Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

violinist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#71

Post by fleitz »

na85 wrote: post #41
fleitz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

>You know that claiming to be a professional violinist is an appeal to authority rather than a logical argument, right? Am I on reddit or something? You know that starting a statement with "you know that..." sounds pretentious as fuck, right?

Yes, I did know that.

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#72

Post by xerophtye »

rasz_pl wrote: post #36
GhotiFish wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

read again.

What for? Author owns old violin, author does the test, author picks modern violin over $10 million ones, author tries to defend herself post facto (bad test, not tuned, blabla), then some audiobabble (sweet sound, personality, other nonsense).

I think the whole problem lies in the underlying assumption that older, more expensive violins sound ABSOLUTELY better. The author does not support this claim, and the study also demonstrated otherwise. The author, and apparently the study as well, both are in agreement that it is all about personal preference.

In fact, the author admits that she preferred some of the newer violins to the older ones and with that "audiobabble" she says they SOUNDED better. So when how can you blame her to "choose violins on price stick" and then also call her ignorant when she prefers some other violin "over the $10 million ones" ??

The author concludes that the reason older violins are so valuable isn't just because they have some magical qualities that make them sound better, or they are very obviously more amazing than newer ones, she says that older violins have this history attached to them. This imagined beauty to them because of the legends attached to them.

Oh and that "not-tuned" "older-strings" stuff was there to imply that an old violin, is an OLD violin. A newer violin will have an advantage due to the new parts, the new strings. But apparently nothing is absolute. A new violin isn't always better than an older one (hence her preference for her 200-yr-old one at home). Heck, she even said how she has heard different complains about newer and older violins. So how in the world was your take "i am an auidophool, i choose based on price stick" ?!?!? She EXPLAINED how things are completely independent of age or price.

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#73

Post by praptak »

zw123456 wrote: post #52

This reminds me very much of some studies where audiophiles did double blind tests of various solid state amps against tube amps. Some audiophiles say that the tube amps sound "warmer", maybe they like 60hz hum. Whatever. Tube amps look cool and that is what is really important to them I think much in the same way that it is a huge status symbol to have an old violin. Same thing I think. Not that there is anything wr…

The "warmer" effect is not the hum. I have read it's how the amps process harmonics (odd ones vs even ones) and that this effect is actually measurable through testing equipment.

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#74

Post by na85 »

fleitz wrote: post #71
na85 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You know that claiming to be a professional violinist is an appeal to authority rather than a logical argument, right? Am I on reddit or something? You know that starting a statement with "you know that..." sounds pretentious as fuck, right?

Yes, I did know that.

So you don't think that I, a lousy trumpet player who hasn't picked up an instrument in almost a decade, have reason to give a professional violinist the benefit of the doubt when she said she could pick out the Stradivarius?

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#75

Post by masklinn »

devindotcom wrote: post #24

This post was regarding a test conducted in 2012. I'm not saying it isn't relevant or that the reporting around the new one is good, but the study she was a part of is a different one from the study making the rounds today: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1323367111.abst...

Yep, the one she was part of was basically a "pre-run", which allowed the run of a new, better and extended study.

Here's Ed Yong's reporting on the new one, gives most of the meat and introduces the old one (and criticisms to it): http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/07/stradivar...

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#76

Post by saurik »

Fishkins wrote: post #68
parfe wrote: post #2

From the study's abstract: Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins. Another case of science reporting failing miserably at understanding and conveying the results of studies. The three articles all come up short at even reading the abstract: Daily Mail "Concer…

I wouldn't call it "failing miserably." Although it doesn't appear to have been the main focus of the study, the antepenultimate paragraph of the results section does say most violinists couldn't identify whether their violin was new or old (3 got it right, 7 got it wrong, 7 said they didn't know) [0]. There aren't p-values provided for that result, though. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.full edit: Also, you c…

There is a fundamental difference between being unable to tell the difference between two things, and having a difference of opinion on which is better; the article titles seem to claim the former, while the paper's abstract only states the latter.

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#77

Post by brianmcc »

herge wrote: post #3
parfe wrote: post #2

From the study's abstract: Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins. Another case of science reporting failing miserably at understanding and conveying the results of studies. The three articles all come up short at even reading the abstract: Daily Mail "Concer…

It's the Daily Mail; we should be just happy they aren't claiming playing a Stradivarius causes cancer.

perhaps it's on the "cures" side...

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#78

Post by abalone »

noonespecial wrote: post #42
abalone wrote: post #32

I would love to see a study like this done with vinyl vs. digital. 1. Put some vinyl-loving DJs in a hotel room. 2. To factor out identifying pops & scratches, pre-record a vinyl song onto digital. Record it several times and use each digital recording only once. 3. Cover their eyes and randomly switch between vinyl & digital. See if they can tell the difference.

To factor out identifying pops & scratches, pre-record a vinyl song onto digital... This would simply be a digital reproduction of a vinyl recording. (Something I quite like BTW). Vinyl is a "thing" because the process plays a part in creating that sound people love and not just reproducing it.

Which is fine, but that nobody admits to that. How many vinyl enthusiasts would be just as ok consciously listening to a digital creation of the pop and scratch filter they enjoy? PVC is as awful, environmentally bad material and heavy to lug around. Why wouldn't DJs rip their vinyl to digital or just apply a filter to digital sources?

Most enthusiasts believe vinyl is actually better (quite adamantly) and that's what this experiment would test.

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#79

Post by 72deluxe »

antihero wrote: post #39
abalone wrote: post #32

I would love to see a study like this done with vinyl vs. digital. 1. Put some vinyl-loving DJs in a hotel room. 2. To factor out identifying pops & scratches, pre-record a vinyl song onto digital. Record it several times and use each digital recording only once. 3. Cover their eyes and randomly switch between vinyl & digital. See if they can tell the difference.

I think your test actually factors in one of the reasons people like vinyl - it's not that the sound is necessarily better , but with analogue, there's a uniqueness factor because it's a physical needle hitting a physical groove.

And the fact that there aren't small samples of audio being played back at high frequency that rely on the quality of the digital to analogue converters, as well as the other systems in line such as the type of amplifier (class A, A/B, D), the circuitry it goes through (is it solid state or is there a valve somewhere in there?) as well as the speakers used (are they balanced and not too bass/treble heavy and do they reproduce the sound in a consistent way taking into consideration speaker box resonances, room set up and proximity effects next to walls and reflections, and can they reproduce proper bass note fundamentals or are they only producing harmonics of the fundamental?).

There is a lot to compare really. But most people think entirely vinyl vs MP3s (!) where MP3s have parts of the audio spectrum cut out in order to facilitate better compression; they typically cut out very high peaks and basses, but you need those high peaks and transients to reproduce snare drum cracks and cymbals (eg. listen to a 128kbps MP3 and see how RUBBISH the cymbals sound).

Even if you are feeding digital audio into a system, the speakers and room set up makes a COLOSSAL difference so it isn't fair for people to dismiss "analogue" vs "digital" arguments; it should be "good sound system" vs "bad sound system" arguments.

Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test

#80

Post by 72deluxe »

praptak wrote: post #73
zw123456 wrote: post #52

This reminds me very much of some studies where audiophiles did double blind tests of various solid state amps against tube amps. Some audiophiles say that the tube amps sound "warmer", maybe they like 60hz hum. Whatever. Tube amps look cool and that is what is really important to them I think much in the same way that it is a huge status symbol to have an old violin. Same thing I think. Not that there is anything wr…

The "warmer" effect is not the hum. I have read it's how the amps process harmonics (odd ones vs even ones) and that this effect is actually measurable through testing equipment.

It's the fifth harmonic isn't it? I would disagree with zw123456's "whatever" with regard to analogue systems.

(It isn't just the look of valves - they keep your room warm too!)

Post reply on HN