I have changed my mind about this over the years. The absolute sound (closest to real live music) just can't be accomplished even though I have heard some spectacular systems that get close on some music. So years ago I changed my system to give me the sound I wanted. I'm much happier now and all my music collection can be enjoyed for what it is: Recorded music.
"...Hello Russ69, I’ve been through the same situation as you..." I'm not in a situation, I know what I prefer.
"... I’ve found that thru experience, accurate sounding systems are not what I’ve enjoyed best long term..." You and I are on the same page.
"...So I’m trying to understand what do you mean by an absolute sound..." That was defined by an audio magazine to be the recreation of live unamplified music. I think that is the low hanging fruit, that's a very simple task, playing complex music is where good systems shine.
As pointed out by others, and something that I absolutely agree with, whether one is satisfied with the sound of our audio system is really the bottom line of all this. If the sound pleases us, then who is to argue? There are different approaches to reaching the sound that we want as we all have different priorities when it comes to music and this hobby. However, there is a tendency on the part of all of us to want agreement and to take disagreement as to which approach is best unnecessarily personally. This is the reason that it is always best to not be absolutist about a point of view which may not work for anyone except ourselves. I think that it is fantastic that you have found an approach that works for you. I and others don’t find it at all “impossible” to achieve our ideal sound by pursuing a sound that is “closest to real live music”. It’s not about being right or wrong in our approach; except for ourselves.
So, thanks for an interesting subject of discussion. Threads like this always have the potential to teach us how to better understand the point of view of others and even to become better listeners.
I will leave the thread with this personal viewpoint Re one of your quoted comments and one which may help clarify my point of view:
**** ...the recreation of live unamplified music. I think that is the low hanging fruit, that’s a very simple task, playing complex music is where good systems shine. ****
Simple task? From my point of view it is the most complex of all. In fact, the highest hanging fruit and the reason why it is worth pursuing.
I am absolutist and proud of it. As I mentioned, microphones are unadvanced devices. First, improve them. There is no music recorded well.
I think your post is a blank statement of "absolutism" yes....But nothing else i am afraid...
Your conclusion " there is no music recorded well" is already contained in the premise "microphones are unadvanced devices".... Then your affirmation is only a vicious circle masking the essential hole in your premise: in reality microphones are already advanced tool but only RELATIVELY advanced for sure and then microphones can be improved in their design but also in their use...Conflating all types of microphones with all their specific relatives uses and putting all of them on the same "primitive" level, or faulting the design when in many cases it is the use itself the problem is not rigorous but only a sophism...
Dont forget also that the art of recording is an art of trade-off and nothing could be absolutely perfect erasing completely this necessary trade-off by the nature of acoustic physic itself...
In truth microphones are only tools and like rhetorical tools can be rightly or wrongfully used... Both can be improved....
The chance is that you will improve your logic more speedily than the art of recording....But you can improve the acoustic of your room even faster than these two....
My last word will be simple: there is some relatively well recorded music, and some for sure are better, other less...
Absolutism is more successful in spiritual life....Even in mathematics absolutism is behind after Goedel....
I will also give a practical recommendation: no audio system at any price could do justice to a relatively well recorded files or vinyl or cd, without working in a well controlled environment, especially acoustically...But also in a mechanically and electrically rightfully controlled working dimensions....
Then your experience and problems with recording source is perhaps unbeknonwst to you, an experience with the bad controlled acoustic settings of your audio room....Or some problems also with the mechanical or electrical embeddings...
Doesn't it come down to pleasing sound. The absolute sound is dependent on your ears, the venue, the position where you are seated, how many people in the audience, how the crew set-up the equipment, etc. As Heruaclitus said 2500 years ago, if you step into a river it is no longer the same river. So unless you are in Sullivan and Adler's acoustically perfect Auditorium Theartre where nearly everyseat has the same sound and everything else is equal, absolute is not absolute as defined in the opening of this thread, but is a highly variable sound. Pleasing sound while completely subjective, is a target that is attainable. That said there can be enjoyment in Chasing the Unicorn.
Absolute Sound versus Pleasing Sound? I agree
with these two comments most of all:
‘psychranger’ “…get
equipment that you know does a great job producing clarity, detail, and
completeness, then just pick out the flavor that pleases you the most…” and
‘lowtubes’ “…in tweaking my systems is a very
transparent sound, with great detail and resolution but with fullness of tone
and musicality. So my setups are super open and super expanded with great
detail, height, depth, and resolution but above all, the systems have been
tweaked to reveal tonality and musical fullness.” (That really says it all
for me.)
As for me, I also feel unamplified acoustical instruments,
bluegrass, orchestra, etc, are the best references for judging timbre. A music
system’s ability to resolve highly complex passages with clarity and accuracy
is desired too, along with other traits of good reproduction. I too have
yielded in extreme dynamics/volume for better tonality and realism.
I want a system accurate and musical. If ‘absolute
sound’ is so analytical that my ears hurt I do not
want it. Music should not hurt (but I’ve had dumb system combos
that did). I can, and do listen for hours at a time and now there is
never fatigue. The more accurate, resolving and involving, the better it is. And
I love hearing the near ‘absolute sound’ that state-of-the-art high end gear can
provide.
Back in 2011 my new speaker purchasing mantra (in addition
to accuracy, resolution, full-range, etc.) was “Only buy a speaker you want to
turn up.” If not, or down, then walk
away. The Dyn Sapphires I had for five years sure did the trick. I don’t listen
that loudly now, and have better speakers, but the thought remains the same.
I have subscribed to every audio magazine ever printed and when "Hi end emporiums existed" I spent so much time in them that my wife swore I was seeing another woman.
I also discovered from reading the comments here on "Agon" we are divided into two types of audiophiles; there are equipment lovers and there are music lovers. Equipment lovers speak of 0 distortion while music lovers listen for the equipment's ability to communicate the music. Equipment lovers dote on "sounds" while music lovers only listen for the equipment's ability to communicate the music.
Equipment lovers who preach 0 distortion prefer solid state, while this music lover would not get within ten feet of a SS pre-amp no matter how expensive, although I have no objection to SS power amps.
The bottom line is what I call "The essence of the music", and not everyone can hear or detect it; consequently, it's a moot point if you can't hear it.
I also discovered from reading the comments here on "Agon" we are divided into two types of audiophiles; there are equipment lovers and there are music lovers. Equipment lovers speak of 0 distortion while music lovers listen for the equipment’s ability to communicate the music.
You missed the essential third group...The group of people that dont oppose sound and music but know how they related to one another...
The music lovers who care for sound but already know that acoustic is the key in audio, not upgrading an already good gear, nor advocating tubes/S.S. or digital/analog... They dont advocate for their taste of gear like people who war against each other in stupid arguing....This third group work had to improve at the lesser cost what they have at hand for listening music...
This third group to which i belong is the much enlightened one because they dont spend money in costly gear but create instead acoustic cheap solutions among also others electrical or mechanical cheap solutions in other audio working dimensions...
The only thing we know for sure about audiophiles is they are all neurotic about something. Could be merely bling in some cases. meters, shiny faceplates, snazzy lights.....fuses, wires in a fancy case, capacitors, you name it.
You forgot a 4th mahgister, people who don’t know how it should sound but think that however they prefer it must be the right and only way. You never learn it seems...
Have you not learned that a musician for example know how a violin they play must sound when listening to the recorded event?
Certainly not, you called the musician who make this observation about timbre a liar....
But i will remind you why?
It is because of an acoustical phenomenon, no , not a digital recording one, but a pure acoustical (physics of room acoustic +neurophysiology of percetion) phenomenon that is called : remembering the timbre perception event of an instrument we already know... This remembering event is associated with a perceptive habit of playing it and listening it in a correct room... Listening and playing being two different things completely acoustically but related tough in the same individual musician...
Then you are right of talking about the "taste" or preference of a musician about the way his violin or any violin should sound.... But most musicians, even if they have their own preferences, are in general in a consensus about what a right and natural TIMBRE sound like about any instrument and maestros too.... They dont need to consult the recording engineer to know how a trumpet must sound....
You know why they dont need to always consult a recording engineer, like you especially?
It is because they want to refine the recording mix for their ears timbre perception habit in natural acoustic settings, not first and last refining it abstractingly, putting it in the procustean bed of digital processing at any cost....They enjoy a sound for their musician taste....Not a so called " perfect" synthetically recreated engineered sound for the sake of engineering ideals... Timbre is an acoustical physic room phenomena first and a neurophysiological phenomena first not a digital engineering phenomena first...
It is not simple to understand?
Then what you accused other of, is precisely your sin.... Remember the musician you accuse of lying when he was speaking of timbre saying that i was right about timbre?
people who don’t know how it should sound but think that however they prefer it must be the right and only way.
You fit exactly the description you impose on me.... The difference is i am with all the musicians in the world....You are alone with your engineering individual preferences, you take them for the only "objective" one not knowing that objectivity in acoustic is consensus of human EARS....
Nice guesses trying to understand what makes people tick. Keep at it. There might be a Nobel Prize in it for some lucky all knowing audiophile someday who is able to accurately label all others in regards to what makes them tick. Or even just why they hear what they hear and do what they do. Keep us posted!
How an acoustic instrument sounds to the person playing it is not at all like it sounds in the audience.
Like usual you prove to me you are just an opinionated guy who never read arguments accurately save for the gist of winning an argument...
These are my exact words in my preceding post, you dont even read to understand what i speak about:
Listening and playing being two different things completely acoustically but related tough in the same individual musician...
I precisely state here that playing and listening are 2 completely different things...
How these 2 completely different acoustical experiences which are playing and listening are related? They are related by HABIT, of playing and listening and gauging the differences by the musician himself... It is simple musician journey...
Then, Swing and a miss audio2design. Again. You don’t ever learn.
By the way you are inadvertantly childishly arrogant saying:
hence why we teach them the difference and make them wear headphones at times.
I want to see you how you dare to advise Celibidache, or Miles Davis, or any jazz musicians or a classical one on this "education" of them by you .... 😁😁
The only one musician who is not conscious of this fact is a teen....
But NO you fault me about something i clearly not state and it is in my post itself... I precisely state that listening and playing are acoustically very different READ IT again...Anybody here can read it anyway then are you a fool to lie in daylight?
You are right on one point, i explain not myself always very clearly because i am not a scientist, for one, nor an english speaker...I am only one of the audiophiles you despise...
Having no argument against me you attack me and any others here , suffice to read your posts...You cannot prove that all my experiments and devices are bullshit...You cannot know... And in some case it is pure acoustic science like my Helmholtz grid...
I never pretend to know ALL like you... I only pretend to know my "amateurish" fruitful experience to reach hi-fi at peanut cost and i succeeded to my satisfaction... Thats all...I communicated it to my fellow audiophile in an audio thread.... Your mission in life is debunking us?
What are your own pretention? You insult anyone daring to use "tweaks" or speaking of his experiments, or using turntables, or for being a musician, you present yourself like the bringer of "scientific truth" simplifying and reducing all audio experience to your engineered specialized window...
Myself i had proposed here, many no cost experiments and some has confirmed my results... Are we all deluded? They seems to have understood some of my posts in spite of my defects by the way....
Keep your boat i will navigate in mine.... Dont attack anyone and i will stay mute...
The problem is not the universal presence of biases, it is when we reject outright any claim based on a personal experience to be ONLY the result of biases, because it suit our own biases...
Placebos and biases are normal daily life events... Hearing a change in an audio system modulo ANY change or addition of a device is something to be experiment first.... If many experiment it positively the probability that this is only a placebo decrease with each new testimony....
After that it is fun to do blind test, but it is in no way a scientific proof for many reasons, one is the fact that assessing audio effects need to be done by someone in his own environment, and parameters, audiophile listening is not a superhuman innate bat ability, it is ONLY an habit , a learned ability to discern in a well known environment...
Blindtest are very difficult to realize....
By the way stradivarius were very well known to all violonists... It is not a bias only, it is a FACT,the strad are good and they were very well known by the educated ears of violonist...Then this fact induced a justified bias in favor of the strads over the vast majoriry of modern violin... But a genius luthier come and....
What was NOT AT ALL well known was the rare modern violin able to surpass them.... It is NOT the great majority of modern violins that surpass Strads... Only a few, not very well known nor often recorded like the strads and these modern master piece were designed by a master luthier NOT by all modern luthier... These rare modern birds were not listen to very often contrary to strads... Then a justified bias existed in favor of strads compared to the majority of modern violins which were inferior and this bias was then effectively justified by experience.... Indeed VERY FEW modern violins were really superior to the strads... The blind test only make this surprizing new fact known....Some modern luthier are also geniuses like the one of the past...
Then if you think about what i just said you must not be surprized.... All violinists are not deluded or guided only by their biases at all, like you suggest erroneously here... their bias in favor of strads was justified and replaced by a new discovery of some new masterpiece... They simply discovered a new modern absolute master piece which was not known much before the spectacular test made it well known... Even if biases are justified they can be proven wrong for sure...That does not means that there never exist a superiority of the strads and that this was ONLY a delusion...
Reality is more complex than your own biases about biases, sorry....
The modern violins were preferred. Here’s the kicker though. When asked if this would affect the values of the Strads the study lead said:
"If you know it’s a Strad, you will hear it differently," Fritz says. "And you can’t turn off that effect."
Here we go again!
Then reality is not composed by deluded audiophiles and violonists in a corner against blind test science truth in the other corner, like you suggest...
Reality is not SIMPLE..... Reality exist not in black and white but in colors on earth for the eyes able to see them....
Can we continue with logical fallacies and slide into Barbara and her boys? I am quite good at them. It may not be for an audio website, but so aren't logical fallacies either.
Apology if anyone is offended that after writing that I would “leave the thread” I should post again. The most recent comments re “Strads vs new” is a little too close to home to ignore; and prompted me to comment and add to mahgister’s excellent comments.
“Reviews” and related commentary such as on the linked blind test proclaiming the supposed superiority of modern instruments are maddening in their lack of depth and, as usual, ignorance of what superiority in an instrument truly means to a musician. Any accomplished musician will tell you that very often for a superior instrument to reveal its superiority the player needs to spend a considerable amount of time with it; not just minutes or even hours. Often, the instrument that is easier to play when first picked up, as is often the case with new instruments, will reveal itself to have limitations in complexity of timbre and will, long term, limit the player’s expressivity. The lack of innate complexity of timbre in many new instruments doesn’t offer the player as much potential to shape a very personalized tone. Conversely, instruments such as a great Strad or Guarneri will often feel far more resistant and constrained when the player first makes the acquaintance and the player (even world class) needs time to learn how that particular instrument likes to be played before it will open up and reveal its superiority in the areas that matter to a great player. Often, it is a matter of, instead of forcing the instrument to respond, of relaxing one’s technique and getting out of the way of the instrument. Initial impressions of tonal qualities of instruments in a blind tests consisting of little playing time with the instruments mean little and it is not surprising that some of the musicians taking part in the blind test would “prefer” the modern instruments.
As an aside, I have had extensive playing experience (I am not a string player) with a major East coast symphony orchestra which through a highly publicized arrangement with some benefactors was able to procure a collection of thirty (!) antique Italian string instruments (not only violins) including several Strads, Guarneri’s, del Gesu and Amatis for use by the players in the orchestra. All the players in the orchestra are first rate players with very fine, mostly modern, personal instruments. The impact on the sound of the string section as a result of the inclusion of the antique instruments was remarkable and transformative.
Yes, some modern luthiers are making fine string instruments today, but there are very real and legitimate reasons why Strads and Guarneri’s fetch the prices that they do. For many accomplished players they remain unsurpassed; and not because of expectation bias.
Thanks frogman these precisions about blind test improvisation and timbre perception had to come from a professional musician to correct hasty conclusions about the real value and limitations of blind test especially in this case...
There is not doubts that there is luthier genius today and the test has the merit to reveal one, but like you said it is IMPOSSIBLE to assess an instrument value in this kind of test and justifying irrational opinion like stradivarius reputation are ONLY biases....
Frog, what you said about great instruments, their complexities and unique character is applicable to people as well. I have never heard any of those famous violins live.
The logical fallacy of blindtest, in audio or music, when they are used out of their narrow usefulness window function, to reveal the reality or deceptiveness of small change that are not evident at first, is that they suppose that a DEFINITIVE judgement is possible out of the normal context and habit where the judgement is produced usually...Like a violin stradivarius compared to a modern one...Or an audiophile assessing without stress a small change in his system in his room with his files...
The use of blindtest in statistical medical procedure is another story completely... It is there they reveal the most important facet of their power , eliminating the human biases from the medical experiment...But assessing the value of a violin ask to the player the exact opposite, a mastering of the instrument, using his experienced biases or learning personal experience, impossible in most improvised blindtest...The listeners also must be experienced and in his normal circonstances or near them....
Wasn't that test about how audience hears it and not how the player feels while playing it? In any case, we can say there is too many variables and avoid going into the abyss of what is right.
Violins are slowly getting extinct and music these days depends on integrated circuits, resistors, and other things in similar direction rather than on a craftsman trying to surpass Guarneri. Same goes for the piano stores. Dwindling and dwindling for a reason. As sad as all of that may be. Once upon a time, harpsichord was a big thing, too.
What's sad is how some people either refuse or can't seem to grasp how biases influence human behavior. The violin test was just an example of how these biases affect each of us no matter how well we think we're immune. At least " Fritz" understood and shrugged, knowing he's human without twisting himself into a logical pretzel.
**** Wasn’t that test about how audience hears it and not how the player feels while playing it? ****
It was both; the article made that clear. Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote; although I feel I am just repeating myself:
When a player first picks up an instrument (new or old), the feeling created is a major contributor to the resulting sound. If the instrument feels free and non-resistant, easier to play, the resulting sound could very well be a more appealing sound to some listeners as the player feels and sounds more at ease and can, in fact, coax a pleasant tone out of the instrument. However, this is often also a limitation. If the instrument is more resistant and offers the player more “fight”, as is the case with many antique instruments, the ultimately superior sound of the instrument will not manifest itself until the player has had a considerable amount of time with the instrument; much more than is the case in a typical blind test. This is a good thing and a quality sought out by many players.
This concept may be difficult to grasp for a non instrumentalist, but it is reality and is the reason that those old instruments are held in such high esteem. There is more potential in store.
**** What’s sad is how some people either refuse or can’t seem to grasp how biases influence human behavior. ****
It is true that biases exist, but this does not negate what I described. What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play. Seems to me, that the person who is enlightened enough to understand bias should also be the one most open to the possibility that it is NOT always bias that is at play.
There has been a trend in the world of instrument making (all instruments, not just strings) to produce instruments that are brilliant, faster and more incisive sounding; not surprising, considering the similarly changing aesthetic sensibilities of our modern society. Many of the vintage instruments are held in high esteem and sought out by great players for their complexity and richness of tone, and other subtle and elusive qualities. They offer greater potential to a great player.
... What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that
reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about
the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play. Seems to me,
that the person who is enlightened enough to understand bias should
also be the one most open to the possibility that it is NOT always bias
that is at play...
That's one of the ironies about the measurementalists here. They'll even often refuse to listen to test whether their theories are valid - they have that much faith in their belief system. The other irony: The measurementalists frequently apply ill logic to their claims, so it makes meaningful conversation with them virtually impossible. Many of these measurementalists are here solely to argue, so these apparent inconsistencies suit them just fine.
As I posted the violin link I ought to explain why I thought it was useful - I did only to contribute to the debate whether a concept of “absolute” was conceivable at all. Those newer and older violins sounded more or less pleasing to the listeners - and the age or presumed quality or “signature” sound of the violin seemed to have little influence over that pleasure. The comment I picked out - that knowing it is a Strad is part of the pleasure - was meant to reinforce that.
I had the enormous pleasure of sitting a couple of metres from Nigel Kennedy in a small gathering where he played for 3 hours in support of our charity. He played his Guarneri “Lafont” and I know I will never hear anything more pleasing. I’m sure if he had played a £1000 violin it would have sounded magnificent. But knowing something of the history of the instrument actually in front of us undeniably added to the pleasure. What a night that was.
No. Bias can exist. It doesn’t always exist. Not every opinion is the result of bias.
Only way to eliminate is to blind test ...
That is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, aka tertium non datur. But I understand that your "one path to truth" approach suits your measurementalist’s belief system.
Here’s a simple truth about bias and placebo effect: Neither will cure cancer. No blind test is needed to prove that.
Blind test are valid in their SHORT range of applications,
small changes difficult to detect or statistical needs to erase human choices in medical research for example,
BUT they are no more valid to decide if the feeling for a stradivarius is ONLY AND MAINLY a BIAS not founded on a real quality herited and learned through history, but instead an arbitrary fad which the test is supposed to reveal....
The reason for that are touch upon in the pots of frogman, i will not repeat that...
Biases are universal and in all human choices, nobody could question that in his sane mind...
The use of blind test to PROVE that all biases, or preferences are purely arbirary, or deceptive is a use of blind test OUT of their normal range of useful application for the need of an "ideological" perspective, itself an unconscious bias....
I appreciate your post cleeds but i will make a precision...
Every opinion become a bias, but all opinion are not unfounded orientation of the mind or useless and meaningless habit, some opinion and unconscious bias are motivated by learning and listening, or any slow acquisition of knowledge...
All biases are prejudices but some prejudices are more meaningful than others.... Call them informed orientation of the subsconcscious and conscious mind...
Then pretending using blind test to reveal bias in the sense of unfounded and meaningless habits that oriented our choices is very delicate because there exist also bias that are meaningful and founded on real meaning and knowledge process acquisition...
Then the range of application of blind test is only ERASING the presence of ANY bias in a test for small change or for statistical methodology....
Not for proving that the taste for stradivarius is meaningless and non sense habit reflecting only arbitrary bias like the taste of a supposed deluded audiophile....
Erasing biases from an experiment CANNOT prove that the biases eliminated were all non sense choices or deceptives one EVER to begins with....This is science fact.... The other interpretation is cheap scientist ideology ....
Blind test are useful not for PROVING anything, it is ONLY a tool to eliminate human choices for statistical reason....
Any other use is childish epistemology.....Or epistemology for fanatic.... Pick you choice....
That’s one of the ironies about the measurementalists here. They’ll even often refuse to listen to test whether their theories are valid - they have that much faith in their belief system.
The other irony: The measurementalists frequently apply ill logic to their claims, so it makes meaningful conversation with them virtually impossible. Many of these measurementalists are here solely to argue, so these apparent inconsistencies suit them just fine.
For sure you are right on the sensible spot.....
For example if we read one of this childish fanatic:
I do enjoy the mental gymnastics to attempt to wave away bias. Bias exists. Period. Only way to eliminate is to blind test. Take weeks, just do it blind. You don’t have magical powers.
He accuse people to refuse to eliminate their own experience, learning, knowledge, because of the blind test....
He does not realize that using blind test can never make all bias equal, founded and unfounded one, the test can erase them in "artificial conditions" useful statistically but meaningless to decide if some bias are meaningful and others not... And THIS is the important point....
He want to prove that all audiophiles perceptions are pure deceptive "taste" unfounded in reality....Then he devise a blind test supposed to reveal that... But no blindtest coud scientifically do that.... Erasing biases they can do it....Proving that ALL biases are meaningless they cannot do it by virtue of being blind choices in "artificial" conditions....
Frogman only insist on that point... But it sems that this distinction ask for too much brain power to be grasped by some....
Audio2design accuse audiophiles to boast their magical power.... It is a straw man argument so big that explaining it, is like explainig philisophy to babies... Anyway... I will explain it shortly: any audiophile like any violin player has a set of subtles acquired perceptives habits that are powerful tool but ONLY in a specfic environment and with some very usual and known parameters...Changing them provoke most of the times the lost of the acquired perceiving knowledge...Stres, unusual conditions, any modifications....
Then erasing bias is science statiscally sound method, using it to PROVE anything is no more science... The strategy of audio2design is childish.... To say the least....
**** You assume the new instrument is easier to play. That’s a false assumption even just for the nature of the instruments tested. You assume they won’t get better on the new instrument as well, again a false assumption. You assume that playing ability can coax a change in the fundamental sonic characteristics which is not guaranteed and again assumes the old instrument must have hidden capability. All instruments were played blind. No one even knew what they were playing. ****
As I have encouraged you to do previously, please read my comments more carefully. Your comments and knee jerk contradictions demonstrate a very simplistic and frankly, sophomoric grasp of all this. Not a good thing, especially for someone who claims to be in the business of capturing the sounds that we are talking about.
I have performed with what must be literally hundreds of professional string players over the years in various orchestras and other professional ensembles; never mind, other types of instrumentalists. I have spoken at length to many of these on the subject; it is what musicians do, constantly and sometimes to a fault. What I wrote is absolutely true; not in every single case, but often the case. The same principle applies to many other families of instruments. Some professionals do, in fact, prefer the ease of play or other traits of some modern instruments; many do not. Many players seek out the special qualities that some of these old instruments possess and is why they are willing to pay those prices.
What is your experience playing an instrument in a professional capacity and how often have you had the opportunity to discuss this issue with accomplished professional players? Opportunity knocks.
The OP mentions his wonderful experience listening to Nigel Kennedy perform live. Does anyone think that an artist of this caliber cares more about the cache of playing a rare instrument such as his Guarneri more so than playing the instrument that is best for him and his artistic vision; and, is willing to compromise his artistry (and pocket book) by playing an instrument that is not? Anyone who believes that simply doesn’t understand what musicians do. There is a running joke among players about receiving payment or other renumeration for endorsing and “playing” a particular brand of new instrument while playing his/her vintage instrument when performing.
What's saddest of all is not accepting Fritz when he acknowledges how his bias influences him.
If you know it’s a Strad, you will hear it differently," Fritz says. "And you can’t turn off that effect."
I'm not locked in a mindset I simply took Fritz at his word , maybe I'm mistaken and you were saying Fritz is locked in a mindset not me, if so I apologize.
What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
