TLDR: "Im an audiophool. I know whats great by the price stick^^^I could totally pick Strad blindfolded, I just didnt feel like it that day."
read again.
What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
11–20 of 94 posts
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#12The objective of this tests seems to be more to prove a point than to be fair, I'm not surprised. And the test looks like it's blind, but not double blind. It seems all rigour goes out of the window in order for the researchers to prove their point And of course taste is subjective, but a misadjusted violin will not sound great even if it's a good violin. (Same with a bad violin, modern or old) > "professional violin…
I'm not convinced there is much interference from the conductors to warrant a double-blind study. Either way, I believe the original paper never claimed that "professional violinists can't tell the difference", that's the media twist. It proved beyond reasonable doubt that professional musicians do not prefer the antique models based on any objective qualities.
I wouldn't even say the study proved that point. The fact that the older fiddles couldn't be adjusted for sound optimizations while the new ones could makes a huge impact on the study - it invariably unlevels the playing field.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#13tl;dr: Study seeks to determine if Old Master violins actually sound "better", media reports misleading headlines (shocker), musicians are angryface.
I remember when this study was first concluded and reported on. The CBC had a woman who participated in the study (maybe this very woman) on the program and it was so extremely obvious that her professional pride was wounded, and she really wanted to make herself feel better by telling the world that she really could pick out the Stradivarius.
I have no reason to doubt her; she's a professional violinist.
But it seems to me that the study was actually very effective at showing that masterwork violins do not necessarily sound better than modern violins, contrary to the regurgitated opinions of hundreds of thousands of novice violinists out there.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article explained how the long-term relationship with an older violin, which is more 'broken in' but temperamental day-to-day, might be different than with a modern violin, which is more 'dependable' day-to-day but can experience significant shifts in tone as it ages.
Wood also seems to change depending upon how it is used. Conventional wisdom is that a guitar gets "used to" how it is being played. I do like the comments about finding the unique characteristics because every instrument has a personality. Conventional wisdom in classical guitars ALSO says the guitars have a lifetime. The wood is tight, then it opens up, and then it breaks down gradually over time--roughly 15-20 yea…
I forget the guitarists name, but as a joke his band mates
went to a pawn shop and bought him a used guitar. That gig
he played so well it became a tradition. Every new gig he
demanded a used guitar. The name will come to me. I do know there are a few horrid guitars out there though--the
one at costco--the Yamaha, I can't keep it from buzzing though.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#15Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced there is much interference from the conductors to warrant a double-blind study. Either way, I believe the original paper never claimed that "professional violinists can't tell the difference", that's the media twist. It proved beyond reasonable doubt that professional musicians do not prefer the antique models based on any objective qualities.
I wouldn't even say the study proved that point. The fact that the older fiddles couldn't be adjusted for sound optimizations while the new ones could makes a huge impact on the study - it invariably unlevels the playing field.
Normals don't understand the difference an adjustment can make. You can tap the sound post half a millimeter and feel like you're playing on a completely different instrument.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced there is much interference from the conductors to warrant a double-blind study. Either way, I believe the original paper never claimed that "professional violinists can't tell the difference", that's the media twist. It proved beyond reasonable doubt that professional musicians do not prefer the antique models based on any objective qualities.
I wouldn't even say the study proved that point. The fact that the older fiddles couldn't be adjusted for sound optimizations while the new ones could makes a huge impact on the study - it invariably unlevels the playing field.
I believe rare instruments like those are always kept in pristine conditions, and nowhere it is mentioned that the new ones had adjustments done, you can assume they all were received in 'normal playing condition' from their owners.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#18tl;dr: Study seeks to determine if Old Master violins actually sound "better", media reports misleading headlines (shocker), musicians are angryface. I remember when this study was first concluded and reported on. The CBC had a woman who participated in the study (maybe this very woman) on the program and it was so extremely obvious that her professional pride was wounded, and she really wanted to make herself feel b…
'I have no reason to doubt her; she's a professional violinist.'
You know that claiming to be a professional violinist is an appeal to authority rather than a logical argument, right?
That said the study does seem to be massively misreported.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#19tl;dr: Study seeks to determine if Old Master violins actually sound "better", media reports misleading headlines (shocker), musicians are angryface. I remember when this study was first concluded and reported on. The CBC had a woman who participated in the study (maybe this very woman) on the program and it was so extremely obvious that her professional pride was wounded, and she really wanted to make herself feel b…
'I have no reason to doubt her; she's a professional violinist.' You know that claiming to be a professional violinist is an appeal to authority rather than a logical argument, right? That said the study does seem to be massively misreported.
It may not logically follow, but in the real world it is not a strange thing to trust an actual expert on these topics over, say, a writer at the Daily Mail. Why object?
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
read again.
He did a rather poor job of expressing himself in a sensible manner but I must admit I had the same takeaway from the article.
pick best does not mean pick oldest, news articles said study was identification, study subject says study was preference, study says study was preference. How you could possible reach the grand parents takeaway is seriously concerning.
explain.