It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
Frank Almond, the concertmaster of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra said in an email that the study could not account for the months it often takes for violinists and instruments to acclimate to each other. "My experience is that if one of these esteemed soloists were given perhaps two months to compare a ‘new’ instrument to (for example) a great Strad or del Gesù under a variety of conditions, I don’t believe there would be much of a discussion."
Earl Carlyss, a longtime member of the Juilliard String Quartet said “I don’t know any great soloist who has a Strad or Guarneri who is trading it in for a new instrument.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-tell.html?ref=science?src=dayp&_r=0
The fact that smaller rooms have different acoustical properties than larger rooms and halls makes no difference. Because they were not testing the sound of the room. They were testing the sound of two instruments. You're answering a completely different question than the one they set out to answer.
I don't dispute *any* of what you've quoted. Most of it is right on point when it comes to acoustical analysis of rooms.
But I do question the relevancy though. Because again... that isn't what they were testing for. They could've done it in a coffin, a cardboard box, a train tunnel, on top of a mountain, or sitting astride a pony. It still would not have any relevancy to their hypothesis.
And the fact that nobody made this point previously is gobsmacking to me.
It didn't happen here - at least not overall, although it did change the order of preference for some of them - but you can't say that results you found in one room are necessarily valid for another, very different one. And that's even leaving the question of a 'mix' of other instruments out of it, which could have a big impact as well. (And which they did then allow the players to try too, which makes the results even more valid.)
You *are* testing the sound of the room whenever you listen to an instrument. If you think the room makes no difference to the sound of an instrument, see if you can get access to an anechoic chamber and listen to the sound of your own voice.
Playing violins in a hotel room tells you which sounds better in a hotel room. It doesn't tell you for sure which will sound better with an orchestra, even if it might give you an idea.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
If you want to isolate the properties of acoustic instruments for analysis, you need a room that is going to influence the sound as little as possible. Which is what they did.
I agree that you cannot say results for one room are valid for another. I also agree that one instrument might sound better in one room, and the other might sound better in another room.
But again - they were not testing the room.
Anechoic chambers are scary. I've been in one and it's not nice. lol.
take heart, I moaned about it: it's aperfectly valid test
"Most violinists prefer to try out violins in a room with relatively dry acoustics, where the direct sound from the instrument is not so much colored by room reflections. Sessions were therefore conducted in a hotel room whose acoustics seemed well-suited to the task. We are aware that room acoustics may influence a player’s preference for one instrument or another. However, that is a separate question not covered in this study."
It didn't seem worth challenging because you do not hear the sound without the room. If it had been an anechoic chamber okay, but in a cardboard box (unless it's a really big cardboard box) there's going to be a difference in the sound you hear. And if you're hearing something different that might make a difference to your preferences. So why bother challenging that when you basically have to come up with your own unsubstantiated hypothesis to do so?
The test is valid for THAT room. Do it in another room, that test will be valid for THAT room, but not the former. Standard stuff.
You need to control the conditions so that only one variable is being tested at once. That is standard scientific method. Exactly! And if the results are very different, you know the difference is more to do with the room than the instrument. If not, you know it's mostly the instrument.
(Which it did turn out to be.) But you cannot tell which it is until you test in more than one room, unless the first room is an anechoic chamber. Since you've been in one, you will know just how much reverb an apparently 'dry' normal room has... a lot!
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
Band Stuff: https://navigationofficial.bandcamp.com/album/silhouette-ep
So - did we conclude that the scientific approach was not totally wrong?
It seems these ancient violins should be put in bank vaults and museums, and we should allow players to shine without having to fight to get the loan of a multi-million pound antique from a patron in order to boost their status & reputation
No one likes them in a dry room, and no one even likes them in concert halls, which contradicts the BS snake oil consensus group think
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
A pool of 15 new and 9 Old Italian violins was assembled by the authors. The new violins (none of which were used in the Indianapolis experiment) were built by professional makers in Europe and North America and were between several days and two decades old. Makers were invited to submit only instruments that were “ antiqued ” (i.e., made to resemble old instruments). The makers agreed not to publicize their involvement in the experiment and were aware they would never know whether their instrument had been included in the set of 12 test violins. Old violins in the pool included 2 by Guarneri del Gesu (both made after 1740), 6 by Stradivari, and 1 by another well-known 18th century Italian master. None of these violins belonged to or were played by the invited soloists. All were loaned on condition that their identity remain confidential (thus, the very general descriptions used throughout this paper). It was assumed that the parties who loaned instruments had an interest in them sounding their best and so had them set up and adjusted accordingly. All violins were therefore kept in the exact condition in which they were received. This condition was monitored throughout the study by separate “guardians”— J.C. for new violins and T.G. for old. Other than a slight buzz that developed with one of the new instruments and the replacement of a reportedly uncomfortable chinrest on one old violin, none of the instruments presented problems, nor did any soloists report difficulties with setup or adjustment. Six old and 6 new violins were selected from the pool by means of informal blind tests designed to eliminate instruments with the least impressive playing qualities. Just which instruments were included in the final 12 was not revealed to the makers, dealers, collectors, and players who submitted them.
But I was joking really, it's almost certainly not a dog at all by normal standards.
And keeping them completely unidentified other than as old and new is the best way to make the test result meaningful too.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein