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
@billstevenson

I don’t agree, Bill. I can easily imagine a situation in which one could get more from simple instruments than complex and refined ones, at least at first acquaintance.

For example, lots of people can immediately keep time with a drum. Getting music from a cello, however, is a longer term proposition. For quite a while, the drum will sound better. Similar considerations apply to Detroit sedans vs jet aircraft.

What do you think?

terry9
@geoffkait

You seem to have misunderstood me. My opinions are as follows.

1. Shannon’s Sampling Theorem (there is only one of these), is good mathematics. It cleans up the wooly thinking surrounding ideas first propounded by Nyqvist.

2. Shannon’s Sampling Theorem does not apply to digital media. It’s ’application’ to digital media is pseudo-mathematics. The theorem does not apply, however much digital proponents claim otherwise. One has only to read the theorem - but then again, that presupposes quite a lot of advanced calculus. (Hint: examine the premises carefully.)

>>>>Well, that begs the question, what mathematical theory or theorem do you think does apply to digital media? And why do you think it’s necessary to backfit ANY mathematical theorem to try to explain or substantiate mathematically digital media? Doesn’t digital processing speak for itself?

You can't fool blind results. Take your biases and other senses out of the equation and you're left with just the sound. Blind tests have saved me a lot of money over the years.
jssmith
You can’t fool blind results. Take your biases and other senses out of the equation and you’re left with just the sound. Blind tests have saved me a lot of money over the years.

Well, actually you can fool blind tests. Blind tests can give misleading or just plain wrong results just like any other type of test. Operator error, mistake in the system, maybe the listener has a cold, who knows? This is especially true when there are relatively small differences between devices under test.

Hmmm...this all looks terribly familiar already...

Think I'll just watch...y'all have fun. ;)