If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
7D link | Charles[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | September 18th 09 05:18 AM |
30D PC link | alandav123 | Digital Photography | 4 | October 7th 07 11:28 PM |
30D PC link | alandav123 | Digital Photography | 0 | October 6th 07 10:21 PM |
Some useful link | jassica | Digital Photography | 0 | March 26th 07 03:35 AM |
New Link | Eros | In The Darkroom | 0 | January 23rd 05 06:50 PM |