This seems so appropriate...
- Thread starter Andyman
- Start date
I've seen "tar", "leather", and "steel" used in wine descriptions, so why not "yolk"??? :lmao:
oldenuff
Active Member
I wonder what description that sort of "testing" would be given...."The Double-Cross" maybe. I think the excuses that people give for not excepting the results of testing are simply because they don't fit their pre-conceptions, so what-ever the result they hold no faith in any type of testing, and spout their own "expert" views. Look into the subject, the vast majority of experts have little to no experience, and are often self titled as such. Most opinions can be verified by GOOD testing, unfortunately should we be allowed to except the findings those "experts" would be unemployed. Just my expert opinion, pay it no mind.
oldenuff
Active Member
Unless of course you agree with the results, then all of a sudden the test will become valid.
similost
Rockin and Rollin....
I never got wine people either... too much snoot there too I've found... I can't describe flavors and noses, but I sure can tell ya what I like or don't.
I think as 89Grand and oldenuff said, too many persnickety know it all people out there that make too big a deal out of every thing you could ever think of.
It's like I saw someone say in the Keurig thread about too many picky people... I ain't gonna roast my own, and I don't read up on coffee, but I know what cans I will or won't bu again.. .
And this goes with these violins... I think a regular player would rather have a newer one they thought was better than the Strad.
I think as 89Grand and oldenuff said, too many persnickety know it all people out there that make too big a deal out of every thing you could ever think of.
It's like I saw someone say in the Keurig thread about too many picky people... I ain't gonna roast my own, and I don't read up on coffee, but I know what cans I will or won't bu again.. .
And this goes with these violins... I think a regular player would rather have a newer one they thought was better than the Strad.
Unless of course you agree with the results, then all of a sudden the test will become valid.
You'd have to show me a test with something besides a 'no difference' result, though. Good luck finding one...
Sighted testing works fine for my needs. The engineers can and should use blind testing when making changes, perhaps, but I'm going to test gear exactly how I listen to gear. Eyes open so that I can see my drink of choice and not spill it all over me.
As for wine, I can't tell the difference in good or bad. I've had a lot of different types, expensive to cheap, and whether or not I like it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the price. Actually, none of it tastes all that great to me.
shacky
Addicted Member
They do sound different. Most tesats are designed so that second sample is the better.
In this case it could be the playing technique, miking, or any or a thousand other variable.
But if this test was done live with professional musicians playing and listening it's hard to imagine the difference in these clips were as great in the real world.
In this case it could be the playing technique, miking, or any or a thousand other variable.
But if this test was done live with professional musicians playing and listening it's hard to imagine the difference in these clips were as great in the real world.
I was thinking about the wine analogy. I'm no wine snob (or violin snob, or audio cable snob), but I've been to many wine tastings and I enjoy wine. I think I've learned a lot from hosts and sommeliers who have described some of the things they have tasted in certain wines, particularly with certain foods (at the tastings). The wine blather printed on the bottle might only go so far, or can be largely generic based on a mass-produced product, but when an "expert" and I are standing next to each other in the same environment drinking the same wine from the same bottle in the same shape glasses with the same dishes, I am completely open-minded about the flavors and aromas he/she is experiencing and describing and enjoy trying to find some of those same flavors and aromas in my senses, even if my interpretation might be different. Sometimes my experience matches closely with what is described by the expert or what is printed on the cards; other times my experience is so vastly different, I question whether or not the wine I'm drinking is actually what it is supposed to be, or if maybe I have a very poor food combination. And I'm OK with all of that - I enjoy the whole thing. I have never had an experience where a person told me that I was wrong when I might describe floral notes and a honey finish in some wine that is generally described as earthy and dark, nor would I try to convince another person that my sensation and description were more right than theirs.
I think there is a parallel someplace in here for the violins in the original article (or even audio cables between a turntable and pre-amp, for instance).
Eh?
I think there is a parallel someplace in here for the violins in the original article (or even audio cables between a turntable and pre-amp, for instance).
Eh?
I've never played a violin. In fact, the only violin, or fiddle, I have ever touched was a stripped and broken hillbilly bluegrass model. So I don't know beans about them. But I listened to the two tracks after cheating and learning which was the Strad. I kind of liked the sound of track one better as through my laptop's tinny speakers it sounded fuller. And then I wondered if that difference was a volume problem, so I boosted the volume on track two before another listen. After the volume correction differences began to disappear. But that's only how I heard things. And I'm no authority on violins.
sebrof
Super Member
As usual, once you get into the details questions become answered.
I was a little confused after reading the original paper, not knowing enough to think about "under the ear", playing in a hall vs. in a hotel room, violin setup, etc. But this critique clears things up a little and at least makes one aware that these other variables do indeed exist.
The responses are interesting, including Ms. Fritz's (one of the original authors).
Enjoy
http://www.insidethearts.com/nondivisi/they-blinded-me-with-science/
I was a little confused after reading the original paper, not knowing enough to think about "under the ear", playing in a hall vs. in a hotel room, violin setup, etc. But this critique clears things up a little and at least makes one aware that these other variables do indeed exist.
The responses are interesting, including Ms. Fritz's (one of the original authors).
Enjoy
http://www.insidethearts.com/nondivisi/they-blinded-me-with-science/
fotno
Lunatic Member
Same here. The second file was sweeter to my ear. The first file, edgier and less sweet.
It's like all of these tests, at least the ones I have read about. You set up a test biased from the outset towards a null conclusion, then act all surprised when there's a null conclusion. That read suggests that almost every parameter that the musicians would normally use to tell one instrument from another, was left out of the conduct of the test. These 'researchers' seem to spend an inordinate amount of time limiting chances for bias in the people tested, and absolutely none trying to limit their own.
From that article:
"my sense is that the researchers started with a premise and set out to prove it. " That has been my take on almost all of these things. From this to the 'all amps sound the same' challenge. Which is actually the "all amps sound the same after I EQ them to sound the same but don't really tell anybody that until they read the fine print" challenge.
Oh noooo! Does this mean that interconnects do make a difference?
Curious, is it possible to buy violin strings where the price difference is in the thousands of $? To create a better "synergy" of course.
Scuzzer
Fixed Bias
Mr. Almond has all the audiophile reasons for why two things can't be compared. Maybe it's universal with nose in the air, I'm special types.
Excellent! He feels this is the case therefore it must be so. His point by point rebuttal of Ms. Fritz comment is certainly a devastating critique of her techniques. Oh wait, he didn't. SSDD
edit: This should be moved to TOL so that only people who've played Strads and "superior examples of a modern instrument" can comment.
edit2: My bad, he did sorta, kinda, almost make a point by point rebuttal of her comment.
http://www.insidethearts.com/nondivisi/blinding-science-update/
Last edited:
As a counter to what I, myself, said- I think somebody would almost always HAVE to have a predetermined viewpoint to even go through with such a test. I don't know why they would bother otherwise. "I don't care about this one way or the other, but I'm going to collect a bunch of uber-expensive violins and see what happens". Still, the points made in the rebuttal suggest to me that indeed the bias leaked in. But of course I'd think that- because I'm biased, too .
.
sebrof
Super Member
I dunno, it seemed his audiophile reasons were valid.
Even Ms. Fritz said " Remember, the question we asked was “Which violin would you like to take home” (meaning so you can try it further), not ‘Which one would you like to buy” as we know that violinist can’t buy a violin without having played it for a while, and in different venues (in particular in a concert hall). Yes, maybe the results would be different in a large hall (we’re hoping to test this in a near future), we totally agree with you on this, but this doesn’t change the results of our study, nor makes it invalid. Our conclusions were clearly stated “under the ear, in a dead room”. We are not extrapolating (though, unfortunately some people are) about what would happen in a large hall."
Scuzzer
Fixed Bias
Why would she have to have a predetermined viewpoint that there was no difference? She might have wanted to show a difference so that she could then go on to figure out a test to show why it sounded different. The only reason I can see to assume that she was biased towards the null is because the folks who decry blind tests as meaningless are usually the ones who refrain from using science. It would be hard to see Mr. Almond use anything that could be called science to defend his position.
I have no dog in this fight with regards to the violins. I just find it interesting that the same type of objections and hand waving take place when the question is "can you tell the difference between these violins" or "which amp is which".
I have no dog in this fight with regards to the violins. I just find it interesting that the same type of objections and hand waving take place when the question is "can you tell the difference between these violins" or "which amp is which".
Scuzzer
Fixed Bias
No, that's called a strawman. If she asked the participants the question that Mr. Almond posed then his criticism would be valid but she didn't.
Similar threads
