I think the whole problem lies in the underlying assumption that older, more expensive violins sound ABSOLUTELY better. The author does not support this claim,

I think the whole problem lies in the underlying assumption that older, more expensive violins sound ABSOLUTELY better. The author does not support this claim, and the study also demonstrated otherwise. The author, and apparently the study as well, both are in agreement that it is all about personal preference. In fact, the author admits that she preferred some of the newer violins to the older ones and with that "audiobabble" she says they SOUNDED better. So when how can you blame her to "choose violins on price stick" and then also call her ignorant when she prefers some other violin "over the $10 million ones" ?? The author concludes that the reason older violins are so valuable isn't just because they have some magical qualities that make them sound better, or they are very obviously more amazing than newer ones, she says that older violins have this history attached to them. This imagined beauty to them because of the legends attached to them. Oh and that "not-tuned" "older-strings" stuff was there to imply that an old violin, is an OLD violin. A newer violin will have an advantage due to the new parts, the new strings. But apparently nothing is absolute. A new violin isn't always better than an older one (hence her preference for her 200-yr-old one at home). Heck, she even said how she has heard different complains about newer and older violins. So how in the world was your take "i am an auidophool, i choose based on price stick" ?!?!? She EXPLAINED how things are completely independent of age or price.