This seems so appropriate...
- Thread starter Andyman
- Start date
That's exactly what I was thinking. One minute, MP3's, no matter if they're 320k suck beyond belief, the next minute, some cheesy, probably way less than 128k is plenty enough to hear the very possible minute differences in violins.
I don't get the inconsistencies.
KeninDC
Hazy Cosmic Jive
For me, it says the MP3 fidelity of the sound samples in question is "good enough" to tell the difference between two different violins. No more than that.
I'm listening on a Dell laptop w/ no external speakers. To my ears, there is an obvious difference between the two samples.
I found sample one to be a tad "squeaky" on the highs.
I reckon the difference between the two violins would be even more pronounced as a .wav file and as played on my main system. If one is happy with "good enough" MP3 files on computer speakers, I'm cool with that. I don't see any inconsistencies with hearing the difference between two crappy MP3 files on laptop speakers and also being able to hear the difference between two amps or two different sets of speakers. In fact, being able to discern differences with crappy fidelity might mean that these differences are more pronounced with high fidelity.
Last edited:
JonL
Lunatic Member
I was "talking" with a friend on Facebook about this last night. He felt that the test showed that a Strad's simply not worth millions when a violin that's "only" $150k sounds as good or better. This is what I responded with:
"I only half agree. I know that whenever I pick up a different guitar, it always feels great - as long as it is a basically playable instrument. Play it for a few days, and the impression may well change. Granted, I'm not a concert violinist, but I think that the very personal and subjective opinions one forms about musical instruments (or stereo speakers, or art, or flavors, etc...) take some time to crystalize. First impressions often miss the nuances and are overwhelmed by the bigger differences that may seem great at first but which may not hold up over time."
Also, much -- most -- of the value of a Stradivarius is because of its scarcity and irreplaceable nature. It may still be the standard against which all others are judged, but it's not inconceivable that modern builders could make a better sounding instrument, even if the conventional wisdom still holds that a Strad is best.
This occurred to me recently when I bought a 15 year old Strat (not Strad) to gig with instead of my '59/'61 vintage Strat that I've owned since 1974. OK, a Fender's not a fine violin, but still... the $650 bone stock '95 American Standard Strat is a superior instrument to my beloved $15,000+ vintage Strat. The new guitar plays better and sounds better. And why shouldn't it? Fender had 35 years to figure out how to improve the guitars and make them more consistent. High-end violin makers have had hundreds of years to improve their craft.
I don't think blind tests are particularly useful at evaluating preferences amongst highly subjective things.
"I only half agree. I know that whenever I pick up a different guitar, it always feels great - as long as it is a basically playable instrument. Play it for a few days, and the impression may well change. Granted, I'm not a concert violinist, but I think that the very personal and subjective opinions one forms about musical instruments (or stereo speakers, or art, or flavors, etc...) take some time to crystalize. First impressions often miss the nuances and are overwhelmed by the bigger differences that may seem great at first but which may not hold up over time."
Also, much -- most -- of the value of a Stradivarius is because of its scarcity and irreplaceable nature. It may still be the standard against which all others are judged, but it's not inconceivable that modern builders could make a better sounding instrument, even if the conventional wisdom still holds that a Strad is best.
This occurred to me recently when I bought a 15 year old Strat (not Strad) to gig with instead of my '59/'61 vintage Strat that I've owned since 1974. OK, a Fender's not a fine violin, but still... the $650 bone stock '95 American Standard Strat is a superior instrument to my beloved $15,000+ vintage Strat. The new guitar plays better and sounds better. And why shouldn't it? Fender had 35 years to figure out how to improve the guitars and make them more consistent. High-end violin makers have had hundreds of years to improve their craft.
I don't think blind tests are particularly useful at evaluating preferences amongst highly subjective things.
Jon_Logan
Addicted Member
Why should the scarcity or "value" of the instrument be considered when the test is about sound?
shelly_d
Not An Audiophool
I listened and I thought I could tell that they sounded different. My wife also could tell that they sounded different. We both agreed that the first clip, the modern one, sounded a bit fuller in the lower notes and we both liked it better. Just proved that we are beer drinkers I guess.:beer:
I thought they sounded a little different too, having just heard it at home, but the question was which was which, and I have a lot more doubts that most could pick which one was which instrument, which of course is much different than asking if they sound the same.
JazzVinyl
Super Member
This is interesting!
I guessed the Strad correctly, thought it sounded 'more mellow'. But I did like the sound of the modern instrument, too.
I heard another NPR article the other day where this violin maker in the NE, had given a Strad a complete set of CAT scans and was using the data regarding the exact density and thickness of the wood pieces used to build it, in efforts to build "modern Strads" with the legacy sound.
Funny, I just heard this the other day, but the web article is dated 2008:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96708334
.
I guessed the Strad correctly, thought it sounded 'more mellow'. But I did like the sound of the modern instrument, too.
I heard another NPR article the other day where this violin maker in the NE, had given a Strad a complete set of CAT scans and was using the data regarding the exact density and thickness of the wood pieces used to build it, in efforts to build "modern Strads" with the legacy sound.
Funny, I just heard this the other day, but the web article is dated 2008:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96708334
.
The actual study and article notwithstanding, it seems silly to be evaluating these instrument examples based on digital computer sound file, especially when played through typical computer equipment. Put me in the room with the violinists and I'll play along. Besides, I assume a hotel room could be a limiting factor. I wonder how different those same instruments might have sounded on a concert stage.
cubby01
aka Buck
I believe those that posted they knew which one was the Strad based on these files are either BSing or deluding themselves. Anyone basically had a 50/50 chance. Get it right and it's fodder for ... whatever. A better test for this crew would be a sequence of test - like 10 iterations of different samples. Doesn't even have to be 100% hits - get better than 60% and I'll believe it.
onepixel
.
Last edited:
JonL
Lunatic Member
In the context of my post, it was because my FB friend was saying the blind test showed that the Strad wasn't worth millions compared to a $150k modern violin.
x_25
Big Vandies!! Mwahahah...
I have no idea what a strad sounds like, so giving me those files and asking which was pointless. I liked the first one better *shrugs*.
Also, how a violin sounds in a recording has a lot to do with the microphone, mic placement, player, how the player plays it and so on and so forth.
The question is what rank did the other violin's come from. Are they the cream of the crop modern ones? If so, for what those cost, they damn well better sound nearly as good or better than than strad. I wonder if they tossed a brand new typical student violin in the mix.
I know my mothers violin sounds different than most I have heard (mostly lower priced student ones), don't know why but it definitely has a more mellow and less shrill sound. Weather or not that is due to age (best guess is around 160 years old), construction or the fact it is about ready to fall apart, I don't know.
Also, how a violin sounds in a recording has a lot to do with the microphone, mic placement, player, how the player plays it and so on and so forth.
The question is what rank did the other violin's come from. Are they the cream of the crop modern ones? If so, for what those cost, they damn well better sound nearly as good or better than than strad. I wonder if they tossed a brand new typical student violin in the mix.
I know my mothers violin sounds different than most I have heard (mostly lower priced student ones), don't know why but it definitely has a more mellow and less shrill sound. Weather or not that is due to age (best guess is around 160 years old), construction or the fact it is about ready to fall apart, I don't know.
I don't care what anybody else wants to take away from a blind test, I think they're completely pointless in these types of settings. Can somebody show me one blind test of anything in a similar context where the result wasn't statistically 'no difference'?
Our senses don't work in a vacuum. We perceive things partially by knowing what we are about to perceive (like the white/red wine comment above). If you know for sure that is not the case, than by all means, have at it. They rarely seem to be used to learn anything, anyway. They're almost always touted as a way to reinforce a bias against one thing being better than another. But in the real world, some things are better than other things.
During one of these discussions a year or two ago, I posted a link I found that was about the hundred year scientific study to nail down why Strads and Guarneris sounded the way they did. You've probably read most of it...spectrographic analysis of microscopic varnish scrapings, detailed microscopic examination of wood fibers, etc., etc.. Nothing definite has ever been established, but most researchers have their own personal opinions: "It must be this and not that..."
The author of the article posed another theory, one that he is by no means the only violin authority to share. His proposal was that the reason nobody has been able to prove why the Strads sound better is because they don't. They don't sound any different than any quality violin, new or old. People in the music world just assume they must sound so much better, otherwise why would anybody pay $2 million for a violin that sounds the same as one that costs $2,000?
Of course, the folks that have paid millions for one say they sound better. Why wouldn't they? To say otherwise would devalue their purchase and their investment by 99%.
It was a very interesting article.
The author of the article posed another theory, one that he is by no means the only violin authority to share. His proposal was that the reason nobody has been able to prove why the Strads sound better is because they don't. They don't sound any different than any quality violin, new or old. People in the music world just assume they must sound so much better, otherwise why would anybody pay $2 million for a violin that sounds the same as one that costs $2,000?
Of course, the folks that have paid millions for one say they sound better. Why wouldn't they? To say otherwise would devalue their purchase and their investment by 99%.
It was a very interesting article.
goldear
Certifiable Audio Junkie
Baloney. That first violin was strident as all hell over my headphones, bordering on painful. The second was mellow and smooth. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out which one was the Stradivarius. Just listen through something better than a crappy pair of computer speakers.
With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, the experienced, professional violinists who participated in the test, the violinists who couldn't tell the difference, were not listening through a crappy pair of computer speakers.
Similar threads
