19 ms·

I always find it odd that people are surprised when modern manufacturing can yield better results on a given metric (e.g. sound quality). Are there any real co

I always find it odd that people are surprised when modern manufacturing can yield better results on a given metric (e.g. sound quality). Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?

glenra 9y ago
I suspect there was a period when the older ones were better, even if this was mostly a matter of taste and survivorship bias. Bad violins and bad violin makers are forgotten to history while the very best ones (as judged by the very best players and orchestras) gradually gained stature and people exposed to those instruments decided the way they happened to sound was how fine violins are supposed to sound. The trouble is, new violins kept getting better. A more interesting question might be when the quality of the new ones surpassed that of the older ones. I'd like to see a blind test rating that included new violins from 1990, 2000, 2010... Was there one particular step-change in quality that made a big difference, or was it just lots of mundane little changes?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. This stuff is right up there with wine tasting.
  - Libturd 9y ago
    holy shit you're dumb, kid.
  - rabbadabba_00 9y ago
    This isn't meant to be elitist or condescending in any way, but whenever I hear this comment it makes me sad. It makes me sad because it means the commenter has never had a truly good bottle of wine. Most wine isn't that good actually. There is wide range of price / marketing / effort where the chances of getting a really enjoyable bottle of wine is more luck than anything. But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. If you ever want to know the truth, go buy a bottle of JL Chave Hermitage (the Syrah). There are some truly legendary vintages of this wine but in my experience you can pick any vintage and be blown away. You can probably find it for as low as $2XX. I don't want to dox myself here, otherwise I'd offer to pick up the bill if the experience didn't change your mind. Taste that wine and you'll know. It's an expensive habit and I rarely indulge myself, but "fine wine" is a real, if very rare, thing.
    - bsder 9y ago
      > But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. Define "quality". Wine taste, like most food, is both very subjective and very personalized. I dislike most wines. Price doesn't matter. However, there are specific wines that I like very very much--if you put a right-bank wine in front of me, I'm probably going to like it--price also doesn't seem to matter unless it's very cheap. What I would suggest to the original poster is that if you don't like a lot of wines, find a high-end wine tasting and go--the goal is simply to try to decrease your probability of encountering an actually bad wine. Try the different wines, and try to isolate which ones you like more and which ones you like less even if you dislike them all. Then you can go talk to the sommelier/buyer and give him some parameters in which to help you search. Otherwise, "Find me a wine I like" is much like "My computer is broken. Fix it."--if you don't give someone any information to work with, they can't do anything to help you.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Here’s a nice summary of some studies: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-ta...
        bsder 9y ago
        There is a big difference between being consistent with "This wine has a 92 rating and notes of <foo>, <bar>, <baz>" and "I don't like wines from syrah grapes." What's a "92 rating" even supposed mean? From food: What good is a "92 rating" on a Peking Duck dish, for example, if you don't like duck? The big problem is that "wine rating" has no relevance to me, the buyer, as to whether or not I'm going to like a wine. It took me years to figure out what the commonality was between wines I liked. If the wine industry figure out how to fix that, they'd probably sell a lot more wine. Or, maybe they wouldn't, lots of areas already seem to produce wines that lots of people like for very reasonable prices.
      - kmonsen 9y ago
        Wine, at least to me and more with some grapes then others, tastes much better if stored for a few years in barrels. This is expensive and drives up the price a bit. But it is not the only thing that fine up the price so just because the price is higher doesn't mean it will be better.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    Well, if it's at all like wine tasting then I have to suspect a significant group of people can tell the difference. It's just not me. With wine tasting I agree that 90%+ can't detect most differences, but there are plenty of people who could accurately guess varietals, often regions (because they grow their grapes and make their wine differently), and certainly age (because oak and oxidation have very obvious effects). Whenever I hear that someone couldn't tell the difference between red wine and died white wine I have to laugh... it's not that I could really tell you what exact type of white some thing was, but that the wine making styles (even fermentation yeast) are so different along with the use of oak and lack of tannins that it's hilarious to make the mistake. On the other hand, cheap bad wine could taste like any damn thing other than (probably) good wine. Have I blind tasted? Yes, and I couldn't tell you the dollar value of wine between $10-100 because people will charge what the market will bear. However, if you can't taste the difference between a decent Red Burgundy, California Zinfandel, and a Merlot-Cab or between a decent Chablis and a Sav Blanc then you probably just don't care. They smell very different, have different acidity and sugar levels, bitterness, oak vanillins... In a blind test I've seen 8/10 amateurs get every one of 4 wine varietals correct (the others were 2/4) based on a short description, which is well beyond chance.
    - jonnybgood 9y ago
      The differences to kinds of wines is not what’s being referred to. As you’ve also stated, the claim is that there’s no difference in the dollar value. A $10 Pinot is no different than a $100 Pinot. So, it’s just like the Strads.
      - kmonsen 9y ago
        This is not true, at least a$10 and $50 Chianti is very easy to taste the difference since the more expensive is stored longer and much 'easier' to drink. I'm not sure about a $50 and a $150.
        lazerpants 9y ago
        Usually the difference from $50 to $150+ has a lot to do with aging too. You're essentially paying someone to store a high priced item for you for [x] years in appropriate conditions. Depending on your tastes and the wine it can be a huge difference whether or not its worth it. There are also some pretty big differences in agricultural techniques applied to different wineries. The first growth Bordeaux guys are employing experienced growers at the top of their fields to consider things like harvest time, planting conditions, soil maintenance, etc., these costs do get passed along.
  - autokad 9y ago
    one key thing to keep in mind is that blind tests aren't the end all and be all. remember coke kept finding that people who drank coke preferred pepsi in a blind taste test. It turned out because Pepsi was sweater, but people's enjoyment of a beverage goes further than just sitting down taking a few sips of a drink. Relying on data like that lead to one of the greatest follys in business history: New Coke. Many people when put on the spot get it wrong what they like, as they often focus on something very trivial. In coke, it was sweetness, and in these violins, loudness. To me, its evidence the new ones sound better, but its not definitive.
  - glenra 9y ago
    > I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. If you read the study which OP summarizes, it claims to show that blind testers NOW definitely CAN tell the difference. The best "new" violins of today are better than old strads, where "better" is defined as any of: (1) objectively produces more sound volume for a given level of bow pressure as measured via a db meter at a specific location (2) subjectively "projects better" (either alone or against an orchestra) as judged by listeners (3) "is preferred" as judged by listeners. The people judging in the tests for (2) and (3) have included the performers themselves, skilled listeners, and unskilled interested observers. The results seem to be really consistent - most listeners unambiguously judge the newer instruments better. So no, it's not like wine tasting. At least, not anymore.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  You can see the same sort of thing with other instruments of creative professions, too. Like, look at machine tools. Modern lathes are made tough, well, and often with features like CNC attachments. But the 'old iron' behemoths produced by South Bend in the 1920s are also still running and performing precise work day-in, day-out. They'll probably continue to do so for a very long time, and they'll still blow a modern introductory benchtop model out of the water. Is it really that the old models were in some way 'perfect', or is it just that we tend to be impressed by bespoke works which continue to perform outstandingly over the ravages of time? Maybe it appeals to a sense that we could someday overcome the transience of our possessions. I guess that's sort of an existentially futile goal to chase, but it would be nice in the context of things like batteries and plastic junk.
- ams6110 9y ago
  > new violins keep getting better Indeed -- https://luisandclark.com/ https://luisandclark.com/ I was wondering if anyone was making them out of carbon-fiber these days, and yes they are!
Consultant32452 9y ago
Every other version of Windows? Pretty much any technology with planned obsolescence has older generations with better build quality including flip phones, household appliances, etc. That doesn't mean we're incapable of building to a better spec, we just choose not to for economic reasons.
legohead 9y ago
Sort of related.. but I'd say classical composing. Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, etc. Where are the modern classical powerhouses? Contemporary classical is a scary, awful thing for my ears. The best I have found is actually in the movies - Danny Elfman and Hanz Zimmer, for instance. I sort of attribute them to modern Opera writers, though - they don't write full on symphonies. I don't believe myself a snob, I listen to and enjoy modern metal, pop, techno. But I love the old classical as well. While techno and metal continue to progress and get better, classical has grown...weird
- 870ce17ce51644a 9y ago
  I think that's more of a cultural issue. Current "classical music" culture generates what I agree is pretty awful music. A lot of art forms end up like that: you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. Techno, and really most other modern genres have a lot more creative space left unexplored. It's just like how it's hard to get too excited about modern art. It can either be derivative and boring or it can be outlandish trash, and nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of.
  - themarkn 9y ago
    > you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. > nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of. I get what you are saying about incentives here (I think). But this may be too cynical and simplistic a way to look at pressures in art creation. There are lots of artists simply trying to find their way and make new work that contributes to the ongoing development of their medium. At one point harmony itself was frowned upon in Western music. Many of the great classical composers wrote music that was controversial at the time because of how they extended the use of harmony beyond the comfort level of the previous generation. I'm not saying you have to like all the modern stuff, but it's possible to approach it with much less cynicism. Many of our favorite historical composers were pushing the medium in their day. We might have a bit of selection bias too in that it is mostly the music that became culturally accepted that we still have access to. Lots of modern art and music doesn't land for me, but sometimes it really does and I'm grateful for it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pmorici 9y ago
Construction of the pyaramids?
- IshKebab 9y ago
  We could easily build a pyramid now though.
  - zrobotics 9y ago
    Easily? Sure, we have the equipment, but the hurdle is cost. It may be easier as far as human labor goes, but comparing the different social systems, it could be argued that it was easier for the Egyptians to build a pyramid. After all, who was going to argue with the Pharoh?
dizzystar 9y ago
I'm not sure about musical instruments, but apparently Damascus steel and Roman concrete are superior technologies.
- jankotek 9y ago
  Not really. Modern spring steel is far better and Roman concrete is unique because of materials, we know its composition.
  - regularfry 9y ago
    With Roman concrete, you're talking about very recent discoveries in the grand scheme of things. Some of the important research is less than a year old.
- bsder 9y ago
  > Damascus steel Damascus steel was good for its time, but there are quite a few modern steels that are better suited for producing bladed weapons.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  Only to confirm and to raise some doubts in the skeptics, the good thing about Roman concrete is that is 2 thousands (or more) years old and still going strong and Damascus steel as well is 1 thousand (or more) years old and still fine. What will become of modern concrete (if reinforced, I can tell you for sure it is going to rot) and what will happen with modern steel we will see in a few hundred years. For the record, most of the structures built in the "gold age of steel", the second part of the 19th century, like railways bridges that were once considered to be "immortal" have been largely been demolished (and replaced with new structures) because the steel became too brittle and started cracking and the same, amplified or infuced by fatigue, affects a large number of modern steel bridges as well [1]. [1] http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf
savanaly 9y ago
I remember a history teacher claiming that in the area of sculpture, the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) haven't been surpassed. He could easily have been full of it, though.
moomin 9y ago
My dad swears by his viola which was made by an Italian shop that has spent a long time studying the techniques used by the old masters. For a long time Strads had an “indefinable quality”. Turns out research and experimentation is actually quite good at defining those qualities.
autokad 9y ago
Roman concrete?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Why do you think it hasn't been surpassed?
  - autokad 9y ago
    keep in mind, 'they think they figured out why roman concrete was so good' many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also "The strength and longevity of Roman marine concrete is understood to benefit from a reaction of seawater with a mixture of volcanic ash ... The result is a candidate for "the most durable building material in human history." In contrast, modern concrete exposed to saltwater deteriorates within decades"
toolslive 9y ago
"Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?" Damascus Steel comes to mind, and maybe Starlite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite There are objects of which we currently don't know how they were made, so the technique was lost. However, this also can be attributed to archeologists not being engineers.
- skj 9y ago
  Damascus steel hasn't been rediscovered, but that wiki article indicates that it has been surpassed.
- ravitation 9y ago
  Well, modern steel outperforms Damascus Steel (so it's been surpassed) and Starlite is probably a myth...
klodolph 9y ago
I can think of examples along the lines of dead media formats. Floppy disks and instant film, for two examples. Floppy disks declined in quality and were extremely unreliable in the early 2000s. Floppy disks from the 90s and 80s were more reliable. Instant film has also declined in quality, with film from the Impossible Project (or Polaroid Originals) being inferior to Polaroid film from previous decades, despite being made with the same production equipment.
- dlevine 9y ago
  Much of that has to do with cost. By the early 2000s, floppy disks were much cheaper than they were in the 80s and 90s, and I'm guessing that was because manufacturers were optimizing for cost. Those AOL disks that you could get for free and then reformat were clearly pretty cheap, and had a high failure rate. The same thing is true with TVs made today - TVs are generally lower quality than ones made 20 years ago (in terms of reliability and durability), but are a lot cheaper. If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost)
  - klodolph 9y ago
    > If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost) Neither floppy disks nor instant film exist at the higher end of the quality/cost curve, that's the problem. There's also the issue of Baumol's cost disease. For labor intensive work, the cost will increase due to the increased productivity of completely different workers.
wilsonnb 9y ago
It's not always about the manufacturing. Sometimes it's about the materials used. Brazilian rosewood is supposedly the best tonewood for the sides and backs of acoustic guitars but because the tree's are endangered you pretty much can't make a modern guitar out of it.
gringoDan 9y ago
Relevant article on reverse-engineering these old instruments: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/0610190014_1_violin-stradivarius-george-bissinger http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/06101...
RickJWag 9y ago
We have yet to return to the excellent pop music of the 80s.
- xamuel 9y ago
  And the 80s failed to achieve the pop heights of the 60s...
iammyIP 9y ago
This is a nonsensical experiment: The role of the old 'genius-stradivari' violin is there to impress by its own history - not by it's sound. Of course can the Stradivari be 3d scanned and analysed to death and be rebuit as an even better sounding facsimile, but that totally misses the point:
xamuel 9y ago
Don't know how historically accurate it is, but this entertaining video argues that archery might be an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
- Baeocystin 9y ago
  If this response is to be believed, the video is complete bunk with regards to its historical claims: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the... It still is a fun trick-shot video, though. :)
  - xamuel 9y ago
    Lars responds to critics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA I guess we'll just have to get these folks in a big ring and have 'em duel to the death :)
on_and_off 9y ago
Denim lovers often prefer fabric created by an old weaving machine. Entire brands like Momotaro are known because they have been able to find and use these machines (that's even an issue for them since it is very hard to maintain these machines and it takes a while to train people). Ironically, what is preferred are the irregularities created by the old process. I think that someday it will be surpassed though. Right now, a huge part of the process is still manual. With more and more sensors in our smartphones, we already have more than enough to get a 3d scan of a body. 'All' we need is to automate tailoring and reproduce irregularities with modern machines.

glenra 9y ago

I suspect there was a period when the older ones were better, even if this was mostly a matter of taste and survivorship bias. Bad violins and bad violin makers are forgotten to history while the very best ones (as judged by the very best players and orchestras) gradually gained stature and people exposed to those instruments decided the way they happened to sound was how fine violins are supposed to sound. The trouble is, new violins kept getting better. A more interesting question might be when the quality of the new ones surpassed that of the older ones. I'd like to see a blind test rating that included new violins from 1990, 2000, 2010... Was there one particular step-change in quality that made a big difference, or was it just lots of mundane little changes?

Consultant32452 9y ago
I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. This stuff is right up there with wine tasting.
- Libturd 9y ago
  holy shit you're dumb, kid.
- rabbadabba_00 9y ago
  This isn't meant to be elitist or condescending in any way, but whenever I hear this comment it makes me sad. It makes me sad because it means the commenter has never had a truly good bottle of wine. Most wine isn't that good actually. There is wide range of price / marketing / effort where the chances of getting a really enjoyable bottle of wine is more luck than anything. But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. If you ever want to know the truth, go buy a bottle of JL Chave Hermitage (the Syrah). There are some truly legendary vintages of this wine but in my experience you can pick any vintage and be blown away. You can probably find it for as low as $2XX. I don't want to dox myself here, otherwise I'd offer to pick up the bill if the experience didn't change your mind. Taste that wine and you'll know. It's an expensive habit and I rarely indulge myself, but "fine wine" is a real, if very rare, thing.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. Define "quality". Wine taste, like most food, is both very subjective and very personalized. I dislike most wines. Price doesn't matter. However, there are specific wines that I like very very much--if you put a right-bank wine in front of me, I'm probably going to like it--price also doesn't seem to matter unless it's very cheap. What I would suggest to the original poster is that if you don't like a lot of wines, find a high-end wine tasting and go--the goal is simply to try to decrease your probability of encountering an actually bad wine. Try the different wines, and try to isolate which ones you like more and which ones you like less even if you dislike them all. Then you can go talk to the sommelier/buyer and give him some parameters in which to help you search. Otherwise, "Find me a wine I like" is much like "My computer is broken. Fix it."--if you don't give someone any information to work with, they can't do anything to help you.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      Here’s a nice summary of some studies: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-ta...
      - bsder 9y ago
        There is a big difference between being consistent with "This wine has a 92 rating and notes of <foo>, <bar>, <baz>" and "I don't like wines from syrah grapes." What's a "92 rating" even supposed mean? From food: What good is a "92 rating" on a Peking Duck dish, for example, if you don't like duck? The big problem is that "wine rating" has no relevance to me, the buyer, as to whether or not I'm going to like a wine. It took me years to figure out what the commonality was between wines I liked. If the wine industry figure out how to fix that, they'd probably sell a lot more wine. Or, maybe they wouldn't, lots of areas already seem to produce wines that lots of people like for very reasonable prices.
    - kmonsen 9y ago
      Wine, at least to me and more with some grapes then others, tastes much better if stored for a few years in barrels. This is expensive and drives up the price a bit. But it is not the only thing that fine up the price so just because the price is higher doesn't mean it will be better.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Well, if it's at all like wine tasting then I have to suspect a significant group of people can tell the difference. It's just not me. With wine tasting I agree that 90%+ can't detect most differences, but there are plenty of people who could accurately guess varietals, often regions (because they grow their grapes and make their wine differently), and certainly age (because oak and oxidation have very obvious effects). Whenever I hear that someone couldn't tell the difference between red wine and died white wine I have to laugh... it's not that I could really tell you what exact type of white some thing was, but that the wine making styles (even fermentation yeast) are so different along with the use of oak and lack of tannins that it's hilarious to make the mistake. On the other hand, cheap bad wine could taste like any damn thing other than (probably) good wine. Have I blind tasted? Yes, and I couldn't tell you the dollar value of wine between $10-100 because people will charge what the market will bear. However, if you can't taste the difference between a decent Red Burgundy, California Zinfandel, and a Merlot-Cab or between a decent Chablis and a Sav Blanc then you probably just don't care. They smell very different, have different acidity and sugar levels, bitterness, oak vanillins... In a blind test I've seen 8/10 amateurs get every one of 4 wine varietals correct (the others were 2/4) based on a short description, which is well beyond chance.
  - jonnybgood 9y ago
    The differences to kinds of wines is not what’s being referred to. As you’ve also stated, the claim is that there’s no difference in the dollar value. A $10 Pinot is no different than a $100 Pinot. So, it’s just like the Strads.
    - kmonsen 9y ago
      This is not true, at least a$10 and $50 Chianti is very easy to taste the difference since the more expensive is stored longer and much 'easier' to drink. I'm not sure about a $50 and a $150.
      - lazerpants 9y ago
        Usually the difference from $50 to $150+ has a lot to do with aging too. You're essentially paying someone to store a high priced item for you for [x] years in appropriate conditions. Depending on your tastes and the wine it can be a huge difference whether or not its worth it. There are also some pretty big differences in agricultural techniques applied to different wineries. The first growth Bordeaux guys are employing experienced growers at the top of their fields to consider things like harvest time, planting conditions, soil maintenance, etc., these costs do get passed along.
- autokad 9y ago
  one key thing to keep in mind is that blind tests aren't the end all and be all. remember coke kept finding that people who drank coke preferred pepsi in a blind taste test. It turned out because Pepsi was sweater, but people's enjoyment of a beverage goes further than just sitting down taking a few sips of a drink. Relying on data like that lead to one of the greatest follys in business history: New Coke. Many people when put on the spot get it wrong what they like, as they often focus on something very trivial. In coke, it was sweetness, and in these violins, loudness. To me, its evidence the new ones sound better, but its not definitive.
- glenra 9y ago
  > I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. If you read the study which OP summarizes, it claims to show that blind testers NOW definitely CAN tell the difference. The best "new" violins of today are better than old strads, where "better" is defined as any of: (1) objectively produces more sound volume for a given level of bow pressure as measured via a db meter at a specific location (2) subjectively "projects better" (either alone or against an orchestra) as judged by listeners (3) "is preferred" as judged by listeners. The people judging in the tests for (2) and (3) have included the performers themselves, skilled listeners, and unskilled interested observers. The results seem to be really consistent - most listeners unambiguously judge the newer instruments better. So no, it's not like wine tasting. At least, not anymore.
leggomylibro 9y ago
You can see the same sort of thing with other instruments of creative professions, too. Like, look at machine tools. Modern lathes are made tough, well, and often with features like CNC attachments. But the 'old iron' behemoths produced by South Bend in the 1920s are also still running and performing precise work day-in, day-out. They'll probably continue to do so for a very long time, and they'll still blow a modern introductory benchtop model out of the water. Is it really that the old models were in some way 'perfect', or is it just that we tend to be impressed by bespoke works which continue to perform outstandingly over the ravages of time? Maybe it appeals to a sense that we could someday overcome the transience of our possessions. I guess that's sort of an existentially futile goal to chase, but it would be nice in the context of things like batteries and plastic junk.
ams6110 9y ago
> new violins keep getting better Indeed -- https://luisandclark.com/ https://luisandclark.com/ I was wondering if anyone was making them out of carbon-fiber these days, and yes they are!

Consultant32452 9y ago

Every other version of Windows? Pretty much any technology with planned obsolescence has older generations with better build quality including flip phones, household appliances, etc. That doesn't mean we're incapable of building to a better spec, we just choose not to for economic reasons.

legohead 9y ago

Sort of related.. but I'd say classical composing. Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, etc. Where are the modern classical powerhouses? Contemporary classical is a scary, awful thing for my ears. The best I have found is actually in the movies - Danny Elfman and Hanz Zimmer, for instance. I sort of attribute them to modern Opera writers, though - they don't write full on symphonies. I don't believe myself a snob, I listen to and enjoy modern metal, pop, techno. But I love the old classical as well. While techno and metal continue to progress and get better, classical has grown...weird

870ce17ce51644a 9y ago
I think that's more of a cultural issue. Current "classical music" culture generates what I agree is pretty awful music. A lot of art forms end up like that: you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. Techno, and really most other modern genres have a lot more creative space left unexplored. It's just like how it's hard to get too excited about modern art. It can either be derivative and boring or it can be outlandish trash, and nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of.
- themarkn 9y ago
  > you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. > nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of. I get what you are saying about incentives here (I think). But this may be too cynical and simplistic a way to look at pressures in art creation. There are lots of artists simply trying to find their way and make new work that contributes to the ongoing development of their medium. At one point harmony itself was frowned upon in Western music. Many of the great classical composers wrote music that was controversial at the time because of how they extended the use of harmony beyond the comfort level of the previous generation. I'm not saying you have to like all the modern stuff, but it's possible to approach it with much less cynicism. Many of our favorite historical composers were pushing the medium in their day. We might have a bit of selection bias too in that it is mostly the music that became culturally accepted that we still have access to. Lots of modern art and music doesn't land for me, but sometimes it really does and I'm grateful for it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pmorici 9y ago

Construction of the pyaramids?

IshKebab 9y ago
We could easily build a pyramid now though.
- zrobotics 9y ago
  Easily? Sure, we have the equipment, but the hurdle is cost. It may be easier as far as human labor goes, but comparing the different social systems, it could be argued that it was easier for the Egyptians to build a pyramid. After all, who was going to argue with the Pharoh?

dizzystar 9y ago

I'm not sure about musical instruments, but apparently Damascus steel and Roman concrete are superior technologies.

jankotek 9y ago
Not really. Modern spring steel is far better and Roman concrete is unique because of materials, we know its composition.
- regularfry 9y ago
  With Roman concrete, you're talking about very recent discoveries in the grand scheme of things. Some of the important research is less than a year old.
bsder 9y ago
> Damascus steel Damascus steel was good for its time, but there are quite a few modern steels that are better suited for producing bladed weapons.
jaclaz 9y ago
Only to confirm and to raise some doubts in the skeptics, the good thing about Roman concrete is that is 2 thousands (or more) years old and still going strong and Damascus steel as well is 1 thousand (or more) years old and still fine. What will become of modern concrete (if reinforced, I can tell you for sure it is going to rot) and what will happen with modern steel we will see in a few hundred years. For the record, most of the structures built in the "gold age of steel", the second part of the 19th century, like railways bridges that were once considered to be "immortal" have been largely been demolished (and replaced with new structures) because the steel became too brittle and started cracking and the same, amplified or infuced by fatigue, affects a large number of modern steel bridges as well [1]. [1] http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf

savanaly 9y ago

I remember a history teacher claiming that in the area of sculpture, the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) haven't been surpassed. He could easily have been full of it, though.

moomin 9y ago

My dad swears by his viola which was made by an Italian shop that has spent a long time studying the techniques used by the old masters. For a long time Strads had an “indefinable quality”. Turns out research and experimentation is actually quite good at defining those qualities.

autokad 9y ago

Roman concrete?

icebraining 9y ago
Why do you think it hasn't been surpassed?
- autokad 9y ago
  keep in mind, 'they think they figured out why roman concrete was so good' many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also "The strength and longevity of Roman marine concrete is understood to benefit from a reaction of seawater with a mixture of volcanic ash ... The result is a candidate for "the most durable building material in human history." In contrast, modern concrete exposed to saltwater deteriorates within decades"

toolslive 9y ago

"Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?" Damascus Steel comes to mind, and maybe Starlite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite There are objects of which we currently don't know how they were made, so the technique was lost. However, this also can be attributed to archeologists not being engineers.

skj 9y ago
Damascus steel hasn't been rediscovered, but that wiki article indicates that it has been surpassed.
ravitation 9y ago
Well, modern steel outperforms Damascus Steel (so it's been surpassed) and Starlite is probably a myth...

klodolph 9y ago

I can think of examples along the lines of dead media formats. Floppy disks and instant film, for two examples. Floppy disks declined in quality and were extremely unreliable in the early 2000s. Floppy disks from the 90s and 80s were more reliable. Instant film has also declined in quality, with film from the Impossible Project (or Polaroid Originals) being inferior to Polaroid film from previous decades, despite being made with the same production equipment.

dlevine 9y ago
Much of that has to do with cost. By the early 2000s, floppy disks were much cheaper than they were in the 80s and 90s, and I'm guessing that was because manufacturers were optimizing for cost. Those AOL disks that you could get for free and then reformat were clearly pretty cheap, and had a high failure rate. The same thing is true with TVs made today - TVs are generally lower quality than ones made 20 years ago (in terms of reliability and durability), but are a lot cheaper. If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost)
- klodolph 9y ago
  > If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost) Neither floppy disks nor instant film exist at the higher end of the quality/cost curve, that's the problem. There's also the issue of Baumol's cost disease. For labor intensive work, the cost will increase due to the increased productivity of completely different workers.

wilsonnb 9y ago

It's not always about the manufacturing. Sometimes it's about the materials used. Brazilian rosewood is supposedly the best tonewood for the sides and backs of acoustic guitars but because the tree's are endangered you pretty much can't make a modern guitar out of it.

gringoDan 9y ago

Relevant article on reverse-engineering these old instruments: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/0610190014_1_violin-stradivarius-george-bissinger http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/06101...

RickJWag 9y ago

We have yet to return to the excellent pop music of the 80s.

xamuel 9y ago
And the 80s failed to achieve the pop heights of the 60s...

iammyIP 9y ago

This is a nonsensical experiment: The role of the old 'genius-stradivari' violin is there to impress by its own history - not by it's sound. Of course can the Stradivari be 3d scanned and analysed to death and be rebuit as an even better sounding facsimile, but that totally misses the point:

xamuel 9y ago

Don't know how historically accurate it is, but this entertaining video argues that archery might be an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

Baeocystin 9y ago
If this response is to be believed, the video is complete bunk with regards to its historical claims: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the... It still is a fun trick-shot video, though. :)
- xamuel 9y ago
  Lars responds to critics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA I guess we'll just have to get these folks in a big ring and have 'em duel to the death :)

on_and_off 9y ago

Denim lovers often prefer fabric created by an old weaving machine. Entire brands like Momotaro are known because they have been able to find and use these machines (that's even an issue for them since it is very hard to maintain these machines and it takes a while to train people). Ironically, what is preferred are the irregularities created by the old process. I think that someday it will be surpassed though. Right now, a huge part of the process is still manual. With more and more sensors in our smartphones, we already have more than enough to get a 3d scan of a body. 'All' we need is to automate tailoring and reproduce irregularities with modern machines.