Lutherie myths?

[ken cierp]

What I am suggesting, of course it is only my opinion, coupled with what I have observed at Elderly’s is that buyers intending to purchase those high end instruments want to own the persona or mythical attributes --- and if given a blind listening test to make their choice they would hear no difference.

And the answer I got from Martin, indicates to me that is what the marketing department depends on -- since the whole idea of how things taste or sound or even look is totally subjective.

[ken cierp]

This might be a good place for this again

[mike-p]

I've been thinking about some of these issues and I've had two whole thoughts.

1.Is not a double blind trial is an effective impossibility due to variation in wood as a natural material?

2. Although differences in say bridge material, glue, scallop pattern etc may be indiscernible individually, this does not mean there is not a cumulative effect so that a guitar with rosewood BP, hide glue construction and dovetail neck joint may well sound different/ better than a Maple/titebond/MT joint guitar.

A third, tentative thought is that if you are told a guitar is expensive it may well ACTUALLY sound better to the listener due to the way the brain processes the information. There was a study with a brain scan, I think it was about taste but I can't remember what is was or where i read it, I'll try to find more info.

[ken cierp]

The basis for a double blind survey is that the evaluators would not know or see the players, or the guitars being played and the players would not know the make up/construction of the guitars they are playing and certainly not the cost --

[John Link]

Mike,

There was a famous study done by psychologists on other psychologists (experimental flavor) in which rats bred to be homogeneous for generation after generation were separated into three groups and distributed to three groups of psychologists. The first group was told their rats were bred to be dumb. The second, their rats were average intelligence. The third, their rats were exceptionally smart. All three groups performed the same learning experiment on their respective rats.

The rats in the first group were slow to learn, the third group were the quickest, and the middle group was in between. I don't know what was proved, but it did suggest that the "scientists" somehow set their objectivity aside and influenced the rats to learn according to the preconceived idea of the level of intelligence possessed by the rats.

But in an authentic double blind study. no one is give any hints whatsoever. They have to reach conclusions without access to any bias, or at least as few as possible.

One of your points is pertinent, though. Even when species of wood, thickness, glue used, etc. are kept constant, there is always the variable of the wood itself. I think that is where the hand maker can - but not necessarily does - get ahead of the factory process. Once the factory worker gets the top, say, to the proper thickness, with the proper bracing properly glued in place, that is it. The hand maker can, on the other had, make further adjustments - for better or worse. And so, when I hear someone say "the 1934 (insert brand and model here) is the best guitar ever made" I cringe a bit. Even if there were only 50 of that model built, I can't assume they were all the same when built nor that they have all aged the same. Further, I don't really believe there is such a thing as a "best" guitar in any case. There are levels. Once a certain level of excellence is achieved, we must talk about differences and that is about it.

On the other hand, "collectors" pay premiums for hang tags, finishes that are not scratched, original sales slips, and - if they are anything like stamp collectors - might really pay out the nose for an upside down Martin decal on an otherwise unblemished instrument.