This seems so appropriate...

[JonL]

I think it's an interesting exercise to see if a lay person could tell a difference between the two clips, but to identify one or the other as a Stradavarius requires specialized knowledge of what a Stradavarius sounds like. We may all have our preferences as to which violin sounds best to us, but which one of us knows violins well enough to say that our preference happens to align with what a Stradavarius sounds like?

It would be like asking most of you to identify the Steinway vs. the Baldwin, or the Martin vs. the Gibson. They'll all sound different, and to the cognoscenti there may be one that's accepted as superior... but the lay person may simply like the "inferior" one better.

 

[89grand]

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.

My Boston A-150's didn't reveal which was which either, just simply that there was a difference between the two.

 

[shelly_d]

My Boston A-150's didn't reveal which was which either, just simply that there was a difference between the two.

As no speaker would. All a speaker could do, even good ones, is accurately reproduce the music. The clips were sufficiently good to be able to reveal differences. (I run my computer through my living room audio system so once it passes out of the PC the rest of the system is as good as I've got.) IT would take a very well trained ear to know that the differences pointed to the Stradivarius being clip 2.

BTW: Neither my wife nor I heard the stridency that goldear reports. That's not to say it's not there, not to say my system didn't reproduce it, just that neither my wife nor I could hear or identify it. A matter of experience and training.

Shelly_D

 

[89grand]

As no speaker would. All a speaker could do, even good ones, is accurately reproduce the music. The clips were sufficiently good to be able to reveal differences. (I run my computer through my living room audio system so once it passes out of the PC the rest of the system is as good as I've got.) IT would take a very well trained ear to know that the differences pointed to the Stradivarius being clip 2.

BTW: Neither my wife nor I heard the stridency that goldear reports. That's not to say it's not there, not to say my system didn't reproduce it, just that neither my wife nor I could hear or identify it. A matter of experience and training.

Shelly_D

Oh I know. I was just responding to the poster that said everyone that couldn't hear it was listening to **** speakers.

 

[stereofanboy]

So you can take this as the Strad sounds just like any other violin, or that blind tests are biased towards a null result.

If those professional violinists owned a Stradivarius violin themselves, they might be more apt to pick it out, no?

What is meant by "blind tests are biased towards a null result"? I've read this before and never really understood what is meant.

Are you intimating that people must be able to see in order to hear?

I would gladly participate in a blind trumpet/trombone listening test and not turn in a null result.

 

[JohnVF]

What is meant by "blind tests are biased towards a null result"? I've read this before and never really understood what is meant.

Are you intimating that people must be able to see in order to hear?

I would gladly participate in a blind trumpet/trombone listening test and not turn in a null result.

I'm repeating something that was brought up in another of these ABX discussions- that blind tests seemed to be biased towards a null result. I agree with that. It seems pretty straightforward, but certainly you're free to disagree with that notion. I'm not saying anybody needs to see to hear, but that something in the test- the situation, the context, the lack of familiarity with what is being tested, any number of things- seems to weigh things in one direction.

 

[Dmannnnn]

It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out which one was the Stradivarius.

No. Just someone who is intimately familiar with the sound of a strad compared to other multi-thousand dollar violins.

Or it could just be a guess.

 

[shelly_d]

I'm repeating something that was brought up in another of these ABX discussions- that blind tests seemed to be biased towards a null result. I agree with that. It seems pretty straightforward, but certainly you're free to disagree with that notion. I'm not saying anybody needs to see to hear, but that something in the test- the situation, the context, the lack of familiarity with what is being tested, any number of things- seems to weigh things in one direction.

Not all blind tests are created equal. A properly constructed and administered blind test, with a large sample of participants and a sufficiently large number of testing samples will give valid results. Unfortunately, an improperly conducted test will, I believe (I have no supporting evidence to back this claim up) bias toward a null or no significant output result. The fact that it's blind lends it credence, but if it is statistically flawed, or if not properly set up, it will not be an accurate or valid test. Not being in the test business, I have no way to evaluate this one as to set up, sample size, the number of subjects or the administration. It is clear to me that to be a valid set of tests, the participants would need to be familiar with the music played and the sound of many varied instruments, including the Stradivarius.

Shelly_D

 

[DougMac]

A Correction

It's all in your head, Doug. There's no such thing as getting really used to something, intimately familiar with it (like somebody with their own stereo making changes) and then being able to pick out a difference that other's, who aren't as familiar with what is being tested (like listeners to different gear in blind testing), might not be hearing.

Smarty pants! Point taken.

I want to amend my answer. I shouldn't have said I could pick out the Strad, I should have said I could pick out the better sounding violin.

There have been some other interesting observations. Listening to a recorded test is not the same as being in the room with the instruments. There's no way to compare the different tests.

Also, listening to a violin in a small room like a practice room and a motel room is completely different from hearing it and a performance space. I think, though, that a small, "dead" room is more likely to expose differences. There's no room sweetening to smooth over defeciencies. Really good instruments seem to overcome their environment. That's been my experience.

Finally, there's a variable in the test that's problematic. I wonder if all the test instruments were strung with the same brand of strings. Eudoxas sound very different from Thomastik Dominants. Using the exact same strings would remove a variable, but would probably put one instrument at a disadvantage. One reason there are different brands and types of strings is that some violins sound better with a specific string, where another will sound worse with the same strings.

 

[Fisherdude]

...Finally, there's a variable in the test that's problematic. I wonder if all the test instruments were strung with the same brand of strings. Eudoxas sound very different from Thomastik Dominants. Using the exact same strings would remove a variable, but would probably put one instrument at a disadvantage. One reason there are different brands and types of strings is that some violins sound better with a specific string, where another will sound worse with the same strings.

Interesting!

So it's possible for a Strad to sound better than everything else if it has that brand of strings best matched to it, but sound not as good as lesser violins with different strings!

I hereby dub this phenomena "synergy".

 

[kirk57]

I picked the second one, based upon a performance I attended where Itzak Perlman was playing one. No stridency at all, so that ruled out the one with the edge. But I think I preferred the sound of the first one slightly as it sounded a bit livelier.

Another factor to consider is that such a violin may elevate the playing of the violinist, just because he/she is playing such a rare and desirable instrument.

 

[similost]

String it with coat hangers.. no one will ever know the difference..

Seriously... If professionals actually playing these git-fiddles can't tell a difference, then you REALLY think you're going to hear a difference with an MP3 file posted on Gore's interwebs?

I played both files side by side, at the same time.. and the ONLY thing I noticed was the second file plays faster than the first.

I'm going with the pros... they proved a lot of things are all in a persons mined trying to perceive value..

 

[JohnVF]

Smarty pants! Point taken.

You know I couldn't let that one slide All in good fun...

I should also point out that I think there is merit in blind tests in research of certain things, I just don't know how useful they are in something as subjective as music playback, even on a Stradivarius. Its certainly an interesting test in this case, regardless of whether or not the results are bulletproof.

 

[stereofanboy]

I'm repeating something that was brought up in another of these ABX discussions- that blind tests seemed to be biased towards a null result. I agree with that. It seems pretty straightforward, but certainly you're free to disagree with that notion. I'm not saying anybody needs to see to hear, but that something in the test- the situation, the context, the lack of familiarity with what is being tested, any number of things- seems to weigh things in one direction.

What is the evidence that indicates that blind tests seem to be biased towards a null result? Could it be that the results don't match predetermined expectations?

Of course there should be rigorous controls in a blind testing situation and they must be set up correctly. Whether familiarity is important depends upon the goal of the test. If the goal is to find out whether violin players can reliably identify the sound of a Strad over another violin, then certainly, familiarity with the sound of a Strad is a prerequisite. If the goal is simply to determine which violin produces a more pleasant sound, familiarity isn't necessary (and could be a liability, think of the Pepsi challenge), but a large number of test subjects is indicated.

I used to read comments on blind listening tests that would attack aspects of the particular test being discussed as likely to lead to a skewed result. Lately, it seems like specifics are being abandoned for a blanket condemnation of blind testing in general. It appears that some feel that blind testing, no matter what care is taken in the planning and execution, can never produce a valid or significant result.

My question for those people is, do you feel that it is impossible to devise a blind listening test that will yield statistically valid results? If so, how can a listening test where the listeners can also see the items tested be any more valid?

 

[similost]

I was just reading a little on this.. it seems blind tests have been done with these violins since 1817, and they all seem to reproduce the same results... people just can't tell..

I pulled this from wiki:

However, the many blind tests from 1817[8][9] to the present (as of 2012[10] ) have never found any difference in sound between Stradivari's violins and high-quality violins in comparable style of other makers and periods, nor has acoustic analysis.[11][12] In a particularly famous test on a BBC Radio 3 program in 1977, the violinists Isaac Stern and Pinchas Zukerman and the violin expert and dealer Charles Beare tried to distinguish among the "Chaconne" Stradivarius, a 1739 Guarneri del Gesú, an 1846 Vuillaume, and a 1976 British violin played behind a screen by a professional soloist. The two violinists were allowed to play all the instruments first. None of the listeners identified more than two of the four instruments. Two of the listeners identified the 20th-century violin as the Stradivarius.[13] Violinists and others have criticized these tests on various grounds such as that they are not double-blind (in most cases), the judges are often not experts, and the sounds of violins are hard to evaluate objectively and reproducibly.[12]

 

[DougMac]

You know I couldn't let that one slide All in good fun...

Figured so. Hope you're well. Happy New Year!

 

[89grand]

You ever know one of those people that think they know everything and have done everything there is to do, and are the best at everything? I've know several people like that. My Boss is one of those, he's kicked everyone's ass, knows everything, is the best at everything. He has tons of stories about doing hard to believe things. I don't know if he's delusional, or knows he's bullshitting.

There surely are people with that type of personality into audio too, and I wonder sometimes when subjects come up about hearing differences, that most of us cannot hear, how many of those people truly believe they are hearing the differences (and possibly they are) vs how many just automatically claim to, to seem superior, as having superior hearing to other "average" people, but in reality don't hear the difference either.

This isn't meant to be an insult towards anyone, but I do really wonder about it. I mean if there are people that bullshit constantly in everyday life, and there are many, there has to be some that do it about audio too.

 

[JohnVF]

Figured so. Hope you're well. Happy New Year!

You as well, Doug. My resolution is to get in less audio debates, haha

 

[gogofast]

You ever know one of those people that think they know everything and have done everything there is to do, and are the best at everything? I've know several people like that. My Boss is one of those, he's kicked everyone's ass, knows everything, is the best at everything. He has tons of stories about doing hard to believe things. I don't know if he's delusional, or knows he's bullshitting.

There surely are people with that type of personality into audio too, and I wonder sometimes when subjects come up about hearing differences, that most of us cannot hear, how many of those people truly believe they are hearing the differences (and possibly they are) vs how many just automatically claim to, to seem superior, as having superior hearing to other "average" people, but in reality don't hear the difference either.

This isn't meant to be an insult towards anyone, but I do really wonder about it. I mean if there are people that bullshit constantly in everyday life, and there are many, there has to be some that do it about audio too.

i agree that there are such people in any subject including the audio, wine, and etc. i guess it depends on situations, but on the other hand, lets say you're comparing digital vs. analog: if you "train" your ears, it's rather easy to hear the differences. what i'm saying is that it doesn't take God given talent or you don't have to be THE chosen one to hear these differences in sound. anyone, with little training, can. it's not a huge deal so when someone acts like they're superior because they have these skills or ears, that just makes them look bad. i love AK for handful of humble experts who does not show these character, and offer their services and wisdom in most helpful way.

 

[oldenuff]

You ever know one of those people that think they know everything and have done everything there is to do, and are the best at everything? I've know several people like that. My Boss is one of those, he's kicked everyone's ass, knows everything, is the best at everything. He has tons of stories about doing hard to believe things. I don't know if he's delusional, or knows he's bullshitting.

There surely are people with that type of personality into audio too, and I wonder sometimes when subjects come up about hearing differences, that most of us cannot hear, how many of those people truly believe they are hearing the differences (and possibly they are) vs how many just automatically claim to, to seem superior, as having superior hearing to other "average" people, but in reality don't hear the difference either.

This isn't meant to be an insult towards anyone, but I do really wonder about it. I mean if there are people that bullshit constantly in everyday life, and there are many, there has to be some that do it about audio too.

BS is prevalent in so many interests/hobbies where subjectivity is the order of the day. I remember seeing a program about wine testing, amongst the so called "expert" tasters was a simple consumer, they had to taste two wines, both of which were labeled, one of the wines was a known "high end" wine, the second a lesser known but good quality wine. The "average consumer" taster picked the lesser known wine as superior, she was then scolded and told how wrong she was with her appraisal by the guy sitting next to her (a bona-fide and well regarded "expert"). The discussion went on for some time, until everybody was informed that in fact the wines had been switched in the bottles. Experts!!! Hog-wash....Boy did that expert have egg on his face.