Login / Register
 
Will modern Gibsons become collectors items?
New Reply
Subscribe
#91
5th December 2012
Old 5th December 2012
  #91
Lives for gear
 
noah330's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,114

noah330 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I'd take a new Strat over a '70s Strat any day unless it was a 1 in 1000 '70s Strat.

Gibson electrics, it's a toss-up.



People who put their money in guitars (especially new guitars) expecting to turn a profit in time are, well, I'm tempted to say idiots but that's not very nice so let's just say very high risk gamblers. Who knows if guitars are going to be as popular in 30 or 50 years as they are now? Look at accordions or tenor (4 string) banjos - immensely popular at one time, of little interest outside of niche markets now.

Hell, look at the difference between a round necked and a square necked original tricone National - it's at least an order of magnitude.
I would take a 1970 - early 73 (until they flatend the poles) Fender Strat over any of the new POS ones they make. Heck, even the CS guitars are not all that special anymore. In fact, you have to buy a Masterbuilt just to get what a CS used to be.

You can call me an idiot, but I live in a giant house and have four Bursts and a bunch of other cool guitars and amps from the 50s and 60s.

I never paid a quarter million for one of them (but I'm in my mid 30s so I didn't buy them in the 70s/80s) but I paid a lot. Mostly, I traded a bunch of stuff and added cash for all but one which I got from Norm Harris.

Not all my money is tied up in guitars but if you work hard (I grew up in a single parent household in one of the worst cities in my state and went to Berklee on loans/scholarships) you can buy whatever you want.

I don't think of people who can't afford the old vintage stuff as 'idiots' for not being able to afford them, I think of myself as very lucky to be able to. That being said, if someone can pay $250,000 for a Burst chances are they're doing something right and making out better then the person who considers them an idiot.

One of those half full/empty kind of things I guess.

YMMV

Most of the people I hear dissing the true vintage stuff (not 70s Fenders or the used imported garbage that passes for vintage on ebay) have never even seen or played most of the stuff they don't like. I have people telling me their $5000 car can smoke my AC Cobra as well. Just the way it goes.
#92
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I really don't even understand what you're arguing. Again, if you would have asked most musicians, given the circumstances of the test, whether these experts would be able tell the difference, I think most of us would have answered hell yes.

.
My argument is simple. You cannot make such broad assumptions based on a totally flawed test. The test circumstances nullified one of the most important attributes of a Strad. An attribute that makes recording them within an small ensemble of modern violins quite tricky. Anyone who has recorded one will know exactly what I am talking about. It does not matter "what one would think" who does not know any better. And it does not matter what some scientist, who does not have decades of experience with these instruments and has no idea what attributes to test for, concludes.

Now if you want to live your life believing everything is a lie and it's all expectation bias, that everyone is an amateur and that it is impossible to be a disinterested participant in your professional endeavor - what the he'll are you doing on GS?
#93
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #93
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
My argument is simple. You cannot make such broad assumptions based on a totally flawed test.
Can you please suggest the broad assumption I made? What I've said is I think it's significant, because even in those tight circumstances there should be enough of a difference for a world class violinist to be able to pick out an old Strad. That's it.

Quote:
The test circumstances nullified one of the most important attributes of a Strad.
Again, what, exactly are you saying was "nullified?" Sense of smell? Visual cues? Why be so mysterious? What is the attribute?

Quote:
And it does not matter what some scientist, who does not have decades of experience with these instruments and has no idea what attributes to test for, concludes.
If you read the comments from those who took part, the study is not about what some unnamed "scientist" concluded. The study is what the musicians concluded.

Quote:
Now if you want to live your life believing everything is a lie and it's all expectation bias, that everyone is an amateur and that it is impossible to be a disinterested participant in your professional endeavor - what the he'll are you doing on GS?
See, this is what happens to someone who has emotional energy tied into a conclusion... and that conclusion comes into question. I've pointed out several times I think there are plenty of studies you could create where experts might be able to tell the difference. I don't doubt it. BUT I also believed an expert would ALWAYS be able to tell, if they had enough time to play the instrument.

I think people would do well to have a better understanding of expectation bias... with that understanding generally comes humility.
#94
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #94
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
You've essentially proved the point. We would have all thought previously that the difference would have been night and day to a world class violinist... all they would need to do is play it themselves. The fact that it wasn't immediately apparent in these limited circumstances says something incredibly significant.

There might be scenarios where an expert can tell the difference in a double blind test, BTW. That wouldn't surprise me. But for reasons that are already obvious, the above study really did surprise me.
No, the point is that a double-blind test is a totally artificial situation that has nothing to do with how such a tool is used in a real working situation.

Double blind testing simply isn't valid in such cases. An artistically trained person does not listen the same way under artificial double blind situations as he does in normal performance. This can be demonstrated graphically with tests that monitor brain activity. There are different modes of listening.
__________________
All opinions expressed in my posts are solely my own: I do not represent any other forums (of which I may or may not be a member), groups, or individuals although at times my views may resemble those of other entities.

************************************
Inside every old man is a young man wondering WTF happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
#95
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #95
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 13,983

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
On the other hand I like how science can debunk some things that lead to elitist behavior...
I hate how so-called "scientific debunkers" who don't understand the deficiencies of their methodology make misleading pronouncements about things they're not qualified to speak about.
#96
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Can you please suggest the broad assumption I made? What I've said is I think it's significant, because even in those tight circumstances there should be enough of a difference for a world class violinist to be able to pick out an old Strad. That's it.
This, for starters:

"because even in those tight circumstances there should be enough of a difference for a world class violinist to be able to pick out an old Strad"


Quote:
Again, what, exactly are you saying was "nullified?" Sense of smell? Visual cues? Why be so mysterious? What is the attribute?
You admittingly do not know what your talking about, yet you unwaveringly believe the results of one anecdotal example. All the information is there, no mystery. I won't spoon feed you the answer, you will have to discover it yourself.

Quote:
If you read the comments from those who took part, the study is not about what some unnamed "scientist" concluded. The study is what the musicians concluded.
Based on the parameters set forth by the scientist. It was doomed to failure from the start. Do you know there is also an AES paper in the '70s showing listeners not being able to tell the difference between cassette tape and vinyl?

Now if you've ever spent time listening to the two mediums you would know that it would be completely ridiculous to conclude that there is no difference in sound between the two - simply based on casual observation, never mind professional observation. Now if some clown who had never listened to the two mediums started telling you about expectation bias and humility - what would you be thinking?



Quote:
See, this is what happens to someone who has emotional energy tied into a conclusion...
The problem is that you are unable to recognize your emotional energy in this conclusion. On one hand, one may say that a person who spent $5 Million dollars on a violin (which I have not, BTW) has an emotional interest in his instrument having a more desirable sound than a lesser priced version - the reverse holds true as well.

That is, one may say that a person who will never in his life be able to afford, or for that matter even touch, a $5 Million dollar violin may have an emotion interest in believing that it would not sound any better than an instrument he could have access to.
#97
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #97
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
You admittingly do not know what your talking about, yet you unwaveringly believe the results of one anecdotal example. All the information is there, no mystery. I won't spoon feed you the answer, you will have to discover it yourself.
I love it... I don't deserve it, so you'll take your ball and go home. Childish much?

Quote:
Based on the parameters set forth by the scientist. It was doomed to failure from the start. Do you know there is also an AES paper in the '70s showing listeners not being able to tell the difference between cassette tape and vinyl?
I think many listeners can't tell the difference between 128k mp3 and CD. It doesn't surprise me that many people can't tell the difference between a record and a cassette, especially if the cassette was played off a quality machine and the record was clean and clear of pops. I've DONE double blind testing myself. I've learned quite a bit about confirmation bias.

So yes, what DOES surprise me is that a MUSICIAN can't tell the difference between a relatively cheap instrument and a very expensive instrument even in those tight circumstances.

Quote:
simply based on casual observation, never mind professional observation
This is where your confirmation rears its ugly head. There are plenty of times you THINK you can tell the difference... but unless you have done a double blind test, you do not KNOW. Some things that are "obvious" or when 192khz "blows away" 44.1k end up testing as meaningless due to how the human brain works. You can remain in denial. Your choice.

Quote:
The problem is that you are unable to recognize your emotional energy in this conclusion. On one hand, one may say that a person who spent $5 Million dollars on a violin (which I have not, BTW) has an emotional interest in his instrument having a more desirable sound than a lesser priced version - the reverse holds true as well.
My bias from the beginning is that a world class violinist would be able to tell the difference... anytime, anywhere. If I had the same confirmation bias, I would have found some rationalization (like you did) for why the study was bunk.

Quote:
That is, one may say that a person who will never in his life be able to afford, or for that matter even touch, a $5 Million dollar violin may have an emotion interest in believing that it would not sound any better than an instrument he could have access to.
You are making a false assumption as a deflection mechanism. I am quite aware of my own bias.
#98
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #98
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No, the point is that a double-blind test is a totally artificial situation that has nothing to do with how such a tool is used in a real working situation.
Right.

Quote:
Double blind testing simply isn't valid in such cases. An artistically trained person does not listen the same way under artificial double blind situations as he does in normal performance. This can be demonstrated graphically with tests that monitor brain activity. There are different modes of listening.
A double blind test is an input. It's not invalid just because it's under done under limiting circumstances. Nobody is saying it proves there is no difference! It proves what it proves, and nothing else... that is, under a certain set of circumstances world class players can't tell the difference.

BTW, I would like to see how this can be "demonstrated graphically." What are you referring to?
#99
6th December 2012
Old 6th December 2012
  #99
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,024

kennybro is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
A double blind test is an input. It's not invalid just because it's under done under limiting circumstances. Nobody is saying it proves there is no difference! It proves what it proves, and nothing else... that is, under a certain set of circumstances world class players can't tell the difference.
Most certainly. And "prove" might even be too strong a word. One thing my first research professor taught me was to use the words "Strongly Suggest." The lesson carried through to grad level research and beyond. I stand by that lesson and voice it today in any class that requires solid research method.

The expression that one knows anything with absolute certainty is a red flag that you are observing a manipulative effort, not scholarly research. The aformentioned study strongly suggests that the audible differences between Strads and newer well-made violins is difficult to distinguish. That's it no more.

As you mention, smell, feel, playability, and other distinguishing features could give additional clues, but the test did not breach those areas. And for good reason. A well-done test focuses on one aspect, not 10. Certainly not a host of nebulous features that can't be observed or sometimes even verbalized.

Neither Joseph Curtin nor Claudia Fritz are slouches. Both highly respected in thier fields, not out to skew results or design flawed tests. Outhanded dismissal of their findings is at least shortsighted. Consideration of their findings is just open minded common sense.

Regarding recordability distinctions mentioned, I can't even begin to comment on what those might be. This gets painfully close to "I know something you don't (can't?) know." Secret society stuff. Whatever. Violins make noise; mics record noise.
-Do Strads send out some kind of highly individual sonic structure that specifically interacts with the functionality of modern recording gear?
-And no other violin sends that secret sonic structure?
-Do ALL Strads send it, or just some?
-Do Strads signatures differ, one to the other, and if so, what's the common-set signature that ID's Strads and distinuishes them from ALL other violins?
-But if only a few select Strads, which ones and why? What does the exclusion set lack?
-Do Guarneri's send it? Some? All?
-Is the Guarneri structure different from the Strad structure? Is it identifiable? If not, what identifies it?
-Can this signature be verbalized, or is it just something a few golden-eared engineers can perceive?
-If that's the case, does it matter.

I really should just stay outa this $#!t. Really. I've got too much work on the table
#100
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Neither Joseph Curtin nor Claudia Fritz are slouches. Both highly respected in thier fields, not out to skew results or design flawed tests. Outhanded dismissal of their findings is at least shortsighted. Consideration of their findings is just open minded common sense.
They did the "research" in a hotel room for gawds sake! And one of the unbiased "scientist" owns and sells a line of his own violins...

I give up
#101
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #101
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,024

kennybro is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
They did the "research" in a hotel room for gawds sake! And one of the unbiased "scientist" owns and sells a line of his own violins...
I guess my point would be (and the only thing they were testing) is that the differences should be apparent to an expert. It was not under these circumstances at that time. That's all, nothing more. Sterile lab environment should not be necessary in order to achieve results worth considering. Allowing the player to have the instrument over a period of time is a completely different test. Not the only valid one, just totally different.

There's just too much mystery in the certainty of knowing. Too "religious." I don't know anything for certain. Every belief of mine is subject to change upon new information. This was new information, and I believe, good enough info for consideration. Not perfect, but nothing is. I would truly expect the differences to be so apparant, that there would be absolutly no question at all. There's a question, it seems.

I've recorded some very fine fiddles in my days ($250K + in dollar terms). And some crap ones. My experience has always been that the combo of the player and the instrument is foremost factor in achieving excellent tone, but the player is always king (queen?). I've never been able to quantify that more expensive fiddles always sound better than less expensive ones even in the hands of the same player, although I've never recorded a Strad.

I truly wish I could be as certain as you are about this mysterious issue. I guess life in general would be more predictable and grounded.

Back to guitars, I've been owning, playing, recording, buying and selling since the late 60's. Had most of what's out there. For all of the talk about the superiority of vintage guitars, I can't ID anything specific. I like them for the character they possess, how they feel in my hands and for the money they've made me. The sound is up in the air. I've got new guitars that sound every bit as solid as any vintage I've ever owned or played. After 100's of vintage guitars and almost half a century, I wish there was something to point to and say "there it is!". There is not. I'm sure that your milage varies. Different experiences, different strokes, but I know what I know through my own experiences, not what you know through yours.
#102
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #102
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 299

The Buddha Rats is offline
To answer your question regarding collectability: Not a chance.

I'm not even going to get into a debate as to whether the new ones sound "better", etc.. That would probably make as much sense as debating what DAW sounds best...
__________________
Les Paul, More Lennon
http://thebuddharats.wordpress.com/
#103
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #103
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
So yes, what DOES surprise me is that a MUSICIAN can't tell the difference between a relatively cheap instrument and a very expensive instrument even in those tight circumstances.
But THEY COULD tell the difference, they just couldn't tell which was which. There was never any question that there were differences. The conclusion being inferred however is whether or not a strad is rightly or wrongly being deemed as a more desirable instrument.

Therefore it makes sense to compare these instruments in the environment in which they were intended and shine the most. Just like you don't test a Ferrari in a parking lot to realize it's full potential. You take it to the track.

I'm baffled why this concept is so difficult to grasp.
#104
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #104
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
But THEY COULD tell the difference, they just couldn't tell which was which. There was never any question that there were differences. The conclusion being inferred however is whether or not a strad is rightly or wrongly being deemed as a more desirable instrument.
The test shows, in a particular setting, people generally did not prefer the Strad over much cheaper instruments.. They actually tended to prefer the newer and cheaper instruments.

Quote:
Therefore it makes sense to compare these instruments in the environment in which they were intended and shine the most. Just like you don't test a Ferrari in a parking lot to realize it's full potential. You take it to the track.

I'm baffled why this concept is so difficult to grasp.
Sure. Go ahead and create a double blind test in a concert hall environment. I'll wait here.

Oh, right. Not really possible, is it?

Can we do a double blind test on your Ferrari? No of course not.

What you "fail to grasp" is these people are scientists. They test things in a controlled environment according to a specific methodology. That methodology makes the kind of testing that you apparently want to see meaningless.

The observer effect will always exist.

I'm baffled why you seem to want to completely disregard the study without saying why... Because it's so obvious and I'm not worthy I guess.

Accept the results at face value. If you have a specific problem with the study, speak forth.
#105
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #105
Gear addict
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 377

Bristol Posse is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
What you "fail to grasp" is these people are scientists. They test things in a controlled environment according to a specific methodology. That methodology makes the kind of testing that you apparently want to see meaningless.

The observer effect will always exist.

I'm baffled why you seem to want to completely disregard the study without saying why... Because it's so obvious and I'm not worthy I guess.
I have watched this debate with some interest but this is the part I fail to grasp. Where is the benefit in testing things in a way they will not be used and then drawing scientific conclusions from it?

My opportunities to play a a musical instrument with computer controlled robot hands in front of a group of blind, savant sociopaths (no emotional involvement and incredible recall ability) inside an environmentally controlled anechoic chamber are likely to be few and far between (or at least I hope they will)
Most of the time I will be playing with my actual hands on a stage, fueled with adrenalin, passion and a couple of drinks to a crowd of friends and strangers each with their own set of emotional baggage and expectations

Why would this second scenario not be the acid test of which instrument I prefer the sound of as opposed to a completely contrived, artificial situation I will never be in designed to isolate only one of hundreds of factors that will influence my choice?
And why is it so disastrously unacceptable for some instruments to just have a bit of magic and mojo in them that just seem to make them sing when you hold them?

While it may be scientific, it seems silly.

And a guy last week asked me how much I wanted for my Gibson Smartwood Exotic LP. I told him and he walked, so I guess it's not collectible yet
#106
7th December 2012
Old 7th December 2012
  #106
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
I have watched this debate with some interest but this is the part I fail to grasp. Where is the benefit in testing things in a way they will not be used and then drawing scientific conclusions from it?
Just to learn what you can. Kats I think is correct in his insinuation that it's not a great idea to make a big pronouncement based on this study. I think it's equally mistaken to just dismiss the data without cause.

Quote:
Why would this second scenario not be the acid test of which instrument I prefer the sound of as opposed to a completely contrived, artificial situation I will never be in designed to isolate only one of hundreds of factors that will influence my choice?
I think that would be a great study too, no joke. It would provide another data point. Why does it have to be one or the other? The more data points, the better, as it's impossible to come up with a double blind test that matches a real performance environment.

Quote:
And why is it so disastrously unacceptable for some instruments to just have a bit of magic and mojo in them that just seem to make them sing when you hold them?
?? Why is something that cannot be scientifically proven a problem? In other words... mojo is great! I love mojo. My tele and I just have a connection that cannot be tested. However, I also suspect I might not be able to tell the difference between my tele and a newer one in a double blind test. Science doesn't address what it can't address.

Quote:
And a guy last week asked me how much I wanted for my Gibson Smartwood Exotic LP. I told him and he walked, so I guess it's not collectible yet
LOL!
#107
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #107
Gear addict
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 377

Bristol Posse is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I think that would be a great study too, no joke. It would provide another data point. Why does it have to be one or the other? The more data points, the better, as it's impossible to come up with a double blind test that matches a real performance environment.
And I think that's my problem with the study, you can't come up with a double blind for a performance but that is what a musical instrument is for..Performance. So scientists build a test in an unreal scenario and claim something or other in all kinds of inflammatory headlines based on a forced study in a non real environment.
reminds me of a Monty Python gag where the stamping foot in the titles comes down and shatters, the toe is found by scientists who rebuild what the original creature would have looked like and come up with a mammoth with a toe for a nose. A lesson in only looking at part of the picture and filling in the blanks with assumption and extrapolation I guess

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
?? Why is something that cannot be scientifically proven a problem? In other words... mojo is great! I love mojo. My tele and I just have a connection that cannot be tested. However, I also suspect I might not be able to tell the difference between my tele and a newer one in a double blind test. Science doesn't address what it can't address.
Then don't do a double blind test, just accept the magic for what it is and allow the placebo effect to take you to a higher level of performance

I had a martial arts instructor years ago who told me "In a child's mind there are only possibilities, In an expert's only the limits of what can be done. The more we know the harder it becomes to keep a sense of wonder and possibility in the world around us"

Probably a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but around music where magic and mojo should be a part of the deal, I like the idea of wonder and possibility far more than I like knowing a bunch of provable facts.

OF course YMMV
#108
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #108
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
So scientists build a test in an unreal scenario and claim something or other in all kinds of inflammatory headlines based on a forced study in a non real environment.
The scientists only claimed what they claimed. The inflammatory headlines aren't their fault.

Quote:
A lesson in only looking at part of the picture and filling in the blanks with assumption and extrapolation I guess
That's what life is. There is no way to prove it, but they CAN answer the question... what will people choose in a specific circumstance. What is the problem with that? Why does everyone think it's all or nothing... either prove EVERYTHING or don't even try? I don't get that part.

Quote:
Then don't do a double blind test, just accept the magic for what it is and allow the placebo effect to take you to a higher level of performance
Exactly, I have no desire to do a double blind on my guitar, but I also am not arrogant enough to say I KNOW I can tell the difference.

Quote:
I had a martial arts instructor years ago who told me "In a child's mind there are only possibilities, In an expert's only the limits of what can be done. The more we know the harder it becomes to keep a sense of wonder and possibility in the world around us"

Probably a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but around music where magic and mojo should be a part of the deal, I like the idea of wonder and possibility far more than I like knowing a bunch of provable facts.

OF course YMMV
But that's the whole point... the study adds to the mystery. Who would have thought these players wouldn't pick out the Strads? Not me! How cool is that?

AND the study doesn't discount the differences in feel... how one plays when one plays an old instrument. Can't be measured.

It's like quantum physics... the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Anyway, so yea, I'm glad they are doing studies like this.
#109
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,567

drbob1 is offline
The comment about guitars turning to dust was amusing, there's nothing about a 1959 Les Paul that shouldn't last for centuries except the parts you expect to eventually replace: frets, electronics and plastic. And yeah, plastic will become ever more horrendously expensive to replace with original stuff, and ever less significant as ALL the guitars lose it.

The problem with modern Gibson guitars is that they are a commodity and fairly indistinguishable. What's the difference between a 1995 LP, a 2003 or a 2012? There are folks that know, but it's not significant enough to make up for the fact that they built a metric ton of these things and modest appreciation is all you can expect for the next 30 years. The custom shop stuff is hit or miss: the Page LPs went for big bucks out of the box and are still unobtanium. The Clapton 335s were eventually sold at a discount and are still not worth list price. The BOTB and Pearly Gates and so on reissues are not all that valuable, unless played by the artist owner.

In fact, in terms of collectables, the market right now is in the lower end 50s-70s guitars. A 52 LP that was worth $5000 10 years ago, and maybe $7k 3 years ago is now selling for $12-15k as a candidate for conversion to a burst. A blackguard tele or 50s strat has lost a lot of value, but a Melodymaker or Jaguar or Firebird just keeps inching upward. A 70s tele can sell for nearly half of what a 50s one does now, even though it's far less than 1/2 the guitar.
#110
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #110
GS Community Manager
 
Whitecat's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Surrey / London
Posts: 9,203
My Recordings/Credits

Whitecat is offline
There's also a viewpoint that in fifty or sixty years the guitars of tomorrow will not be made with the woods of today, and that will drive up the desirability of owning something made from a "classic" species of wood that guitar makers can't get anymore. I guess that's a wait-and-see type scenario but it sounds plausible to me.

The problem, as I mentioned, is that there are just so damn many guitars being churned out now by the big three or four that it's hard to envision a world where they genuinely become "rare."
__________________
Scott J. - Gearslutz.com Community Manager

Gearslutz on Facebook!

My personal Twitter - @WhitecatTV
#111
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #111
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,024

kennybro is online now
I guess something musically significant will have to happen with a particular guitar before it can become collectible. Mustangs shot up after Cobain. Nationals after Jack White. 69 Strats (or even just the cap necks) are connected to Jimi. The Burst Phenmon is really Bloomfield, Page & Clapton influenced, but maybe a bit more market and quality based than more recent spikes. Goldtops never took off because no celebrity connections. P90's are amazing sounding pups, but not popular on Pauls. There are many totally amazing vintage guitars that can be had for a few thousand because of no celebrity connection, like the 50's Guild Aristocrat.

Somebody huge has to make a move with a guitar that's already difficult to get.
#112
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

I'm baffled why you seem to want to completely disregard the study without saying why... Because it's so obvious and I'm not worthy I guess.
But I did tell you why. And I did show you the difference between the old and new fiddles. You read it and it didn't register in your brain. It made me think that you are not here to discover or challenge your personal dogma. For that reason I had no inclination to, as I said earlier, spoon feed you. It's already here for you to read if you want to be more open minded.

Now about your holy grail of double blind tests that you grasp to as the end all and be all of universal truth. They remind me of political polls. It really depends on the question you ask and as such can be easily manipulated and yield completely contradictory conclusions - intentional or not.

This one in particular is laughable - "Which one do you like better?"

It's totally meaningless.

If you ask the test participant to focus on specific attributes, then you may get somewhere. So for example, in this violin test, you could ask the participants: "Which violin is louder, or projects the most?" Then you would get clear and consistant responses. IE, meaningful data.

Well, maybe not in a hotel room or for that matter by playing the instrument - perhaps that test would be better served sitting in the third row of a concert hall as a listener as opposed to actually playing the instrument. But then I suspect, in such an acoustical environment, the player would be easily able to sense the difference as well.
#113
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #113
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
But I did tell you why
Either you did a poor job of explaining yourself or I'm missing it. Either way, take your pick. Your obvious intellectual superiority aside, maybe you should "spoon feed" me kats.

Quote:
Now about your holy grail of double blind tests that you grasp to as the end all and be all of universal truth.
Maybe just for a moment kats you can stop trying to hard to be RIGHT. Double blind tests are all we've got. Everything else is just a guess. The results are limited, of course. Nobody in this thread is saying otherwise, except you trying to turn it into a red herring argument. Really, just stop. Nobody is saying "universal truth." If you have a better idea than generally accepted scientific methodology, then display this incredible intellectual superiority of yours by detailing something better.

Quote:
They remind me of political polls. It really depends on the question you ask and as such can be easily manipulated and yield completely contradictory conclusions - intentional or not.
That's why it's a double blind test, which eliminates one reason why political polls are often biased. Since you are so intellectually superior, I don't think I need to elaborate.

Quote:
This one in particular is laughable - "Which one do you like better?"

It's totally meaningless.
It means they liked one better than the others, and it tended to be the newer ones. That's all. Not "meaningless." If I had you play a couple of Les Pauls, and asked you which one you liked better, you could probably decide for yourself. Yes, it wouldn't be the "be all and end all" and nobody is suggesting it is kats.

Quote:
If you ask the test participant to focus on specific attributes, then you may get somewhere.
If you were trying to test for those aspects, yes. But.. that's not what they were asking.. because they wanted to know what the actual players would PREFER. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's what we have.

Quote:
But then I suspect, in such an acoustical environment, the player would be easily able to sense the difference as well.
I suspect they might be able to tell the difference as well in that case... but I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't either. Why? Because the test in question is a data point. It leads me to believe the differences aren't as significant as we suspected.
#114
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #114
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

Nobody is saying "universal truth." ...

It means they liked one better than the others, and it tended to be the newer ones...

it wouldn't be the "be all and end all" and nobody is suggesting it...
You say all this, but then you end your post with this:

Quote:
I suspect they might be able to tell the difference as well in that case... but I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't either. Why? Because the test in question is a data point. It leads me to believe the differences aren't as significant as we suspected.
In other words, your putting much more weight in this test than you admit.

Because:

Quote:
they wanted to know what the actual players would PREFER...
Finish the sentence:

...sitting in a hotel room playing solo violin.

Yet you would not be surprised if they couldn't tell a major difference in volume or projection in a proper acoustical environment based on the hotel room test?

Isn't that a little bit intellectually dishonest?

The rest of your post had already been asked by you and answered in my previous post.
#115
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #115
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
Yet you would not be surprised if they couldn't tell a major difference in volume or projection in a proper acoustical environment based on the hotel room test?

Isn't that a little bit intellectually dishonest?
You've gotta know what you don't know. You, for example... you don't know whether or not a new instrument would appear to project as well as an old instrument in a blind test. You don't know whether an expert might indeed prefer a newer instrument. Hey, I have no problem with faith... but it's different than fact, even if fact cannot be determined yet.

This study is one of the few double blind tests that I've seen on the subject, and again, it certainly suggest there may not be the huge difference our faith tells us there is.

Quote:
The rest of your post had already been asked by you and answered in my previous post.
Yes, exactly the way you have made a clear argument as to why the study in question is invalid... not.
#116
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3,868

kats is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
You've gotta know what you don't know.

Well close. You have to have a commonly held belief that is, to a degree, quantifiable.

Do you really not understand the difference between the question: "Which instrument seems louder, or projects greater" than being asked: "Which one do you prefer?"

The former will result in useful information whereas the latter will remain only a matter of subjective opinion. So to take this one step further, if you DO want to find out if a strad is louder or has greater projection than a modern built violin, it would only be useful if the strad was compared in an acoustic environment where loudness or projection will make a difference. IE you cannot test a Ferrari's top speed on a track that is 10 meters long.

Let me give you another example of a blind listening test we as engineers experience all the time.

"Which mix do you like better"

"I'm not sure of the difference"

But if I direct the listeners focus on a certain aspect, let's say the bass drum, then all of a sudden you get an opinion:

"I prefer the attack on the bass drum on version 2"

I could then go back and forth between both versions and the listener will be able to tell me the difference between the two mixes 10 out of 10 times.

If they can't, then yes, something is fishy or moot.

This is how I find blind tests useful. I'll leave you with the last word if you like.
#117
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #117
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,335

nuthinupmysleeve is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
Well close. You have to have a commonly held belief that is, to a degree, quantifiable.
Did you just say belief and quantifiable in the same sentence?

Quote:
Do you really not understand the difference between the question: "Which instrument seems louder, or projects greater" than being asked: "Which one do you prefer?"
Um... yes, I understand, as I've pointed out countless times, bub.

Quote:
The former will result in useful information whereas the latter will remain only a matter of subjective opinion.
Dude, they are BOTH subjective opinion. Louder can be measured. What "sounds louder" or "projects greater" IS OPINION, unless you quantify what those terms mean AND measure them rather than ASKING the player. Kats, come on buddy. Now you're just being silly.

Quote:
So to take this one step further, if you DO want to find out if a strad is louder or has greater projection than a modern built violin, it would only be useful if the strad was compared in an acoustic environment where loudness or projection will make a difference. IE you cannot test a Ferrari's top speed on a track that is 10 meters long.
Of course.

Quote:
But if I direct the listeners focus on a certain aspect, let's say the bass drum, then all of a sudden you get an opinion:

"I prefer the attack on the bass drum on version 2"

I could then go back and forth between both versions and the listener will be able to tell me the difference between the two mixes 10 out of 10 times.

If they can't, then yes, something is fishy or moot.
Either that, or the bass drum isn't different enough to reliably tell the difference.

Have you done a double blind test with mic preamps or d/a converters or other audio gear? If so... how did you do? I suspect you actually haven't... seems like you have an overly strong belief in your own cognitive ability, which usually means it hasn't been tested much, or you haven't tested yourself with any rigor. I could be wrong, but it seems likely.

What you fail to understand is even the tests you propose are subjective, because you are asking a person... and who cares if one is "louder" or "projects" more? The question is whether someone would prefer the classic instrument, that really is interesting. If you want to test for volume in the concert environment, that is easy. There are tools for that... db meter.

Quote:
This is how I find blind tests useful. I'll leave you with the last word if you like.
I don't need the "last word" kats.

The study indicates what it indicates... no more, no less.
#118
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #118
Lives for gear
 
CJ1973's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,216

CJ1973 is offline
Ok folks it's getting somewhat heated in here....I'm curious to know...how many of you have owned or own a Gibson?
__________________
www.MusicIntersection.com
#119
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #119
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,024

kennybro is online now
Since you ask... over the years I've owned...

Goldtops; 52 (2), 55, '56, 68, 69, 95 Classic
Standards; had a '60 Burst in my possesion for a year (not mine), a few 70's Deluxes, many 70's and 80's Standards, Currently only a late 90's Classic PP.
SG's; probably a dozen from the 60's to the 90's. Currently only a 64 Jr.
Tal Farlow, Birdland (2), A number of 175's from 50's to 90's, 75 L5S Humbuckers, 70's L6S (2), 50's ES125 (2), ES 225, ES 140, a number of 330's, 335 & 345's, Custom Shop Switchmaster.

More I can't recall, that came and went within months, weeks, or sometimes hours.

I've never owned a Gibson acoustic that I recall except a 30's Cromwell that I still have. A few A mandolins over the years. I recall a very cool white one that I wish I never sold. No mandos now.

Thanks for asking. That was a nice trip down memory lane
#120
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #120
Gear addict
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 468

emitsweet is offline
I was checking out some new Gibson's today. I noticed lots of 2 piece
backs on Les Pauls which is very bad construction. Gibson did this in the 70s and everyone knows 70s Les Pauls are junk
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Analizemodmusic / Low End Theory
10
1nation / So much gear, so little time!
124
IsRael Musiq / So much gear, so little time!
70
Mikem / So much gear, so little time!
28
rtprods / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
16

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.