Yup, one more example of differences being detected under blind conditions. When they're there of course. 😀
Keep 'em coming.
I belive the test was not about being able to tell a difference, as it clearly stated they could, but about their preference, I suspect that each of them chose a violin closest to their own. I once heard a violinist playing the the same piece with three different bows, all was different texture color of tone even pace felt different. I asked why, he said the response I get through my fingers makes all the difference, some bows let me feel the music, some bowns don't. One of the bows had belonged to Heifetz, he said I don't know why, but that bow has something magic and ithe sensation it get me makes me better.
The obvious conclusion of the test as written is that modern violins are as good as the old intalian master pieces and thus the violin makes no dupifference, the right conclusion is that the people playing like their performance best when they play an instrument they are familiar with. It possible to cloud everything up so either way is the right way, even with the use of measurements, this is why you need to trust the only real tool you have your ears, all other tools are just support.
The obvious conclusion of the test as written is that modern violins are as good as the old intalian master pieces and thus the violin makes no dupifference, the right conclusion is that the people playing like their performance best when they play an instrument they are familiar with. It possible to cloud everything up so either way is the right way, even with the use of measurements, this is why you need to trust the only real tool you have your ears, all other tools are just support.
Last edited:
Difference vs preference is a very important point. BTW one of those "bring in your antique" shows had someone who thought they had a valuable violin getting disappointed until they were told the bow was worth $9000.
Precisely true. John is either not reading the stuff he's posting, reading it and not understanding what he's read, or lying. I suspect a combination of the first two, aided by a deep motivation to keep the true believers believing and the paychecks flowing. I cannot fault him for the latter.
So When The violinist could tell The difference, Then others can't ... Or for the others difference is of non value..? Do you really Think that people that purchase HiFi are stupid, that they are chasing marketing and not feeling goosebumps. That attitude is arrogant, I have seen grown men cry when they are touched by emotion. Hands that are trembling with joy. Sorry if you don't get that, sorry for your loss. Are you not capable of loving either or is that also just marketing hype for selling some thing at Valentines day..??
Yes, that must be it. Because I use my ears for audio evaluation and don't peek, I'm incapable of love.
So now ears are good enough tools..? I wonder why I had a totally different understanding
I/we listen too, an most often the outcome is backwards, because not all ideas are fruitful but the remaining are steps in the right direction. Those we preserve and learn from. Ears are not alone, they are supported by other tools. Over time we may get some kind of correlation between what we measure and what we hear.
I/we listen too, an most often the outcome is backwards, because not all ideas are fruitful but the remaining are steps in the right direction. Those we preserve and learn from. Ears are not alone, they are supported by other tools. Over time we may get some kind of correlation between what we measure and what we hear.
Last edited:
The objectivists are deeply tied to the notion that people can't be trusted in picking up differences - hence, that there is a perceived difference is not of high importance, so one should just have "fun" making something which is technically better than the prior effort.
Unfortunately, this is a bit of an insult to those who have no trouble picking up variations, and who are not happy with the currently accepted state of audio performance. While the standards of achievable playback remain relatively poor, if a person just uses the conventional approach of plug 'n' play assembling of a playback system, then the current morass will continue, indefinitely.
I don't know how the current impasse will be broken, but at some stage deeper understanding will emerge - in the meantime, all the marvellous musical events embedded in the recording archives will continue patiently waiting for the day when their greater potential can be experienced ...
Unfortunately, this is a bit of an insult to those who have no trouble picking up variations, and who are not happy with the currently accepted state of audio performance. While the standards of achievable playback remain relatively poor, if a person just uses the conventional approach of plug 'n' play assembling of a playback system, then the current morass will continue, indefinitely.
I don't know how the current impasse will be broken, but at some stage deeper understanding will emerge - in the meantime, all the marvellous musical events embedded in the recording archives will continue patiently waiting for the day when their greater potential can be experienced ...
Last edited:
I have not found many people like that anywhere. Have subjectivists invented them as a convenient target.
Yet, it's all that have been advocated here, you can't trust listening, thus it must be disregarded as a tool. If that goes for those who make the stuff, it must apply to those who buy the stuff as well. Yet we accept that some can sing, while others can not, why is it so hard to understand that for some trusting your ears are more important than the last digit in a distortion measurement.
I'm not lying, so I must be stupid, and arrogant enough to not believe that most CD's sound 'perfect', etc. That is the difference between SY and me. '-)
Well, provided that the CDs have not self-destructed, or been used as Frisbees, then they are "perfect", John, 😉 - in the digital sense, that is. It's when that information content finally becomes analogue, at some point in the reproduction chain - that's where the poo can hit the fan ...
I have no idea why the term "ears-only" is something you didn't understand. Your English seems quite competent.
Since I never said that, you can have that argument with the imaginary SY in your head instead.😀
At one stage a motoring magazine instituted a method for their writers to try comparing vehicles for a story, by blindfolding themselves for the duration of the drive, so they wouldn't be influenced by the badge on the top of the radiator. Unfortunately, the cost of repairing damaged vehicles, the number of hospital visits, and insurance costs, got out of hand - so the idea was dropped ... shame about that ...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.