[upstateguy]

Quote:

A few (dozen?) years ago, there was a single blind test, since they could blind the player involving a Strad, a Vuillaume (very famous French 19th century violin maker), and a modern violin with Zuckerman, Stern and a violin trader as the audience.

This ended with an inconclusive result.

That said, it think there were some testing involving pure tones being played, recorded and analyzed by computer that showed interesting results.

Interesting info.....
 

 

[khaos974]

Interesting info....

I retyped my original message which was absolutely a mess, maybe I was drunk when I posted it.

 

[gregorio]

A few (dozen?) years ago, there was a single blind test involving a Strad, a Vuillaume (very famous French 19th century violin maker), and a modern violin with Zuckerman, Stern and a violin trader as the audience. The test was onl a single blind since they couldn't blind the player.

This ended with an inconclusive result with none of the expert being able to reliably identify the violins.

That said, I seem to remember there was some testing involving pure tones being played, recorded and analyzed by computer that showed interesting results.

About 15 years ago I was alone in a concert hall in Evian with Raphael Wallfisch. Raphael had seen me working with another musician and asked if I would mind giving my opinion on 3 different cellos he was evaluating. The three were quite different in their clarity and richness in different frequency ranges but one stood out as having a really powerful and rich lower register compared to the others. I gave Raphael my considered opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of each instrument and for my personal preference for the one with the exceptional lower register. Turns out that it was the most expensive of the three and that it was a Strad.

This was not a particularly scientific test but it was very blind as I had no idea at the time that any of the three was a Strad. I also can't rule out the possibility that Raphael played the Strad slightly differently to the other two due to subconsciously being affected by the fact that it was a Strad. In a sense though, it doesn't really matter whether the Strad was actually better or whether it just inspired Raphael to play better. I'm not sure what happened in the end, whether or not he actually bought the Strad.

Not sure how relevant or reliable this anecdote is, just thought I'd throw it out there.

G

 

[Prog Rock Man]

That a Strad did best in your blind test and worse in others shows how random it is. The same as cables. If Strads consistently did worse in blind tests, then that would no longer be random and there would be a discernable audible difference.

 

[gregorio]

That a Strad did best in your blind test and worse in others shows how random it is. The same as cables. If Strads consistently did worse in blind tests, then that would no longer be random and there would be a discernable audible difference.

I don't see it that way at all. Khaos974 said that the test subjects couldn't identify which violin was which, not that they were unable to discern a difference. There is no controversy that the sonic differences between different makes of instruments are significant and well within the ability of a human to hear. These sonic differences between makes of instrument are many orders of magnitude more significant that the differences between cables, which are well outside the ability of a human to hear.

G

 

[JamesHuntington]

This info proves a lot about the hype behind spending money VS. a professional setup. Bose sound awesome in a Bose Studio. Dre Beats sound better in the store plugged into their amp with their music. My favorite setup right now is a 1992 JVC CDP with the on board PEM and some 1981 Yamaha YH-100 headphones hooked into the front jack. Total cost off the street is 200 or less, but you could use some newer studio headphones with similar results. My Pinnacle loud speakers sound like expensive speakers, and that was the idea behind their design. All this study proves to me is that a system should be set up by a professional, or you may not get what you pay for.

 

[Heidegger]

Well, here's more evidence why we shouldn't always take old scientific assumptions as eternal verities:  Exciting chatter in the physics world today - Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light? Hmmm...
 
 http://bit.ly/n9YAKW

 

[rroseperry]

You need to check the links on that story.

 

[nanaholic]

Sorry but that's a non-argument.

Science has many different fields, some we know VERY well and some we know very little.  Sub-atomic and Quantum physics is one which we know very little and has yet to even reach the point of coming up with practical applications, but things like germ theory, electromagnetism and signal theory (both digital and analog) is very well known and understood and we use and apply its theories in practical ways every day, and in fact if those theories are wrong our life as we know it now would most certainly crumble (for example if signal theory/analog-digital theory is wrong the PC and Internet you are using now would most certainly NOT exists).  You can't just take one poorly understood field and dismiss the other established one.  

 

[bigshot]

Machinadynamica have been working on solving the problems with sub atomic neutrinos messing around with audio fidelity. Their new Super Intelligent Chip is all you need.
 
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

 

[drez]

Quote:

Machinadynamica have been working on solving the problems with sub atomic neutrinos messing around with audio fidelity. Their new Super Intelligent Chip is all you need.
 
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

lol that company is awesome "mind matter interactions" bahahahaha I hope they ship their products with a a letter kindly requesting customer not to have children.

 

[bigshot]

If you keep a set of "Magic Pebbles" in your front pocket, you will be unable to conceive.

 

[DaBomb77766]

http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html
 
No way man, this is the end-all upgrade.

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

Well, here's more evidence why we shouldn't always take old scientific assumptions as eternal verities:  Exciting chatter in the physics world today - Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light? Hmmm...
 
 http://bit.ly/n9YAKW

That's basically a modified version of a logical fallacy involving "quantum mysticism" - basically "Look at all this complex crap scientists found. From this I deduce *scientific model/s or concept/s* are therefore no more likely than the theory I made up to explain why cables work."
 
I'm not saying you made that exact argument, or even that you meant to follow it through like that, just pointing to how certain areas of science are constantly abused to "discredit" other areas.
 

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

 

That's basically a modified version of a logical fallacy involving "quantum mysticism" - basically "Look at all this complex crap scientists found. From this I deduce *scientific model/s or concept/s* are therefore no more likely than the theory I made up to explain why cables work."
 
I'm not saying you made that exact argument, or even that you meant to follow it through like that, just pointing to how certain areas of science are constantly abused to "discredit" other areas.
 

Can we call you on an "appeal to motive"?
 
I'm just sayin'.