Link
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Link
 

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

See also
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp
or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn

After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
tone than the modern one.

Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
really could tell the difference between the two.

For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.

Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
forms on oscilloscope.

He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
vice versa.

Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
to exit under the door.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Link
 

On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

See also
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp

or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn

After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
tone than the modern one.

Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
really could tell the difference between the two.

For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.

Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
forms on oscilloscope.

He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
vice versa.

Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
to exit under the door.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.

Link
 

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:46:46 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

See also
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp

or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn

After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
tone than the modern one.

Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
really could tell the difference between the two.

For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.

Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
forms on oscilloscope.

He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
vice versa.

Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
to exit under the door.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.

Not to ignore the supposed sound advantage to be obtained by adding a
flywheel like mass to a CD to help move out the wow and flutter of the
drive. [Note: the CD reads into a buffer which downloads digital data
to the DAC at a constant rate governed by a clock.]

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Link
 

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

There's nothing particularly surprising in that research. The real reason for
buying a Stradivari instrument isn't that it plays better or sounds better.
It's to "prove" that you're a good enough (and successful enough) performer to
justify shelling out the necessary cash.

But it raises the obvious question for the likes of us: Where is the point
beyond which the aquisition of more and more expensive photographic equipment
serves only that same purpose in our world?

Bob

Link
 

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:17:22 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
: wrote:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius
:
: See also
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp
: or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn
:
: After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
: difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
: was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
: tone than the modern one.
:
: Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
: ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
: amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
: challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
: really could tell the difference between the two.
:
: For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
: somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
: were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
: ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
: better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.
:
: Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
: did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
: forms on oscilloscope.
:
: He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
: depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
: amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
: arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
: component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
: vice versa.
:
: Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
: sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
: actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
: to exit under the door.

I assume that they were allowed to pass their fat heads out through the
window. ;^)

Bob

Link
 

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:39:54 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:46:46 +0000, Pete A
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
:
: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
: wrote:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius
:
: See also
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp
:
: or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn
:
: After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
: difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
: was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
: tone than the modern one.
:
: Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
: ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
: amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
: challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
: really could tell the difference between the two.
:
: For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
: somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
: were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
: ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
: better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.
:
: Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
: did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
: forms on oscilloscope.
:
: He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
: depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
: amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
: arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
: component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
: vice versa.
:
: Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
: sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
: actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
: to exit under the door.
:
: Regards,
:
: Eric Stevens
:
: In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
: optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.
:
: Not to ignore the supposed sound advantage to be obtained by adding a
: flywheel like mass to a CD to help move out the wow and flutter of the
: drive. [Note: the CD reads into a buffer which downloads digital data
: to the DAC at a constant rate governed by a clock.]

Why does that remind me that Kodak is about to go bankrupt?

Bob

Link
 

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:02:11 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

There's nothing particularly surprising in that research. The real reason for
buying a Stradivari instrument isn't that it plays better or sounds better.
It's to "prove" that you're a good enough (and successful enough) performer to
justify shelling out the necessary cash.

But it raises the obvious question for the likes of us: Where is the point
beyond which the aquisition of more and more expensive photographic equipment
serves only that same purpose in our world?

It seems to be agreed that the Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins
were better than those which followed them over the next one or two
centuries. Much research has gone into the reasons with the major
arguments being built around the qualities of the varnish and,
separately, the wood. It is now being argued that the quality of the
wood was enhanced by the conditions leading up to the Little Ice Age.
Later violins used later wood which led to violins which sounded
different.

In any case, over the last fifty years there has been much research
into the factors making the Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins so
evidently superior to the violins made by others which followed and as
the URL above shows the best of modern violins are the equal of the
17th~18th century violins from Cremona.

The current situation in photography is quite different. There has
been no transitory period of high quality followed by a period of
lower quality. Whether film or digital, photographic technology has
been steadily improving and we are far from the point where it is
leveling off.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Link
 

Robert Coe writes:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

There's nothing particularly surprising in that research. The real reason for
buying a Stradivari instrument isn't that it plays better or sounds better.
It's to "prove" that you're a good enough (and successful enough) performer to
justify shelling out the necessary cash.

You state that as a fact -- but violinists I talk to disagree with you.
(Well, this decade the Strads are getting to be too old; but when they
developed their modern high prices, the experts thought they WERE worth
it to play.)

But it raises the obvious question for the likes of us: Where is the point
beyond which the aquisition of more and more expensive photographic equipment
serves only that same purpose in our world?

My funds limits (or willingness to spend limits) kick in well before
that, for me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Link
 

On 2012-01-06 00:07:44 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:39:54 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:46:46 +0000, Pete A
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
:
: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
: wrote:
:
:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

:
: See also
:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp

:
: or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn
:
: After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
: difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
: was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
: tone than the modern one.
:
: Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
: ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
: amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
: challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
: really could tell the difference between the two.
:
: For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
: somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
: were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
: ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
: better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.
:
: Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
: did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
: forms on oscilloscope.
:
: He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
: depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
: amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
: arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
: component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
: vice versa.
:
: Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
: sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
: actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
: to exit under the door.
:
: Regards,
:
: Eric Stevens
:
: In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
: optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.
:
: Not to ignore the supposed sound advantage to be obtained by adding a
: flywheel like mass to a CD to help move out the wow and flutter of the
: drive. [Note: the CD reads into a buffer which downloads digital data
: to the DAC at a constant rate governed by a clock.]

Why does that remind me that Kodak is about to go bankrupt?

Bob

Absolutely no idea why your wrote that comment. However, it reminds me
that most people cannot discern the difference between Kodachrome 25
and consumer grade films just as most cannot tell the difference
between a good concert piano and a Yamaha "electric" piano.

I have two of Yamaha's exemplary keyboard instruments: organ and
effects synthesizer. They are old yet the sound is far beyond the
capabilities of MP3 recording, just not quite up to the best CD audio.
Recent top of the range Yamaha Clavinovas and Electones are capable of
producing sounds that truly defy the imagination. Sadly, by the time
they've gone through the "mixing for most profit" recording studios
their magic has been destroyed, making them sound only like a Technics
et al.

On my wish list is to play both a Moog synthesizer and a Fender Rhodes
electric piano. Look what happened to those fine instruments aeons ago.
I'm amazed by how often the Fender Rhodes sound is emulated in 21st
century popular music.