new violins even
emerged as the most commonly preferred instrument." So they couldn't
tell the difference but liked one of the new ones better...wow.
Discover should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such drivel
int he guise of scientific journalism.




"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and ne=

w
ones


But prefer one of the new ones. LOL


Antique Italian violins, such as those crafted by Antonio Stradivari or
Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesu", can fetch millions of dollars. =A0Many
violinists truly believe that these instruments are better than newly mad=

e
violins, and several scientists have tried to work out why. Some suspecte=

d
at the unusually dense wood, harvested from Alpine spruces that grew duri=

ng
an Ice Age. Others pointed the finger at the varnish, or the chemicals th=

at
Stradivari used to treat the wood.

"But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and Jos=

eph
Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a
Stradivarius's sound: nothing at all.

"The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old ones =

by
Stradivari and Guarneri. They couldn't tell the difference between the tw=

o
groups. One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly preferre=

d
instrument.


Yep there it is. Couldn't tell the difference yet prefered one of the
unnamed new ones.

There_was_no_test_to_determine_if_the_violins_are_ indistinguishable.
It was a preference test and only a preference test.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Stephen McElroy Stephen McElroy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...old-and-new-vi
olins-stradivarius-lags.html?_r=1&ref=science


snip

As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who play
them that is also a test of that notion.


Another recent article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...olinists-can%E
2%80%99t-tell-the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones/

seems relevant:

"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and new
ones
Antique Italian violins, such as those crafted by Antonio Stradivari or
Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesu", can fetch millions of dollars. Many
violinists truly believe that these instruments are better than newly made
violins, and several scientists have tried to work out why. Some suspected
at the unusually dense wood, harvested from Alpine spruces that grew during
an Ice Age. Others pointed the finger at the varnish, or the chemicals that
Stradivari used to treat the wood.

"But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and Joseph
Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a
Stradivarius's sound: nothing at all.

"The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old ones by
Stradivari and Guarneri. They couldn't tell the difference between the two
groups. One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly preferred
instrument.


Why does a second article referring to the first seem relevant? There's
no new information.

Stephen
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:41:11 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 11, 12:58=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...etween-old-and...


This has much to teach audiophiles also. The same issues of the validity
of subjective experience and the power of factors not inherent in the
sound as it reaches the ear are very similar.


In the popular kinds of tales one sometimes encounters with subjective
lines of reasoning musicians are often said to be good sources for
listening tests.


As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for hearing
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who play
them that is also a test of that notion.


Another recent article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no.../01/02/violini...

seems relevant:


It's an article on the same test and it's a really really bad article.
Down right irresponsible journalism. Just a few problems just on the
face of it. The headline
"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and
new ones" Really? The test made no attempt to determine this at all.
And seriously, "new ones?" As if they randomly grabbed off the shelf
any new violin...Then there is my favorite quote. "They couldn't tell
the difference between the two groups. One of the new violins even
emerged as the most commonly preferred instrument." So they couldn't
tell the difference but liked one of the new ones better...wow.
Discover should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such drivel
int he guise of scientific journalism.




"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and new
ones


But prefer one of the new ones. LOL


Antique Italian violins, such as those crafted by Antonio Stradivari or
Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesu", can fetch millions of dollars. Many
violinists truly believe that these instruments are better than newly made
violins, and several scientists have tried to work out why. Some suspected
at the unusually dense wood, harvested from Alpine spruces that grew during
an Ice Age. Others pointed the finger at the varnish, or the chemicals that
Stradivari used to treat the wood.

"But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and Joseph
Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a
Stradivarius's sound: nothing at all.

"The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old ones by
Stradivari and Guarneri. They couldn't tell the difference between the two
groups. One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly preferred
instrument.


Yep there it is. Couldn't tell the difference yet prefered one of the
unnamed new ones.

There_was_no_test_to_determine_if_the_violins_are_ indistinguishable.
It was a preference test and only a preference test.


Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, but the article does not explain
it any way that it makes sense. That's the reason why the article represents
poor journalism.

The violins can sound alike and the violinist can still prefer one over the
other because sound isn't the only criteria. A violinist my prefer the way a
modern violin "fingers" over the classical Cremonese instruments. He might
prefer the way the modern violin bows, or how it feels tucked under his chin,
or the new one might stay in tune longer than the older instrument, etc. So
it is very possible that even though they could sound alike (although because
of differences in strings and such, I even doubt that) the violinist could
still have strong preferences for one over the other for reasons that have
nothing to do with sound. It's like an audiophile comparing two amps. They
might sound almost identical, but the choice comes down to the number of
inputs and outputs; how much control the remote gives the listener, the
presence or absence of tone controls, and so on. One might have meters and
the other not, and then there's price. None of these has anything whatsoever
to do with the audio performance of the amps in question, but they will
strongly affect which one the audiophile chooses.
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default In Play-Off Between Old and New Violins, Stradivarius Lags

On Jan 12, 4:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:41:11 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Jan 11, 12:58=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message


...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...ween-old-and.=

...

This has much to teach audiophiles also. The same issues of the valid=

ity
of subjective experience and the power of factors not inherent in the
sound as it reaches the ear are very similar.


In the popular kinds of tales one sometimes encounters with subjectiv=

e
lines of reasoning musicians are often said to be good sources for
listening tests.


As the stories go it is said they have acutely trained ears for heari=

ng
subtle variations in sound. Here is a test of violins and those who p=

lay
them that is also a test of that notion.


Another recent article:


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no.../02/violini..=

..

seems relevant:


It's an article on the same test and it's a really really bad article.
Down right irresponsible journalism. Just a few problems just on the
face of it. The headline
"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and
new ones" Really? The test made no attempt to determine this at all.
And seriously, "new ones?" As if they randomly grabbed off the shelf
any new violin...Then there is my favorite quote. "They couldn't tell
the difference between the two groups. One of the new violins even
emerged as the most commonly preferred instrument." So they couldn't
tell the difference but liked one of the new ones better...wow.
Discover should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such drivel
int he guise of scientific journalism.


"Violinists can't tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and=

new
ones


But prefer one of the new ones. LOL


Antique Italian violins, such as those crafted by Antonio Stradivari o=

r
Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesu", can fetch millions of dollars. Many
violinists truly believe that these instruments are better than newly =

made
violins, and several scientists have tried to work out why. Some suspe=

cted
at the unusually dense wood, harvested from Alpine spruces that grew d=

uring
an Ice Age. Others pointed the finger at the varnish, or the chemicals=

that
Stradivari used to treat the wood.


"But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and =

Joseph
Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a
Stradivarius's sound: nothing at all.


"The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old on=

es by
Stradivari and Guarneri. They couldn't tell the difference between the=

two
groups. One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly prefe=

rred
instrument.


Yep there it is. Couldn't tell the difference yet prefered one of the
unnamed new ones.


There_was_no_test_to_determine_if_the_violins_are_ indistinguishable.
It was a preference test and only a preference test.


Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, but the article does not expla=

in
it any way that it makes sense. That's the reason why the article represe=

nts
poor journalism.


They are fairly independent tests. One cannot conclude that there are
no *differences* even if the preferences are no better than random.
But in this case the real problem is the claim that there was a
preference and there was no percieved differences.



The violins can sound alike and the violinist can still prefer one over t=

he
other because sound isn't the only criteria. A violinist my prefer the wa=

y a
modern violin "fingers" over the classical Cremonese instruments. He migh=

t
prefer the way the modern violin bows, or how it feels tucked under his c=

hin,
or the new one might stay in tune longer than the older instrument, etc.


But in this case they were asked about the *sound* of the instruments
and rated them according to sound. So in general you are quite right.
But in this specific case....


So
it is very possible that even though they could sound alike (although bec=

ause
of differences in strings and such, I even doubt that) the violinist coul=

d
still have strong preferences for one over the other for reasons that hav=

e
nothing to do with sound.



But in this case they were judged and rated on sound and only sound.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bach, via Parisot, Stradivarius and a bunch of wires and stuff Watt? Me worry? Vacuum Tubes 1 April 17th 10 11:14 AM
Why so many violins in an orchestra? peter Pro Audio 55 June 13th 08 05:59 AM
CD won't play.....copy will........what's up with that? David Tech 12 January 6th 04 01:02 PM
Cool weather may be Stradivarius' secret Rob Adelman Pro Audio 7 December 21st 03 11:28 PM
why cds won't play in car RB General 11 December 3rd 03 12:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"