2. analog
  3. 129764-1647

Audiophiles are not alone

In the current (May 13th-19th, 2017) edition of the Economist there is a short piece entitled "Violins" that I want to bring to your attention.  It is about new violins and old violins, specifically Cremonese (Guarneri, Stradivari, Amati) vs. Joseph Curtin (modern violin maker in Michigan).  With Dr. Claudia Fritz of the University of Paris, presiding, experiments were held in Paris and New York that proved to the majority of both musicians and listeners (other musicians, critics, composers etc.) that new fiddles out performed old ones.  There were some sort of goggles used so that the players could not tell what instrument they were playing.  The audience was also prevented from seeing the instruments somehow.  All this done without inhibiting sound transmission.  Both solo and orchestrated works were performed.  You can read the whole story in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  And this is only the latest evidence of this apparent reality, as according to the article, similar experiments have reached similar conclusions prior to this.  The article concluded with the observation that these results notwithstanding, world class players are not about to give up their preference for their Cremonese fiddles.

This reminds me very much of some of our dilemmas and debates such as the ever popular: analog vs. digital, tube vs. transistor, and subjective listening vs. measured performance parameters.  If it has taken a couple of hundred years and counting for the debate on fiddles to remain unresolved, what hope have we to ever reach resolutions to some of our most cherished and strongly held preferences?  This is asked while hugging my turntables and tube electronics.
billstevenson
terry9
2,211 posts
 
Thank you rcprince and frogman. You have explained why the so-called 'scientific' test was probably not, in fact, scientific.

Science is a method of knowing, and it requires not only a knowledge of scientific practice, but of the subject matter (in this case, violins and violinists and institutional owners of violins).

And just like this research appears to be pseudo-science, the OP refers to another pet peeve, digital audio, which is often justified with pseudo-mathematics. For example, to see that the Shannon Information Theorem does not actually apply to digital media, one has only to read that theorem. (Hint: inspect the premises.)
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Terry
....pseudo-science, the OP refers to another pet peeve, digital audio, which is often justified with pseudo-mathematics. For example, to see that the Shannon Information Theorem does not actually apply to digital media, one has only to read that theorem. (Hint: inspect the premises.)

Whoa! Back up! Beep, beep! Shannon's Theorem? When was that ever used to justify digital audio? Why would you think it needs to be justified?
terry9
2,211 posts
 
1. Shannon's Theorem, or Nyqvist Done Right.

2. Always used.

3. An engineering solution should have some basis in fact or theory. Shannon is digital audio's.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Terry, why on Earth would you think Shannon’s theorem is pseudo science or pseudo mathematics? Besides the Shannon sampling theorem does actually apply to digital signals. There is more than one Shannon theorem. Aren’t you totally on board the perfect sound forever train?
jollytinker
213 posts
 
On the issue of "key points": the study is questionable because its methods are based on the faulty assumption that playing the violin is a simple, mechanical process. The trouble, as Frogman pointed out, is that it takes a lot of time and adjustment for any player to get the best sound out of a particular instrument. I also imagine it’s easier to do so with a new instrument that isn’t as ’fussy’ and isn’t hyper-controlled by the foundation that owns it. That means that the methodology of this study has a bias towards modern instruments.

I would also add that the same thing goes for hearing. Discerning the differences between these instruments is a process of learning and adjusting over time, and that isn’t possible within the terms of this study. So Lewm is right when he says that the study produces no "hard data." It only shows that a few people had a few subjective reactions to a few particular violins. there’s nothing generalizable about that information.
More to discover