Interesting blind test
- Thread starter Naptown Rob
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
deeezy
Active Member
Definitely interesting. I think part of appeal of an antique violin is the history behind it. If the antiquity has an inspiring effect on the musician, than, in a sense, it makes the music sound better as the musician plays better. But that doesn't mean that it is a better instrument overall. Kind of like the fetishism of certain brands of turntable, tube amp, etc. I think sometimes the look of a piece of equipment, or the history behind it, or the role of that brand in the listeners childhood or whatever, makes it sound better to you (or me). Anyway, cool post, made me think.
Naptown Rob
Ponographer
Andor Toth was your uncle?
racca
Active Member
Here's the published article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.full?sid=454cb119-a53f-4dbe-9307-834c68884a89
The study itself seems to have been designed better than the terrible one conducted back in 2010, but I wonder if the experiment needs to be controlled for the type of violin the participant currently plays. For example, if you surveyed a group of violinists who all play instruments that are less than 10 years old, would the response be different than from a group of violinists who all play instruments that are 150+ years old?
My gut instinct, as a violinist with a French violin made in the late 1800s, is that it would be.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.full?sid=454cb119-a53f-4dbe-9307-834c68884a89
The study itself seems to have been designed better than the terrible one conducted back in 2010, but I wonder if the experiment needs to be controlled for the type of violin the participant currently plays. For example, if you surveyed a group of violinists who all play instruments that are less than 10 years old, would the response be different than from a group of violinists who all play instruments that are 150+ years old?
My gut instinct, as a violinist with a French violin made in the late 1800s, is that it would be.
This has been done more than once, always with the same results. Including full double-blind, where the violinist did not know what violin he'd been handed.
For decades scientists have been struggling, without success, to figure out why Strads sound better than contemporary violins. The reason they failed is because Strads don't sound better than the best contemporary instruments.
For decades scientists have been struggling, without success, to figure out why Strads sound better than contemporary violins. The reason they failed is because Strads don't sound better than the best contemporary instruments.
This.
racca
Active Member
I agree with this, but I would still like to see the control. The researchers noted that "subjects seemed not to distinguish between new violins and old but rather to choose instruments whose playing qualities best fit their individual tastes." I'm curious to know if a pattern develops when you account for the age of the participants' own instruments.
This is what's known as the "human" factor, and can never be eliminated.
In exactly the same way, every listener participating in a test of any audio equipment cannot eliminate his own experiences from what he's hearing, since those experiences are an inherent part of the listening process.
I dislike the article because of it's coloration. The use the word "cheaper" in an attempt to denigrate modern violins..
"Ten world-class soloists put costly Stradivarius violins and new, cheaper ones to a blind scientific test. "
"The newer violins were about 100 times cheaper"
No where do they mention the cost of the Stradivari in the Huffington article, but the research paper indicates "The combined value of the old violins is approximately $10 million—roughly 100 times that of the new violins." A bit of 3rd grade arithmetic reveals the 3 "cheap" violins average ballpark $30,000 each.
Sounds like they got some real junkers there....
Had they used a term like "less expensive", I would have found the article more acceptable, but "cheaper" is very subjective and nuanced negatively.
I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish, but if it was soiling their credentials, I think they are successful....
"Ten world-class soloists put costly Stradivarius violins and new, cheaper ones to a blind scientific test. "
"The newer violins were about 100 times cheaper"
No where do they mention the cost of the Stradivari in the Huffington article, but the research paper indicates "The combined value of the old violins is approximately $10 million—roughly 100 times that of the new violins." A bit of 3rd grade arithmetic reveals the 3 "cheap" violins average ballpark $30,000 each.
Sounds like they got some real junkers there....
Had they used a term like "less expensive", I would have found the article more acceptable, but "cheaper" is very subjective and nuanced negatively.
I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish, but if it was soiling their credentials, I think they are successful....
Yes, but he was just Uncle Andy to me and my siblings, He was married to my Moms Sister who was a graduate of Juilliard.
Yes, but he was just Uncle Andy to me and my siblings, He was married to my Moms Sister who was a graduate of Juilliard.
fips152
Well-Known Member
Usage of "cheap" and "cheaper"
It may simply be British English versus American English.
I dislike the article because of it's coloration. The use the word "cheaper" in an attempt to denigrate modern violins..
"Ten world-class soloists put costly Stradivarius violins and new, cheaper ones to a blind scientific test. "
"The newer violins were about 100 times cheaper"
No where do they mention the cost of the Stradivari in the Huffington article, but the research paper indicates "The combined value of the old violins is approximately $10 million—roughly 100 times that of the new violins." A bit of 3rd grade arithmetic reveals the 3 "cheap" violins average ballpark $30,000 each.
Sounds like they got some real junkers there....
Had they used a term like "less expensive", I would have found the article more acceptable, but "cheaper" is very subjective and nuanced negatively.
I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish, but if it was soiling their credentials, I think they are successful....
It may simply be British English versus American English.
Similar threads
- Locked
