If they can't tell the difference, you probably can't either...

[Dark Horse]

A test to see if classically trained violinists could tell the difference between a couple Stradavarius, a Guarneri, and 3 modern made violins.

Not specific to basses (though it mentions in the article that "other instruments were tested with similar results"), but pretty much demonstrates how important our "eyes" are to how we perceive the "sound" of instruments.

Double-Blind Violin Test: Can You Pick The Strad? : Deceptive Cadence : NPR

[JimmyM]

I could have told you that without even reading the article

[Righteous Thunderer]

That's hilarious to me, and makes a lot of sense.

I have a VERY modern violin that cost about $500, case included. It's actually nicer than I'd realized, and when my at the time instructor tried it out, he was surprised it was on the lesser side of $1,000.

[jelwood]

I wish someone would do this with ampegs and Hartkes and GKs and so on. Or have they?

[s_mcsleazy]

im not meaning to sound rude but i could probs tell the diffrence if i was playing my jazz bass and a few others blind but thats only cos mines has got a few dings on the neck

[fourstringdrums]

But when does playability become a factor? My cousin is a violinist and hers, used, cost over 11k. I'm sure she'd be able to tell the difference in playability with a 1k violin.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by fourstringdrums

But when does playability become a factor? My cousin is a violinist and hers, used, cost over 11k. I'm sure she'd be able to tell the difference in playability with a 1k violin.

Most of the violin players in that study couldn't. Not saying that playability differences don't exist, but they're usually not related to cost unless we're talking bottom of the line.

[Baird6869]

I read an article that compared a '52 Les Paul to a later '50 model the exact same and a modern reissue.

The reissue was the favorite.

I guess the benefits of animal hide glue, decades of vibration and drying out of the wood aren't as important to tone as many believe. I would feel differently if I spent over $100k on a crappy sounding Gibson or over $1m on a crappy sounding Strad!

[lomo]

It doesn't surprise me at all. Good, dry, wood is good, dry, wood. The idea that different woods have significant, audibly (=blindly) discernible differences in tone doesn't stand up to proper testing, although there's a fluffy mountain of anecdote and magical thinking that says the objective testing is wrong.

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by lomo

...there's a fluffy mountain of anecdote and magical thinking that says the objective testing is wrong.

Yep! And further, the magical thinkers and true believers angrily argue that any objective testing is untrustworthy and faulty, and that it actually causes "real differences" to become imperceptible because of some effect of the test upon the listener. Every freakin time.

[StuartV]

Also confirmed in this recent thread:

P vs P-like: Can you tell the difference?



Now, if somebody would just do the same kind of test for this thread:

What makes a Sadowsky better than a Music Man or a Modulus?

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by bongomania

Yep! And further, the magical thinkers and true believers angrily argue that any objective testing is untrustworthy and faulty, and that it actually causes "real differences" to become imperceptible because of some effect of the test upon the listener. Every freakin time.

Yes! And it's all moot because people hear what they are inclined to hear, NOT what actually exists. Psycho-acoustics is as important, or more important than actual sound, because humans have an incredible ability to perceive the world as they want it to be, not as it actually is.

[audiomitch]

This reminds me of the "Monster Cable versus coathangers" audiophile test. Pretty hilarious stuff.

[Dark Horse]

Related....

The Trouble with Experts | Watch Free Documentary Online

[Stevorebob]

http://nyti.ms/u5E4bX

Stradivari and Guarneri violins don't sound better according to a University of Paris study. Aparrently, we just think so because they are rare and costly. Maybe there is some of this effect with classic and high-end basses?

[Funkinthetrunk]

I've read an old article about Leo Fender...he too didn't believe that old Fenders sounded better than newer ones.

[more coffee]

So... the conclusion to take from this is that the wood doesn't matter?

[bass12]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Yes! And it's all moot because people hear what they are inclined to hear, NOT what actually exists. Psycho-acoustics is as important, or more important than actual sound, because humans have an incredible ability to perceive the world as they want it to be, not as it actually is.

I actually get frustrated when I don't hear what I expect to in a bass. If I was to hear what I'm "inclined to hear" then there'd be no problem.

[danroche]

Originally Posted by bongomania

Yep! And further, the magical thinkers and true believers angrily argue that any objective testing is untrustworthy and faulty, and that it actually causes "real differences" to become imperceptible because of some effect of the test upon the listener. Every freakin time.

You've spent time on audiophile forums, haven't you?

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by more coffee

So... the conclusion to take from this is that the wood doesn't matter?

Ha !

No.




But I think we can at least infer that perhaps the differences between a quality modern instrument and a quality vintage instrument are smaller than what our eyes and romanticism would have us believe. (and for the record, I love my vintage Fenders)