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
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
terry9
@geoffkait

1. Fourier Analysis
2. From the days of Pharaohnic Egypt, it has been accepted that mathematical analysis informs the real world.
3. As I mentioned before, an engineering solution has a basis in fact or theory. Something with neither is a contraption.
4. This is rather far from the OP, so I am signing off with this.

>>>>Look how far mathematical analysis got the Egyptians.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,976 posts
 
geoffkait
  is there really such a thing as a proper double blind test?
Yes, I think so. But it must be properly set up and conducted. Even then, its results can at best only reflect the results of the test. Correlating those results to actual listening conditions is another matter entirely.

For example, it is common to read that a listener has "failed the test" if he could not distinguish between two different cables, or amplifiers (or whatever) in a double blind test, such as an abx test. But the listener has not failed at all. Indeed, the listener is not even being tested. What's being tested are the two components that are the subject of the test. In this example, you could only conclude that the listener could not distinguish between the two components in the blind test.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
The point is if the test results are negative they don’t mean anything. Just like any test. I’m not sure I can say it any plainer. I don’t care who performs the test or how perfect or ideal the protocols are.  If the results are negative I say throw them out!

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,976 posts
 
geoffkait
The point is if the test results are negative they don’t mean anything.
It simply means the results of the test are negative. It means no more or no less.

Some blind testing does produce positive results.


geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Of course some tests could produce positive results. But not all things tested necessarily produce any positive results. Positive results can be considered as evidence. But negative results are different - because of all the things that can go wrong with the test. At the end of the day there should be a number of tests performed, not just one test by one person. Then analyze the data. If most of the test results are positive you can usually disregard the negative results. They’re outliers. Or you might conclude tests are inconclusive.

The reasons why they were negative might had to do with how the test was performed, was system related or it was something to do with the person who did the test. Of course some things like a placebo should test negative.

Furthermore, there is the issue of HOW GOOD positive results are. This varies from test to test and person to person, system to system. For some people the results may be jaw dropping, for others it might be a big yawn. One should refrain from making blanket statements or drawing too many conclusions from a single test, especially if it’s results are negative.
More to discover