I realize this really isn't precisely what r.a.h-e is about, but it
seems closely enough related that others here might find it
interesting.

The attached URI is a scientific paper evaluating the effectiveness of
a "tweak" done to trumpets which supposedly improves their sound:
cryogenically freezing them, then allowing them to warm up slowly.

http://www.tuftl.tufts.edu/mie/research/cryo/cryo99/

The end result is there there is no correlation between the treated
and untreated instruments.

News coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/18TRUM.html

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

I suspect that the poster was not reading carefully?

Here's what they said (Tufts):

All data was recorded at 44,100 Hz in a semi-anechoic chamber constructed
at Tufts University. Preliminary results indicate little or no statistically significant
differences between the treated and untreated instruments.


Also the poster chose "Instrument "tweak" fails under scientific scrutiny"
as his subject line... (making the intent quite clear, imho)

Which means two very important things:

1. Bandwidth of the tests was limited to 21kHz. i.e. no ultrasonics
included in the tests - even though there are peer reviewed & published
tests that indicate that the presence of ultrasonic sound (correlated to the
the actual musical information, not noise) has a positive effect on
the reported quality. It is known that brass instruments and violins have
ultrasonic content.

2. The results are *preliminary* and only deal with *power spectra*
NOT subjective testing. i.e. no one actually listened to these instruments.

The end result is NOT: "...there there is no correlation between the treated
and untreated instruments".

This is merely the poster's opinion and conclusion.
A proper statement of the test and its results could not
support such a broad reaching and seemingly definitive statement by
a long stretch.

I think this sort of statement, while probably made in good faith and
with good intentions, is all too typical of the sort of "leap" to find
a conclusion that one is looking for, and causes a sort of exagerration
which in turn leads to a polarization of opinion rather than the
sort of balanced and measured views that actually advance the
understanding and benefit discussion of these types of issues.

Regards,

_-_-bear

Alan Hoyle wrote:

I realize this really isn't precisely what r.a.h-e is about, but it
seems closely enough related that others here might find it
interesting.

The attached URI is a scientific paper evaluating the effectiveness of
a "tweak" done to trumpets which supposedly improves their sound:
cryogenically freezing them, then allowing them to warm up slowly.

http://www.tuftl.tufts.edu/mie/research/cryo/cryo99/

The end result is there there is no correlation between the treated
and untreated instruments.

News coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/18TRUM.html

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

If you read the New York Times link, the researchers sound more
convinced:

''After two years of research, Dr. Chris Rogers, an engineering
professor, said that he and colleagues determined that freezing
trumpets did not make them sound better.''

and

''Chip Jones, a Tufts graduate student involved in the research, said
he had recruited six trumpeters ranging in skill from a former high
school musician to a New England Conservatory player to member of the
Boston Symphony Orchestra.

''They played the same sequence on trumpets that had been frozen and
those that had not, and then rated the instruments. They were also
asked to identify which trumpet matched the sound that "people say is
brighter, freer-blowing or that had more `presence,' " Mr. Jones said.

''Differences in the answers, he said, were statistically
insignificant. "There was more difference from trumpet to trumpet and
from player to player than in the results from treatment of the
instruments," Mr. Jones said.''

So no, they're not JUST talking about the "Power spectra" of the
instruments as recorded at CD quality. They asked people who
_actually_ _played_ the instruments what they thought.

-alan


On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:39:13 GMT, BEAR wrote:
I suspect that the poster was not reading carefully?

Here's what they said (Tufts):

All data was recorded at 44,100 Hz in a semi-anechoic chamber constructed
at Tufts University. Preliminary results indicate little or no statistically significant
differences between the treated and untreated instruments.


Also the poster chose "Instrument "tweak" fails under scientific scrutiny"
as his subject line... (making the intent quite clear, imho)

Which means two very important things:

1. Bandwidth of the tests was limited to 21kHz. i.e. no ultrasonics
included in the tests - even though there are peer reviewed & published
tests that indicate that the presence of ultrasonic sound (correlated to the
the actual musical information, not noise) has a positive effect on
the reported quality. It is known that brass instruments and violins have
ultrasonic content.

2. The results are *preliminary* and only deal with *power spectra*
NOT subjective testing. i.e. no one actually listened to these instruments.

The end result is NOT: "...there there is no correlation between the treated
and untreated instruments".

This is merely the poster's opinion and conclusion.
A proper statement of the test and its results could not
support such a broad reaching and seemingly definitive statement by
a long stretch.

I think this sort of statement, while probably made in good faith and
with good intentions, is all too typical of the sort of "leap" to find
a conclusion that one is looking for, and causes a sort of exagerration
which in turn leads to a polarization of opinion rather than the
sort of balanced and measured views that actually advance the
understanding and benefit discussion of these types of issues.

Regards,

_-_-bear

Alan Hoyle wrote:

I realize this really isn't precisely what r.a.h-e is about, but it
seems closely enough related that others here might find it
interesting.

The attached URI is a scientific paper evaluating the effectiveness of
a "tweak" done to trumpets which supposedly improves their sound:
cryogenically freezing them, then allowing them to warm up slowly.

http://www.tuftl.tufts.edu/mie/research/cryo/cryo99/

The end result is there there is no correlation between the treated
and untreated instruments.

News coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/18TRUM.html

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com



--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

Alan Hoyle wrote:

If you read the New York Times link, the researchers sound more
convinced:

''After two years of research, Dr. Chris Rogers, an engineering
professor, said that he and colleagues determined that freezing
trumpets did not make them sound better.''

The guy who did the study was an undergrad.

What he determined is that *his study* could not detect any
differences. Beyond that is his opinion and others are touted here
as fact, which it is not.

Personally, I don't know or care if freezing trumpets has any effect
on their sound, btw. The issue is taking limited information and
declaring it as both *fact* and *generally applicable.* That's
a BIG problem, imho.



and

''Chip Jones, a Tufts graduate student involved in the research, said
he had recruited six trumpeters ranging in skill from a former high
school musician to a New England Conservatory player to member of the
Boston Symphony Orchestra.

''They played the same sequence on trumpets that had been frozen and
those that had not, and then rated the instruments. They were also
asked to identify which trumpet matched the sound that "people say is
brighter, freer-blowing or that had more `presence,' " Mr. Jones said.

''Differences in the answers, he said, were statistically
insignificant. "There was more difference from trumpet to trumpet and
from player to player than in the results from treatment of the
instruments," Mr. Jones said.''

Sure... but again, this *proves* next to nothing. And my point was
that your post was not supported by facts, and that the words
selected by you for your title were essentially "yellow journalism."



So no, they're not JUST talking about the "Power spectra" of the
instruments as recorded at CD quality. They asked people who
_actually_ _played_ the instruments what they thought.

Which, is an uncontrolled study of such a statistically small group
that the results can not be considered to be dispositive.

So, using such things to (apparently) either provoke responses (which
seems likely given the title of the post) or to attempt by (weak) association
to "debunk" positions or opinions that you do not agree with or like
seems to be the entire purpose of your post - rather than bringing
a point of interest to the group. No?

_-_-bear

--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

In article a4cvb.256791$HS4.2312744@attbi_s01,
BEAR writes:
Alan Hoyle wrote:

If you read the New York Times link, the researchers sound more
convinced:

''After two years of research, Dr. Chris Rogers, an engineering
professor, said that he and colleagues determined that freezing
trumpets did not make them sound better.''

The guy who did the study was an undergrad.

Maybe when he did the study referenced on the Tufts page, but The
New York Times clearly called him "Dr. Chris Rogers". You need to
complain to them, not Alan.

What he determined is that *his study* could not detect any
differences. Beyond that is his opinion and others are touted here
as fact, which it is not.

The results are what is quoted, and that is a fact.

Personally, I don't know or care if freezing trumpets has any effect
on their sound, btw. The issue is taking limited information and
declaring it as both *fact* and *generally applicable.* That's
a BIG problem, imho.

C'mon Randy, he just quoted a news report because he thought it was
interesting.

You on the other hand are making a mountain out of a molehill.



and

''Chip Jones, a Tufts graduate student involved in the research, said
he had recruited six trumpeters ranging in skill from a former high
school musician to a New England Conservatory player to member of the
Boston Symphony Orchestra.

''They played the same sequence on trumpets that had been frozen and
those that had not, and then rated the instruments. They were also
asked to identify which trumpet matched the sound that "people say is
brighter, freer-blowing or that had more `presence,' " Mr. Jones said.

''Differences in the answers, he said, were statistically
insignificant. "There was more difference from trumpet to trumpet and
from player to player than in the results from treatment of the
instruments," Mr. Jones said.''

Sure... but again, this *proves* next to nothing. And my point was
that your post was not supported by facts, and that the words
selected by you for your title were essentially "yellow journalism."

Where in the world do you get this? And how did you come to that
conclusion? He's just quoting the NYTimes, he's not making anything
up.


So no, they're not JUST talking about the "Power spectra" of the
instruments as recorded at CD quality. They asked people who
_actually_ _played_ the instruments what they thought.

Which, is an uncontrolled study of such a statistically small group
that the results can not be considered to be dispositive.

So, using such things to (apparently) either provoke responses (which
seems likely given the title of the post) or to attempt by (weak) association
to "debunk" positions or opinions that you do not agree with or like
seems to be the entire purpose of your post - rather than bringing
a point of interest to the group. No?

You certainly must be reading something here that I am not.

Anyone else agree with Randy?

(Audio Guy) wrote:



So, using such things to (apparently) either provoke responses (which
seems likely given the title of the post) or to attempt by (weak)
association
to "debunk" positions or opinions that you do not agree with or like
seems to be the entire purpose of your post - rather than bringing
a point of interest to the group. No?

You certainly must be reading something here that I am not.

Anyone else agree with Randy?


Not me. In the mid 90s I went to a jazz fest in Decatur Illinois where the
'buzz' was that a local company had a tech who was cryogenically freezing brass
instruments and the local talk was it was (un-pc put) "a crock."