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

[JimmyM]

The only way to properly conduct that test is to remove the human element from all of these tests: invent a robot that plays the instruments the same way every time because attack, finger pressure, and will to play can change in thirty seconds in a human while a machine can be programmed to do it EXACTLY the same every time, regardless of instrument.

Other than that, I have nothing to say

Peace,
Greg

I don't buy into that. Many have worked very hard to be consistent in their playing. Besides, robots don't play as well as humans.

 

[eqvolvorama]

I don't buy into that. Many have worked very hard to be consistent in their playing. Besides, robots don't play as well as humans.

Well in theory the tests are contaminated already when the players know which bass they are playing at any point in time. If I know I'm playing a vintage Fender, that knowledge might influence my playing in a way I can't control.

The catch with this line of thinking is this: if we have to achieve an impossibly pristine testing environment (involving robots who might or might not revolt and kill us all) it kind of advances the notion that the differences are insignificant. You can't say that two basses sound "night and day" from one another in normal playing, then immediately demand that testing to this end be performed in a hermetically sealed chamber in zero-gravity.

 

[bass12]

Exactly. Hey, I saw a demo once of one of the big name soloists with a Strad and a student violin. The difference was so obvious (and playability wasn't even involved...he played the butt of BOTH violins) and even through my crappy TV speaker I hear an obvious difference. And THAT was enough information for me to tell the difference in the smoothness between a better quality modern violin and the Strad through the internet and my computer and head phones and easily get it right.

It's the tonewood thing all over again. If I'm sitting in a concert hall and the soloist steps up am I going to say "Oh, he's not playing the strad, tonight!"? Without anything to compare to, anyone would be hard pressed if not impossible to figure that out unless it's an "entry level violin". But I'll bet you the PLAYER could easily tell the difference. Hey I've got two nearly identical Jazz basses: One in Ash and one in Alder. and *I* can easily tell the difference. But then they are mine, and I've lived with them for a long time. But if anyone noticed the difference on the gig, I'd have to start expecting reports of something frozen over.

But I find the whole premise (that expert violinists can't tell a strad even if they play it) to be totally bogus, if I can easily hear it through my computer without even touching them. But are people hosed? Yes they are. Cripes most everyone (including bassists) don't even notice that I'm playing fretless if I use a lined fretless! And you expect them to notice the subtle tone difference in a Strad?

Well put. I always find the "no one in the audience can tell the difference between x and y bass" argument to be a silly one. Of course most people in the audience won't be able to tell the difference between any two given basses - most of the audience members couldn't even pick out the bass line! I don't choose the bass I'm going to play because I think the audience will like it better, I choose it because I would prefer to play that bass. I can tell the difference and that sensitivity will influence how I interact with my instrument (not to mention how much pleasure I'll experience during the performance).

 

[longfinger]

Keep in mind that the "new" violins tested were likely 30 years old, played in quite a bit, and were made by master modern craftsmen as copies of the old master violins. They likely sell for $20 000 to $40 000. Those are the new ones. They are not cheap $400 instruments, or even $3000 instruments. But also they were likely not "new innovative design" instruments either like this.

Invalid Link Removed

Also the old violins have all been "hot rodded" to be more in line with mid 20-th century tastes of concert pitch, steel strings, neck angle, bridge height etc. They don't sound the way they did 300 years ago. What we want to hear changes over time.

Another aspect in pricing is that the old master instruments are worth millions not just because they sound great, but because of their legacy value as an object of human achievement and progress in thought, culture and civilization. Just like anyone of us can buy a print, or even a hand painted copy of the Mona Lisa for our living rooms that looks just as nice as the real Mona Lisa, at a tiny fraction of the price of the real one. Substituting the real one for the copy won't change the cosmetics of the living room decor. But the real one is in the Louvre and is worth millions, not because it's prettier, but because it is the real one made by Leonardo daVinci's hand.

 

[longfinger]

Well put. I always find the "no one in the audience can tell the difference between x and y bass" argument to be a silly one. Of course most people in the audience won't be able to tell the difference between any two given basses - most of the audience members couldn't even pick out the bass line! I don't choose the bass I'm going to play because I think the audience will like it better, I choose it because I would prefer to play that bass. I can tell the difference and that sensitivity will influence how I interact with my instrument (not to mention how much pleasure I'll experience during the performance).

The point of the test we read about, was that master PLAYERS could not tell the difference accurately when performing blind folded.

So to bring it back to you, it is like if you were blindfolded and handed instruments to play (with equal master setup, and equal amplification process), and YOU could not reliably tell the difference between the $1000 one that is a copy of the $8000 one. (Pricing of electric basses don't have the inflation of violins, but you get the idea.)

 

[bjabass]

The only way to properly conduct that test is to remove the human element from all of these tests: invent a robot that plays the instruments the same way every time because attack, finger pressure, and will to play can change in thirty seconds in a human while a machine can be programmed to do it EXACTLY the same every time, regardless of instrument.

Other than that, I have nothing to say

Peace,
Greg

That would obviate the test altogether...the point is, can a human (a very highly qualified human) tell the difference.

Throws a new light on the "does wood make a difference" argument...not to mention the difference in cheap vs. expensive POWER CORDS!

Now of course there are those of us who CAN tell the difference, just can't PROVE it....

 

[seamonkey]

These violin double blind tests have shown up a few times. Usually a single blind test with a player behind a curtain. Still it's always the same. There's not statistical difference in what musicians can hear, and in this case feel. It matches what just plain objective measurements and listening tests say.

IMHO - it boils down to "Familiarity" - whatever sounds familiar over accuracy. We're based more on recalling patterns than quality of sound. Familiar can be copied.

The wood in the old strads has been tested, and it's treated with preservatives
PLoS ONE: Mineral Preservatives in the Wood of Stradivari and Guarneri
Imagine if "all natural" was a fad back then.

 

[Pickebass]

This is a question that has no correct answer. "Better" sounding is definitely subjective. Different woods have different tonal characteristics. Even using the same type of wood with the same build dates will be different. IMO it has alot to do with environmental conditions. With changes in preparing woods (specifically to guitars/basses), there are more tonewoods that are accepted these days than were acceptable previously. Every bass does not have to use Alder or Ash to sound good (although it's really hard to beat)

I think the tonal different is unique to that instrument. There are some great sounding/playing new instruments and some great sounding/playing older ones. There are no absolutes in finding the instrument that speaks to YOU

 

[bass12]

The point of the test we read about, was that master PLAYERS could not tell the difference accurately when performing blind folded.

So to bring it back to you, it is like if you were blindfolded and handed instruments to play (with equal master setup, and equal amplification process), and YOU could not reliably tell the difference between the $1000 one that is a copy of the $8000 one. (Pricing of electric basses don't have the inflation of violins, but you get the idea.)

Oh, I get that. I was responding specifically to certain points made in bassbenj's post (slightly "off topic" I suppose).

 

[seamonkey]

This is a question that has no correct answer. "Better" sounding is definitely subjective.

...

It sure is, and my point is it needs to be "Familiar"

If you were a back wood cigar box fiddle player and handed a strad, I doubt you or your friends would find it familiar. And because it wasn't familiar you may say it doesn't sound good, especially with the jug player next to you.

But if somebody from the big city heard you playing the cigar box, then the strad, they might have a different opinion.

 

[mongo2]

Of the two samples at the OPs link I correctly picked the Strad...They definitely sound different.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

I don't think it's a situation where there is no difference as much as the effects are hyped up.

If you install a freshly made SD Antiquity in your Squier P-bass, will it sound different? Heck yeah it will, it's a completely different pickup. Now if you could take that pickup and run some additional voltage through it for a few months to make it sound older, will you notice a difference? Probably not as much as the intial pickup change. Now if you slap on new tuners, a new bridge, put a nitro finish on, and change out all your pots...will it sound phenomenal and rival the sound of a 60's p-bass? Not as much as when you changed the pickup initially.

People put too much faith into something that the previously mentioned changes aren't meant to do. New tuners will probably wind easier and hold tuning better, a new bridge would probably make adjustments easier and increase stability, a nitro finish might be more comfortable or look more appealing, and better pots will more than likely pop less and probably turn smoother. The problem here is people expect all this stuff to make a monumental difference in their sound, and that's what these companies or idiots try to sell these as. Pickups, preamps, and strings make the most difference in sound that we can hear and is quantifiable. Woods and other things may have an effect on them, but will this be noticeable after going through certain pickups, preamps, effects, amplifiers, speakers, through a PA, and into someone's ears? Not as much as they'd lead you to believe.

I've bought monster cables because many of them have sturdy connectors and dont bend at the plugs as easily as others I've bought in the past...not because I think the cable knows what genre (or instrument for that fact) that I'm playing it with lol. $99 for someone's signature cable? Gimme a break :scowl:

 

[Root 5]

I have said for years and years that guitarists/bassists tend to listen with their eyes instead of their ears. I'm not surprised in the least by the OP.

I promise you this: If all human beings were blind - we wouldn't be playing and 'needing' that $5,000 bass.

 

[mongo2]

If all human beings were blind - we wouldn't be playing and 'needing' that $5,000 bass.

That raises the question: If all human beings were blind would there be any basses?

 

[seamonkey]

Of the two samples at the OPs link I correctly picked the Strad...They definitely sound different.

One out of many.

There's a bell curve

Some people hear better than others.
Some peoples eyes are better than others - i.e. some people wear glasses.

"Color" is actually all in the mind.

Many optical and audio illusions show that we all don't see or hear as perfectly as we think.

 

[oniman7]

There's a good point to this test. I can typically hear a jazz bass, is different from a P bass and if I think I hear an EBMM Stingray, I'm right 9 times out of 10. Same with Ibanez. I can typically hear a range of amps that would produce a similar sound. This is mostly with brands and genres that I listen to, however, where I have somewhat trained myself That's as close as I need to get and as close as I will ever be.

 

[champbassist]

Related....

The Trouble with Experts | Watch Free Documentary Online

...but that was one of the best things I've watched in quite a while, thanks!

 

[pklima]

I really like these kinds of studies.

So, old violins may not sound better than new ones in a blind test, but good-looking violinists do sound better than ugly ones in a blind test: Invalid Link Removed

Another study found a similar result for female classical vocalists, too.

One study I'd like to see would be to have the same audio clip of a full band playing a popular song live with video of maybe 10 very different-looking guitars being played (let's say from an old Teisco to something ultra-modern), ask a lot of people with no musical training or experience to evaluate it, and see which version sounds best to them and how big the differences are. Any wealthy TBers who like to donate to universities want to fund this?

 

[mcnach]

Interestingly, the experts are worse at distinguishing differences than lay persons.

In one experiment, wine experts were given 2 wines - a red and a white. None of the 57 experts realised that the two wines were the same wine - a white, one with red food colouring. They described the red in classical "red wine terms" (crushed red berries etc.)

Not sure where you read that but... even I can tell a white from a red wine...

I do not believe that.

 

[eqvolvorama]

Not sure where you read that but... even I can tell a white from a red wine...

I do not believe that.

You might try testing yourself, then. I'm not necessarily casting doubt that you could, but blind testing one's self can be a truly eye-opening experience, so to speak.

One of the points driven home by the "Trouble with Experts" video is sometimes merely "knowing" you can tell the difference creates an expectation bias that overrides your ability to actually do so.

I should add that the test mentioned didn't say that people couldn't tell the difference between white and red wine, it said that people WOULD taste a difference with as much as a drop of red food coloring added TO the white wine. The wines were objectively of the same composition of flavors, assuming that the food coloring had no flavor-modifying properties. What the test suggests is that expectation plays a big role in telling our brains how things taste.

If you were to blind test two wines - one white and one red, the two may still taste different, but you'd be testing if one could consistently match each taste to the "color" - not the same thing as the test in the documentary. You still might fail, for all anyone knows.