Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bach, via Parisot, Stradivarius and a bunch of wires and stuff | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Why so many violins in an orchestra? | Pro Audio | |||
CD won't play.....copy will........what's up with that? | Tech | |||
Cool weather may be Stradivarius' secret | Pro Audio | |||
why cds won't play in car | General |