what sears sold were German ‘copies’ of famous violins.....a ‘fiddle’ is nothing but a violin played by a fiddler.....tweeks like steel strings were used for a sharper sound.
Most of the distinctive sound is technique.....dragging the adjacent open strings is one.
Edit....this is a strange thing I’d heard more than once, a fiddle must only be used for ‘fiddling’ as it takes on a tone different from the same instrument when played classically. Idk how much truth that holds but it’s been said by multiple different fiddlers that didn’t know each other. ??
Last edited:
A violin and a fiddle are one and the same thing. It is as you say, the players technique that substantiates the difference - plus the enormous amounts of rosin, sweat and grease that accumulate like canteen medals of honour. A lot of fiddlers play on old steel strings deadened with use, that lack sustain, as a way of getting faster, more clearly defined jigs and reels. A very difficult complex instrument, and the more a fiddle is played, the better it sounds.
Last edited:
There are actual measurements of human magnetic sensing including strapping magnets to people and dumping them in a forest at night. I have yet to see an actual case of dowsing proven to work.
I have also not seen anything I would consider to be other than pychosomatic regarding electrosensitivity.
I have also not seen anything I would consider to be other than pychosomatic regarding electrosensitivity.
That's surprising. Do you have a cite for this?
Likewise, but I had to google electrosensitivity, I wasn't sure if it's the same as this (it is):
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Not to hand I will try and think of some search terms. First saw mention of this back in the 80s so entirely possible its been overturned since.
Careful Bill a quick google will bury you in stories, you'll never sort this one out.
I tend to be a trusting person, until proved otherwise. I hate to be fooled, just like everybody else, but I try to keep an open mind, because that is where new ideas can be found and acted upon. Dowsing, I don't know, seems to work for some people. I don't have to make a decision on this, but if someone told me they saw a dowser and it appeared to work at the time, I would believe them. Why not, what is the harm in it?
When it comes to audio, I "trust, but verify" with my own ears. There have been a number of examples where I came into a listening room, skeptical, and heard the difference that was presented. I do not necessarily adopt each and every tweak, just because it seems to be audible, but I don't condemn it either, just because it does not make any understandable sense at the moment. This puts me ahead of many engineers who will not try to use new ideas, and usually don't trust their ears.
Double blind testing has discouraged many audio designers into going into another profession, than home audio design. Tom Holman is an example of this. Faced with the same dilemma, using the same ABX switchbox, I decided that the test was flawed. This was because, once listening outside the ABX switchbox, my hearing discrimination mysteriously reappeared, repeatedly. John Atkinson had the same experience with hearing Quad electronics in an ABX test, some decades ago, and found to his surprise, that the Quad electronics did not not 'right' once he started open listening with them, and he had to get something else that sounded 'better'. But he and I are not alone with this experience, and that is why we still support the existence of audio quality differences that are hard to measure, even today.
Now when it comes to measurement, John Atkinson does some very fine measurements, and I look at my competitor's designs, as well as my own, when measured by him in Stereophile. I have pretty good equipment too, but besides looking for higher order harmonics (or IM) what is there to measure that will tell me something I can use? Better to use my ears, as well.
For example, a few years ago, I had to make a decision on an input IC for a Parasound phono stage. I had 3 IC's from different manufacturers to try, that had the same basic noise spec (about 1nV/rt-Hz) and virtually vanishing distortion, because of the relatively light loading on the output, (I'm careful that way, others should be too) modest forward gain, etc. All three sounded different. One was completely unacceptable, (I still don't know why), the other two sounded OK, BUT DIFFERENT from each other. I don't know why this was true either. I chose the cheaper of the two IC's for my design.
If you are stubborn, and believe that everything that measures pretty well should sound essentially the same, then you will probably be compromised sonically. That is what I can say on the subject.
When it comes to audio, I "trust, but verify" with my own ears. There have been a number of examples where I came into a listening room, skeptical, and heard the difference that was presented. I do not necessarily adopt each and every tweak, just because it seems to be audible, but I don't condemn it either, just because it does not make any understandable sense at the moment. This puts me ahead of many engineers who will not try to use new ideas, and usually don't trust their ears.
Double blind testing has discouraged many audio designers into going into another profession, than home audio design. Tom Holman is an example of this. Faced with the same dilemma, using the same ABX switchbox, I decided that the test was flawed. This was because, once listening outside the ABX switchbox, my hearing discrimination mysteriously reappeared, repeatedly. John Atkinson had the same experience with hearing Quad electronics in an ABX test, some decades ago, and found to his surprise, that the Quad electronics did not not 'right' once he started open listening with them, and he had to get something else that sounded 'better'. But he and I are not alone with this experience, and that is why we still support the existence of audio quality differences that are hard to measure, even today.
Now when it comes to measurement, John Atkinson does some very fine measurements, and I look at my competitor's designs, as well as my own, when measured by him in Stereophile. I have pretty good equipment too, but besides looking for higher order harmonics (or IM) what is there to measure that will tell me something I can use? Better to use my ears, as well.
For example, a few years ago, I had to make a decision on an input IC for a Parasound phono stage. I had 3 IC's from different manufacturers to try, that had the same basic noise spec (about 1nV/rt-Hz) and virtually vanishing distortion, because of the relatively light loading on the output, (I'm careful that way, others should be too) modest forward gain, etc. All three sounded different. One was completely unacceptable, (I still don't know why), the other two sounded OK, BUT DIFFERENT from each other. I don't know why this was true either. I chose the cheaper of the two IC's for my design.
If you are stubborn, and believe that everything that measures pretty well should sound essentially the same, then you will probably be compromised sonically. That is what I can say on the subject.
Last edited:
Would you attribute this disappearance / reappearance to the stress of ABX test?
Only the risk to look in the eyes of other like a stupid ignorant. Otherwise, no harm indeed.
Or the stress of actually realizing how faulty his hearing is and the ABX test is right. Nothing dissapeared, it was never there.
ABX switch box needs double pole switching/isolation on all connections and any commoning in addition to signals passing through same enclosure will reduce differences and encourage null resultant.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.