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

Showing 5 responses by terry9

Thank you rcprince and frogman. You have explained why the so-called 'scientific' test was probably not, in fact, scientific.

Science is a method of knowing, and it requires not only a knowledge of scientific practice, but of the subject matter (in this case, violins and violinists and institutional owners of violins).

And just like this research appears to be pseudo-science, the OP refers to another pet peeve, digital audio, which is often justified with pseudo-mathematics. For example, to see that the Shannon Information Theorem does not actually apply to digital media, one has only to read that theorem. (Hint: inspect the premises.)
1. Shannon's Theorem, or Nyqvist Done Right.

2. Always used.

3. An engineering solution should have some basis in fact or theory. Shannon is digital audio's.

@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?
@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.)
@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.