Furthermore, there are many intangible qualities of the way an instrument resonates and feels while playing that often contributes more to the better playing than the raw sound itself. It’s strange to say but instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound

▲

dyauspitr 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You’re going to run into a bunch of trouble using “soul” for anything. It serves a purpose but that’s usually either laziness, inability to measure some physical quality or a placebo effect. Generally pointing that out will end up putting someone in the pedant bucket but I’m risking it.

▲

danielbln 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds to me like a bunch of physical and therefore measurable (and tangible) properties and some placebo effect on top.

▲

hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I understand what you're getting at, and I can appreciate it, but it's also kind of bullshit. You say "instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound" - well, if that's the case, then people should be able to hear the difference in that sound in blind tests, which so far they basically haven't.

▲

vscode-rest 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Are the studies blind or double blind? If the musicians do not know what they are playing, they will not be able to “respond” to it.

	▲	hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There have been both. Here is a famous example from around 1977 I believe that was broadcast on the BBC (I knew of this example but this is the first time I actually found a recording of the broadcast): https://www.baroquemusic.org/violincomparison.html . The violinist playing is Manoug Parikian, who presumably knew which instrument was which, and neither Isaac Stern nor Pinchas Zukerman (both world class soloists) nor Charles Beare (a famous luthier described as "the most esteemed authenticator in the world" by the NYTimes) could identify which violin was which.