I'm a semi-professional violinist who got to borrow a Strad for a couple months and whose long-term teacher has the lifetime loan of a del Gesu (and has had access to a Strad but prefers the del Gesu!)
I don't have Studies to back this up, but anecdotally:
* Playing fine violins takes a lot of practice with the specific instrument to begin to unlock its potential. I was scratching the surface after a couple months; people with longer-term loans say it takes years.
* Strads in particular are surprisingly hard to make sound good at first. I'd say there was a good two weeks where I sounded better on my $2500 Chinese-made violin than I did on the multi-million dollar Strad. (del Gesus sound great out of the box. This is widely agreed upon but I don't know why it is)
* In terms of pure craftsmanship there are many contemporary makers who are working as well as Strad and del Gesu, and I don't place much stock in them having access to uniquely good wood or magic varnish or anything like that.
* However, for poorly-understood reasons the act of playing a violin "opens up" the sound and also gives you access to more and more tone colors. A 300-year-old violin that's been played a lot will therefore have a much bigger tonal palette than a contemporary violin, even if any individual tone color isn't strictly better than the tone of a contemporary violin.
* The corollary is that in the year 2300 I believe top-end contemporary instruments will be as good as Strads are now.
* If you just thought "what if we simulate the vibrations of playing on new instruments to expedite their aging", you're not the first! Some luthiers hook new instruments up to a specialized amplifier and effectively play music through the violin for a couple weeks before selling it. A lot of people claim this helps a lot, but I don't have first-hand experience of it.
Humans are all subject to cognitive biases. Musicians are no different. That is why controlled testing is the only way to determine if these extraordinary instruments actually produce extradordinary sound.
Wouldn't you like to know if you could sound just as good on an ordinary instrument? I imagine a lot of money could be saved and and a lot of stress could be avoided.
If I had access to a del Gesù why would I care how I sound on an ordinary instrument? Have you ever handled a tool of your craft that was used by many masters before you? The cognitive biases of musicians are part of the music they make. It is the role of other people to examine the instruments, and no one is stopping them. Musicians must keep their biases.
Anyway everyone who uses one of these still has their "normal" (masterfully crafted modern) instruments for when it's the more practical choice.
People are making instruments in Tasmania from deep flooded lake bottom revovered Huon pine and other ancient wood. I'd be fascinated if this old wood, Virgin trees from hundreds of years ago, had the same kind of tonal range.
I had my cello played in on a machine when I bought it as it was included no charge. I didn't A/B it though so I don't know how much of a difference it made.
I own a handful of TI calculators (TI-{80, 83, 83+, 86, 89T, NSpire CAS}, possibly a few others) but actually use a TI-89 Titanium emulator on my Android phone. I no longer do anything remotely interesting with it, but I prefer it to the stock calculator since I know how it does order of operations, it shows fractions, it's easy to get old return values, etc. Don't tell me if the stock calculator now does all that; the TI-89 ergonomics are burned into my brain. (I was in an advanced math class which got me using a TI-80 at the age of 9)
I didn't know that. I encountered these emails recently from the Tech Emails X account and figured I'd share here because 1) it's very timely considering the NYC mayor elections and 2) HN is a great place to read about people's thoughts on topics like these outside of where I usually hangout.
Theft does not exist. Only deficient windows intentionally designed to be breakable exist. if you want your "personal possessions" to not be taken, dont make them vulnerable. <etc>
Yes, the companies involved should take some responsibility for terrible security practice (though I'm sure they wish this had never happened!) but victim-blaming doesn't justify crime.
I've found the Metabase test suite[0] to be very good considering it's real-world software written by a for-profit company. Coverage is good, the correct tests usually break when doing a refactor (stuff like "Oh, I thought this change was harmless but actually it breaks the permissions model"), etcetera. But the most important thing is that there's a strong team culture of a) demanding good tests on each PR b) hunting down flaky tests and other sources of friction.
Another neat thing was that there used to be a full-time SDET who spent a lot of time writing Cypress reproductions for known bugs. When you picked up the bug, you could un-skip the test that was right there waiting for you.
All that said, of course it's far from perfect!
0: https://github.com/metabase/metabase/ Backend unit tests are in test/, Frontend unit tests are in frontend/test, end-to-end tests (Cypress) are in e2e.
reply