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

81–90 of 94 posts

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

#81

Post by noonespecial »

abalone wrote: post #78
noonespecial wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

I don't know about a pop and scratch filter but I like some of the recordings of my old records I've captured more than the clean digital versions available now. I don't want random pops and scratches, I think maybe I want my pops and scratches.

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

#82

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

Centigonal wrote: post #8
herge wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Have you seen http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ ? I think you might get a kick out of it.

They've said coffee causes cancer which is worrying.

To counter this I drink coffee in a 1:1 ration which they say cures cancer so I reckon I'm good.

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

#83

Post by phaemon »

mason240 wrote: post #59
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…

Daily Mail, Phys.org, and NPR all mess up, DM get singled out.

I know. It's very easy to mock the Daily Mail...so that's what we should do.

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

#84

Post by pmr_ »

na85 wrote: post #13

tl;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 found this article [1] from another participant in the study a much better read. He also is a violin maker which could explain why he is happy with the results, but he isn't trying to justify any of the results. His closing words say exactly the same as the linked article, but in a very sober fashion.

[1]: http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2012/01/exclusive-how...

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

#85

Post by khafra »

abalone wrote: post #29

Wait a minute. She claims: "Now a lot of you found it easy to pick the Strad... But it wasn't actually our task to pick the Italian in this study -- it was to pick our preference." But NPR directly quotes the guy who ran the study: "JOYCE: Curtin says of the 17 players who were asked to choose which were the old Italians... CURTIN: Seven said they couldn't. Seven got it wrong, and only three got it right." [1] Maybe…

Maybe the instructions to the participants were so unclear that they didn't know whether they were supposed to be picking the strad, or their favorite.

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

#86

Post by DrStalker »

russelluresti wrote: post #12
ricardobeat wrote: post #7

Earlier 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'd say they proved conclusively a modern violin you can adjust is preferred over an old violin you can't adjust, and pragmatically that's the only meaningful test since since there doesn't seem to be such a thing as an older violin you are allowed to adjust freely.

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

#87

Post by avaku »

golergka wrote: post #69
Centigonal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ ? I think you might get a kick out of it.

It is awesome. At least they don't claim that vaccines are causing cancer.

Some other people do!

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

#88

Post by praptak »

72deluxe wrote: post #80
praptak wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

Well, uh, it seems much more complicated than I remembered: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound#Harmonic_content_a...

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

#90

Post by abalone »

Fishkins wrote: post #66
jeroen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abstract [1] says: "We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences were …" It then goes on about preferences and says nothing about identifying them. So it's the abstract of the study, written (I assume) by the researchers, and one of the participants vs a journalist "quoting" one of the researchers. [1] http:/…

The abstract you linked does say something about identifying them: "most players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old." And in the full text of the study: "Asked about the making-school of their take-home instruments, 17 subjects responded: 7 said they had no idea, 7 guessed wrongly (i.e., that a new violin was old or vice-versa), and just 3 guessed correctly" edit: the link to…

Yup. Maybe what happened is, since only 17 of 21 responded to that question, perhaps she was one of the 4 that didn't.

It is a pretty damning study: Few could identify the old, expensive violins AND most preferred newer, cheaper violins. It means that the tradition of loaning Strats to top violinists may actually make for (slightly) worse performances.

I love blind studies.

Post reply on HN