Sure, you can criticize most studies as limited, using a smaller sample size than is ideal, and so on... but I'll take studies that at least TRY to control variables and do blind testing over an internet rando's non-blind testimonials every time.
I guess you didn't even look at the titles of the stuff I linked to, which was mostly not about randomly sampled "chuds," as you so sweetly describe normal people, but about judgments by EXPERTS like "elite violinists," supposedly expert wine tasters, etc.
I'll take professional concert violinists' judgments of violins over your internet rando testimonial above, for sure. (I'm pretty sure you're not a concert violinist if you're the most prolific pro audio gear repairer in the world... you wouldn't have time for TWO such intense, committed careers.)
Note that in at least one of the experiments the violinists were allowed to PLAY the instruments and gauge their feel, as well as listening to others play them.
If they can't tell old violins costing millions from good modern violins costing thousands, I'm guessing you can't either.
If you can explain away their result, it's far easier to explain away your "astonishing" experience with a $4M violin... maybe you just happened to hear the right performer playing the right piece in the right way at the right time for you to enjoy it from your particular acoustic vantage point in the right place, for your own idosyncratic reasons involving your blood sugar, caffeine level, genetic predispositions, etc.
For sure, some people may be able to hear some things that others can't about the sound of a particularly great old Stradivarius, and maybe these particular pro violinists all missed it.
But the quality differences between very good modern instruments and "great" old ones are pretty clearly not as big or striking as many people think from the reputation the old instruments have. They're at most the kind of subtle and/or inconsistent effect that makes measuring them difficult, not the kind of thing that all of the experts can easily hear.
And that's true of a whole bunch of audiophile stuff that's billed as making a significant positive difference, such that the effect is supposedly "astonishing" (as you say above), or "a veil was lifted," or "just listen to it once; you'll love it."
When it comes to blind tests, such discussions often go from things like "the difference is night and day," or "a veil was lifted" to things like "I think I heard a difference, but I'm not sure; you'd need a better test with a big sample to be sure" and "you haven't proven there isn't a difference!"
That's the kind of thing that markets often suck at putting a value on, partly because people know that the market value depends on what other people think, not so much on whether other people are right to think that---things are worth what other people with money are ignorant enough to pay for them.
Market values are like gossip. Sometimes the gossip is true, certainly, and price is often correlated with quality. But often only roughly, and sometimes not at all, such that often the "gossip" about something's value is false.
That's why economists have terms like "the greater fool theory." It can make sense to pay a lot of money for something with little intrinsic value, as long as you know there are rich suckers out there willing to pay you even more for it.
What's particularly sad about inflated prices for musical instruments and audio gear is that it's not just rich people buying the stuff. I don't mind if doctors, dentists and lawyers in dad bands throw away tens of thousands of dollars on their hobby, but when hard-up musicians do it, that sucks.
Last edited:
