Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aeolian 
I have seen heard $100 instruments sound ten times better then 10,000 instruments. I have not gotten to the $100,000 level yet. I can tell you that two exact instruments made by the same person under the same controlled environment with the same materials will sound different. That is an area that should be studied, but sadly is not. I've heard Mahogany made instruments sound as bright as Maple and vise versa. My best guess is that it's all in how it's played and who is playing the instrument.
I both agree and disagree just a bit. My violin from the 1880's appraises around $3,000 and I've learned it was the "mass" version of a master German violin maker's studio - made by his apprentices, not by him - and maybe with some parts that didn't quite pass muster with the stricter standards of the studio's "higher mark" instruments.
It's taken some abuse over the years (by kid me, mostly), and when I began having it restored, I rented a cheap, modern violin and was surprised how much I could tell the difference in the richness of the sound. The playing experience - how it felt and responded - was not as good either. I also found that the major restoration work - not done yet - will take up to six months to do properly as there are many exacting steps involved.
Fascinatingly I've also learned the sound of a violin evolves over time - more rapidly at first, and then through the instrument's life - depending on factors including how it's played (this is called "playing in"), cared for, stored, environmental conditions, etc. The wood is actually effected by the sounds (primary and overtones) it generates over time, becoming more resonant with some frequencies and less with others. So a good violin becomes better when played by a good violinist, whereas if sawed on by amateurs may even become slightly "sour." (Maybe I need to move the appraisal down thinking back on my learning days!)
On the other hand, at a certain point I'm sure price differences begin to depend more on rarity, prestige and aesthetic details of the make than on any meaningful differences in the sound. We are powerfully effected psychologically by what we're led to expect. If you put a decent $10-15 wine in a $50 wine bottle and serve it (I've done this as a test), most will be primed to enjoy it more than if it came out of the Yellow Tail bottle because they believe it's "the good stuff." So likely the same if a good violin player with decent pitch sense is considering spending $15 K vs $5. "Oooo. It's a Varistradius. I want it, I want it!"
(This is also likely true of perceptions of notebook computers - e.g., an MB pro vs. a half-the-price PC with the same basic specs - processor, mobo, graphics chipset, screen res, contrast, latency, etc - the value add's in the ergonomics, design, make - and endlessly arguably in the OS - whose UI essentially disappears when you're in Photoshop or Word. Leaving the question of whether it's "really" that much worth more - and part of the answer lies in the user's needs, skill set and support required, but part also lies in the Mac's carefully cultivated perception of greater prestige.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aeolian Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigpics
For another, and back to the topic, it helps explain the fact that even 20 years after "Is it live or is it Memorex" commercials, we can still almost always tell live sound from recorded. Even if the live sound was all fed to the room through amps and speakers, as it propagates into the hall, very complex wave interactions are occurring (e.g., not all the sound of a singer's voice is being sucked into a microphone - it's live and projecting at different angles, and the live voice is probably a millisecond ahead of what's coming out of the speakers, etc., etc., etc.) Whatever, there's still something "missing" in the recording that makes it sound "flatter," less vibrant than "being there," and turning up the volume doesn't add that quality, and adding more recorded channels still doesn't recreate the entire sense.
I think you're talking about environmental acoustics... Engineers try to duplicate them, in a small part, with reverb and delay.
There are endless variables at work here, aren't there? My stereo receiver has about 30 acoustical "environments" with names like "Viennese Concert Hall," "Nightclub" and "Spectacle," and they do vary markedly. On some, e.g., you can scarcely hear actor's voices above the sound effects and music and on others the voices are front and center. The wonders of wave form engineering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cnocbui
It is very hard to study any claims made by or involving 'philes', particularly those of the audio variety. They tend to run a mile from any attempt to put their assertions to a real world test.
In the late 80's or early 90' there was a TV program in Australia called 'Beyond 2000', it reported on technology.
In one show, they assembled a panel of listeners in their studio which included a professor of music - to prove they were not all tone deaf I suppose.
They had a stage with an acoustically transparent curtain hanging in front. On the stage were a pair of Duntech Prince speakers and a violinist. The violinist stood between the speakers and played live and they played back a recording that had been made of the violinist standing in the same position. They then asked the panel which was the live performance.
They couldn't tell. They admitted to having to resort to guessing and even the professor of music guessed wrong.
All that harmonics mumbo jumbo seems to ignore that harmonics tend to be at far lower volume levels than the original signal, and the results of their possible interactions would be even lower still. There is a basic psychoacoustic effect that pertains to human hearing called masking. Basically, loud sounds tend to drown out quieter ones to the point the quieter ones can not be perceived. So harmonics and their offspring are probably masked to the point of inaudibility.
Masking is the basis for audio compression systems like Mp3 and AAC and is why they can sound so good.
More good stuff, even if I'm not quite sure all harmonics and overtones effects can be entirely called "mumbo-jumbo."
I used to watch that show as well, btw. Not deep, but fun. And don't doubt those results. Think the more instruments and voices you add, though, the easier it would be to tell as the effects of all the sounds and sources interact to the point that the sum of the subtle effects is perceivable if only as a sense of "live."
And while I don't know that much about masking, I'm not sure exactly how or why it would make things "sound so good." I'm not doubting the claim, but again this
is yet a further alteration of the original sound wave. Still, you've sent me back to the books. So here's a primer on
psychoacoustics and another on
Auditory masking for the interested.
Another thing that radically alters the sound we hear in our homes, cars, ear buds, etc. which I do know a little about is dynamic compression, e.g., as practiced - sometimes to an extreme degree - by every (?) FM pop/rock/rap music station to avoid any sound volume valleys or extreme peaks that might call attention to themselves. Noticeable and it sucks. I don't know how much broadcast, cable or streamed TV use these techniques, nor how much compression's typically applied to different kinds of music and movies BEFORE the media's finalized and released.
Anyway, what I've learned here (again) is that given all the variables (including our ears and tastes) there is no such thing as completely "accurate" sound recording and reproduction, never has been and in all probability never will be. And that within limits, all the tricks and device/media chains we use to get sound from point A to a later point B, that may in some ways be a good thing as long as we can hear what we want when we want as a reasonable facsimile of the source.
Buaaa haaa haa ahaaaa.
