john curl said:
Well, depends on what you mean by an open mind. Neither
Steve nor I have claimed that those things some people claim
to hear are impossibly audible. We may be sceptic to some/many
of those things, but we do not rule out the possibility that
there are in fact real audible differences. I don't really know
what more you could reasonably ask without presenting more
convincing arguments of real audibility. Blindly believing people
who claim to hear things without backing it up with some
evidence or at least reasonable argument is not an open mind.
I prefer to keep a healthy scepticism towards both "extreme"
camps, both those who claim to hear questionable things and
those who flatly deny it is possible to do so. I welcome all
serious attempts at gaining more insight into these issues, be
it by blind tests, measurements or pointing out flaws in how
we apply the laws of physics in these cases.
If it is an open mind to accept all beliefs people present as
facts, then I would have to believe both in the Christian God,
in Allah and at the same time be an atheist, which is as
unreasonable as it is inconsistent. Similarly, I would have to
believe that Kennedy was killed both by Oswald, by CIA and
by the maffia.
Some people have a strong tendency to believe in what they
want to believe and treat this almost as a fact. For instance,
my own father is very prone to believe in the conspiracy theories
that our former prime minister Olof Palme was indeed killed by
swedish policemen, probably just because he finds that a
more fascinating explanation than the other theories.
Steve Eddy said:
It should be obvious to everybody that Steve also hear (or more properly perceives) the things that others do. He's just not sure if it's real or it's just a subjective experience.
Untill it's clearly proven one way or the other, all those threads debating so called golden ear phenomena are just simply waste of time.
This should be obvious too
John, I grew up listening to my mother playing a Jaccobus Steiner violin, which was a Stradivarius equivalent in it's day, so I understand when you hear a violin that sounds 'right'.john curl said:
I think that there are very strong physiological/psychological reasons for preferences towards particular instruments or electronic equipment, and I reckon this is to do with perfect pitch and harmonic structures aligned with this.
Notable is the sense of power and volume that a good violin can produce, and this is further to do with pitch perfect correctly chordant dynamic behaviour I reckon.
Interestingly this kind of behaviour can be at will induced into audio systems too, and the listener reaction to such systems is akin to hearing a 'right' violin.
Eric.
johnferrier said:
FWIW, it's all in the wood. Extremely good sounding orchestral instruments (violins, cellos, etc) use wood with special qualities. Namely fine grain, fine pores, with little cellulose left. It was recently discovered that violins made from Timeless Timber have a very similar sound to Stradivarius violins. More details are available in their "Showroom"
I'm not sure why I tend to follow these pointless threads moreso than any other on this site. Inevitably I just end up wanting my wasted hours back since I didn't (usually) learn anything and am only marginally entertained by the bickering.
Mark
johnferrier said:
Ahhh, but they do. Turns out ol' Strad was cheap. He used the water logged wood that was dredged up from the bottom of the salt water logging rivers that no one else wanted.
The salt water had washed out the resins in the wood leaving it very porus. Normally, this stuff when left in place gets very hard in time.
So it turns out he made a great sounding instrument totally by accident.
-Bruce
FLZapped said:
Although I have heard about that theory before some years
ago I didn't know whether it was just another theory or
something more. Should I understand from what you say that
this is a generally accepted explanation among the Strad
researchers nowadays? BTW, as I heard it was rather that
the wood had started to rotten somewhat, but your version
of it sound more reasonable.
Then we have to question if he was just trying to save a
few bucks or if he actually knew what he was doing and
choose this wood on purpose. We cannot know, of course,
but I wouldn't be suprised if he actually had found out that
this cheap wood was better and kept it as a secret.
So you have perfect pitch Eric? Do you presume that to be a prerequisite for someone to be able to hear these obvious differences? Just curious, as I've seen someone with perfect pitch fail a blind test just like the rest of us (and he was also an experienced and talented musician and audiophile).
And no... I don't have perfect pitch.
Also, I think you still fail to understand Christer's and Steve's arguments. I'm not sure why... they have been very clear in what they are saying.
I think the results of the wire directionality test will be interesting. Hopefully we can all learn something of value from it.
And no... I don't have perfect pitch.
Also, I think you still fail to understand Christer's and Steve's arguments. I'm not sure why... they have been very clear in what they are saying.
I think the results of the wire directionality test will be interesting. Hopefully we can all learn something of value from it.
I saw a similar documentary on TV several years ago. I'm sure there have been several.
They covered the waterlogged theory, but added an uneasy twist. While the logs waited in the river for many days, sewage was coming down the river.
So the wood has a nice marinade of, err, stuff suffused through it.
However, the documentary I saw finally concluded something else. In Strad's day, various stones and gems were ground into the lacquers of the time. The TV program concluded that of all the factors involved, the distinctive gems and stones of that area made the most difference in the sound.
They covered the waterlogged theory, but added an uneasy twist. While the logs waited in the river for many days, sewage was coming down the river.
So the wood has a nice marinade of, err, stuff suffused through it.
However, the documentary I saw finally concluded something else. In Strad's day, various stones and gems were ground into the lacquers of the time. The TV program concluded that of all the factors involved, the distinctive gems and stones of that area made the most difference in the sound.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.