3 ms·

Only real empirical data will really solve this mystery (and coming up with good tests for this problem is surprisingly difficult) but I'm willing to bet the on

Only real empirical data will really solve this mystery (and coming up with good tests for this problem is surprisingly difficult) but I'm willing to bet the only thing that 'wakes up' is in the mind of the violinist. Violins all have unique and very recognisable sound and most serious violinists play their instrument every day, often for several hours. When they first pick an instrument and until they've played it for a while (regardless if it was after not playing at all or playing a different instrument) their perception of the sound of the violin will be slightly influenced by the particular sound of that violin. Because of paying attention to the sound of the violin they process the nuances of the sound influenced by their playing less, but since they are not aware of that, they simply perceive the sound coming out of the violin as less nuanced. In other words, tired. After playing the same violin for a while the mind of the violinist gets used to the instrument and cancels the unique features for that instrument. The player starts perceiving more of the effect their playing has on the sound, and with the added detail the sounds 'comes to life'.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
> I'm willing to bet the only thing that 'wakes up' > is in the mind of the violinist. Really? When was the first time you heard of this? Today? And so based on zero first hand experience, and having never heard about this before, you're willing to be it's all in the mind. The three professional musicians I've spoken to about this - all violinists - say it's absolutely real. I'm not in a position to design and execute a suitable experiment, but I'm interested to know: just how much would you be willing to bet that you, in your near complete ignorance of the matter, are right?
- jerf 17y ago
  I wouldn't bet a lot, but if I was forced to bet, I'd bet mental effect. (I'm not the person you replied too.) The simple truth is that the more subjective arts are just shot through with this sort of bullshit, and while some of it is true, the vast bulk is simply not true. Audio of all forms (music and playback) and wine tasting (see article on HN from a couple of days ago) are very firmly in this class. Now, it's certainly possible I'd be wrong in this one particular instance, but on the whole I'd win a lot of money if someone were stupid enough to redo this bet on a whole lot of such issues ("bet my expensive HDMI cables beat your cheap HDMI cables?" "bet my expensive wines are better than your cheap wines in a blind taste test?") on 1:1 payout odds.
- nkurz 17y ago
  Also not the addressee, but I'd probably bet at about an 80% confidence level that you could not demonstrate a consistent preference for the sound quality for an instrument that has been played recently versus one that has been sitting in a climate controlled environment for a year. This means there is a real chance that I'd lose, so I have to base my bet size on what size loss I could sustain. For me, that would mean I'd bet up to several (single-digit) thousand dollars. My actual confidence level is somewhat higher, but I have to factor in the rate of false-positives. And while I certainly could be wrong, and I'm certainly not an expert in this area, I don't feel like I'm going in blind: I have a general physics background, I've done basic violin repairs, and I have a general sense of how difficult it is to prove any consistent effect regarding taste and perception. [Edit: why are people voting RiderOfGiraffes down for asking question?]
- intellectronica 17y ago
  I've heard about this before and have thought about the problem, but even if I hadn't, hearing the same superstition repeated many times does not make it real. I'm willing to bet a small sum of money, say, $100 for 75%, but as I said, I tried to come up with a good experiment and I find it quite hard. I think that a more productive continuation to the discussion would be a collaborative attempt at inventing such an experiment, rather than just throwing spewing inflammatory rhetoric.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

> I'm willing to bet the only thing that 'wakes up' > is in the mind of the violinist. Really? When was the first time you heard of this? Today? And so based on zero first hand experience, and having never heard about this before, you're willing to be it's all in the mind. The three professional musicians I've spoken to about this - all violinists - say it's absolutely real. I'm not in a position to design and execute a suitable experiment, but I'm interested to know: just how much would you be willing to bet that you, in your near complete ignorance of the matter, are right?

jerf 17y ago
I wouldn't bet a lot, but if I was forced to bet, I'd bet mental effect. (I'm not the person you replied too.) The simple truth is that the more subjective arts are just shot through with this sort of bullshit, and while some of it is true, the vast bulk is simply not true. Audio of all forms (music and playback) and wine tasting (see article on HN from a couple of days ago) are very firmly in this class. Now, it's certainly possible I'd be wrong in this one particular instance, but on the whole I'd win a lot of money if someone were stupid enough to redo this bet on a whole lot of such issues ("bet my expensive HDMI cables beat your cheap HDMI cables?" "bet my expensive wines are better than your cheap wines in a blind taste test?") on 1:1 payout odds.
nkurz 17y ago
Also not the addressee, but I'd probably bet at about an 80% confidence level that you could not demonstrate a consistent preference for the sound quality for an instrument that has been played recently versus one that has been sitting in a climate controlled environment for a year. This means there is a real chance that I'd lose, so I have to base my bet size on what size loss I could sustain. For me, that would mean I'd bet up to several (single-digit) thousand dollars. My actual confidence level is somewhat higher, but I have to factor in the rate of false-positives. And while I certainly could be wrong, and I'm certainly not an expert in this area, I don't feel like I'm going in blind: I have a general physics background, I've done basic violin repairs, and I have a general sense of how difficult it is to prove any consistent effect regarding taste and perception. [Edit: why are people voting RiderOfGiraffes down for asking question?]
intellectronica 17y ago
I've heard about this before and have thought about the problem, but even if I hadn't, hearing the same superstition repeated many times does not make it real. I'm willing to bet a small sum of money, say, $100 for 75%, but as I said, I tried to come up with a good experiment and I find it quite hard. I think that a more productive continuation to the discussion would be a collaborative attempt at inventing such an experiment, rather than just throwing spewing inflammatory rhetoric.