'Boutique gear' general grumpy rant.

[MDV]

I prefer to have some foundation or confidence in the reality of a benefit from a piece of kit, so wherever I can I try to strip it down to just hearing, and if I can hear the difference and like the difference then all the better. I like to know that I like a thing for reasons that really exist.

Making music is much more about emotions than science though?

I think the art and science of it are one and the same.

Our senses  play tricks on all of us all the time. Its just a fact.

[JJretroTONEGOD]

I can definitely tell the difference between a 128kbps or 160kbps MP3 and a 192kbps MP3.  Once you get above that it becomes more a matter of how good the equipment you are listening to with is.  In a car stereo for example with road noise etc 192kbps is absolutely fine.!

How did you come to that conclusion though?

Did you know which was which beforehand?

I don't question that you can do it, I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion.

I can always hear a whooshing mushy sound in 160kbps and lower. I don't know the technical term for it.  192kbps and above I can't hear that.  I can pick differences, sure, but it generally depends on the quality of the speakers and the noise in the environment.  But 128kbps and 160kbps always sound awful to my ears.

me too, it drives me mad when people say they can't hear it...I don't even like listening to mp3's even at 320kbps it doesn't sound good enough. WAV and FLAC are the only things I'll listen to, I can also hear distortions in the low levels and noise floor of mp3 files and less resolution. I don't agree with MDV that I'm 'imagining' it...

[gwEm]

me too, it drives me mad when people say they can't hear it...I don't even like listening to mp3's even at 320kbps it doesn't sound good enough. WAV and FLAC are the only things I'll listen to, I can also hear distortions in the low levels and noise floor of mp3 files and less resolution. I don't agree with MDV that I'm 'imagining' it...

it depends on the track in question, but yes - i can often hear those compression artifacts very clearly as well at the rates you are talking about.

[Elliot]

Personally I can't tell much  difference between 128kbps and  196kbps and none after that - so I guess I am lucky compared to you more sensitive souls as I can download 'my' music from YouTube  :lol:

[MDV]

I can definitely tell the difference between a 128kbps or 160kbps MP3 and a 192kbps MP3.  Once you get above that it becomes more a matter of how good the equipment you are listening to with is.  In a car stereo for example with road noise etc 192kbps is absolutely fine.!

How did you come to that conclusion though?

Did you know which was which beforehand?

I don't question that you can do it, I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion.

I can always hear a whooshing mushy sound in 160kbps and lower. I don't know the technical term for it.  192kbps and above I can't hear that.  I can pick differences, sure, but it generally depends on the quality of the speakers and the noise in the environment.  But 128kbps and 160kbps always sound awful to my ears.

Yeah, thats the highest frequencies getting cut off.

[dave_mc]

I'd say the "can you hear the difference when it's recorded?" thing is possibly missing the point... I bet I could play a cheaper guitar and a more expensive guitar (with similar construction/woods/pickups) and make them sound pretty darn similar. What the recording wouldn't show you is that I was struggling to play it on the cheaper guitar and yet it was a breeze to play it on the more expensive one. [I'd also point out that dearer isn't always better- Mesa gear is cheaper in the USA than Marshall normally, whereas here in Europe it's the other way round. Does that mean Mesa is better in Europe but Marshall is better in Europe? :lol: ]

That being said, I also agree with the double blind thing Mark's talking about. Our senses do play tricks on us all the time.

I dunno how to double-blind test playing a guitar, though. It'd be so obvious, even blindfolded, what guitar you were playing, that it'd instantly be pointless- and as I said, listening to recordings is sorta missing the point, at least to a certain extent. It'd be a bit like trying to do a double blind test of shoes by looking at how comfortable a model looks while wearing them, lol.

[JJretroTONEGOD]

I'd say the "can you hear the difference when it's recorded?" thing is possibly missing the point... I bet I could play a cheaper guitar and a more expensive guitar (with similar construction/woods/pickups) and make them sound pretty darn similar. What the recording wouldn't show you is that I was struggling to play it on the cheaper guitar and yet it was a breeze to play it on the more expensive one. [I'd also point out that dearer isn't always better- Mesa gear is cheaper in the USA than Marshall normally, whereas here in Europe it's the other way round. Does that mean Mesa is better in Europe but Marshall is better in Europe? :lol: ]

That being said, I also agree with the double blind thing Mark's talking about. Our senses do play tricks on us all the time.

I dunno how to double-blind test playing a guitar, though. It'd be so obvious, even blindfolded, what guitar you were playing, that it'd instantly be pointless- and as I said, listening to recordings is sorta missing the point, at least to a certain extent. It'd be a bit like trying to do a double blind test of shoes by looking at how comfortable a model looks while wearing them, lol.

I'll give you a challenge then, find a squier strat that isn't modified in any way and a fender strat from 1963 and see if you can hear a difference!

[Telerocker]

I A/B-d my Fender American Series Telecaster to four different CS-tele's. Two of them 52 relic's with the batnecks. Amp: Fender Twin Reverb 65 reissue. The CS's sounded thicker with more weight behind the notes. Especially the 52 and 58 relic. They roar in a different way, hard to describe. Tonally the Custom Shops beat my Fender. I liked my neck better then most of the CS's (I think bec I'm not used to those thick necks). Are they worth three (and-a-alf) times the price of my seriemade Tele? I didn't think so, but I can see why people buy them. Those Custom Shops I played, had better timbers and - to my ears - more soul and character.

[MDV]

I dunno how to double-blind test playing a guitar, though. It'd be so obvious, even blindfolded, what guitar you were playing, that it'd instantly be pointless- and as I said, listening to recordings is sorta missing the point, at least to a certain extent. It'd be a bit like trying to do a double blind test of shoes by looking at how comfortable a model looks while wearing them, lol.

Double blind just means what it is is recorded somewhere, but the tester and subject both dont know what is what to avoid any possibility of bias influence. Easy with sound files, as a PC is 'blind' already; it cant offer any kind of unintentional hints. I suppose with guitars they could just be handed to a blindfolded person silently. Wouldnt be very amusing to watch though.

I agree on the playability and better performance when not fighting the guitar, but that doesnt take a hell of a lot of money. You can get very cheap guitars that are very playable, and otherwise its just a matter of how much setting up you want to do. Also, thats very variable person to person. I'll play better on the cheapest RG than the most expensive LP! (assuming both are well set up).

Just to be clear, when I've been talking about 'feel' before, I've assumed a basically decently put together guitar thats set up well. I think everyone has, but I thought I'd better make that explicit.

[richard]

Speaking of ears playing tricks - here's the trick mine play. Whenever I hear a chorus pedal I feel physically sick. It really makes me want to throw up. Anyone else have a vomit reaction to a particular sound ?

[dave_mc]

I'll give you a challenge then, find a squier strat that isn't modified in any way and a fender strat from 1963 and see if you can hear a difference!

I suppose it depends on whether or not the player is trying to disguise what the guitar is. if the player accentuates the differences, you could probably/possibly hear the differences.

(a) Double blind just means what it is is recorded somewhere, but the tester and subject both dont know what is what to avoid any possibility of bias influence. Easy with sound files, as a PC is 'blind' already; it cant offer any kind of unintentional hints. I suppose with guitars they could just be handed to a blindfolded person silently. Wouldnt be very amusing to watch though.

(b) I agree on the playability and better performance when not fighting the guitar, but that doesnt take a hell of a lot of money. You can get very cheap guitars that are very playable, and otherwise its just a matter of how much setting up you want to do. Also, thats very variable person to person. I'll play better on the cheapest RG than the most expensive LP! (assuming both are well set up).

Just to be clear, when I've been talking about 'feel' before, I've assumed a basically decently put together guitar thats set up well. I think everyone has, but I thought I'd better make that explicit.

(a) I know what double blind is. :) I'm saying it's virtually impossible when trying (not listening to a guitar, I mean actually playing it) a guitar, because if you know anything about guitars, there will be clues even if you're blindfolded.

Compare a gibson versus an epiphone? Most guitar players will be able to feel the nitro finish, and smell the vanilla (?) that gibson sprays on its guitars. Ditto expensive fenders versus squiers (apart from the vanilla thing). Different hardware fitted to different guitars will feel different, as will different neck profiles, fret sizes, etc.

It can be done with listening, as you said, but I'm not convinced how much use that is (especially if the player is being a smart alec and trying to disguise what the instrument is; conversely, someone accentuating the differences between the two instruments could also be accused of not playing fair). Thinking back to music class at school, an awful lot of people couldn't tell a flute from a trumpet, that doesn't mean they sound the same, lol. Not to mention, the recording techniques etc. will affect the final sound of the thing as well (as you know more than I do :lol: ).

(b) to a certain extent, but then you're into personal preference regarding neck profiles etc.

I'd say more expensive guitars, generally (and excluding chancers like devries), play better than cheaper ones.

[MDV]

I'll give you a challenge then, find a squier strat that isn't modified in any way and a fender strat from 1963 and see if you can hear a difference!

I suppose it depends on whether or not the player is trying to disguise what the guitar is. if the player accentuates the differences, you could probably/possibly hear the differences.

(a) Double blind just means what it is is recorded somewhere, but the tester and subject both dont know what is what to avoid any possibility of bias influence. Easy with sound files, as a PC is 'blind' already; it cant offer any kind of unintentional hints. I suppose with guitars they could just be handed to a blindfolded person silently. Wouldnt be very amusing to watch though.

(b) I agree on the playability and better performance when not fighting the guitar, but that doesnt take a hell of a lot of money. You can get very cheap guitars that are very playable, and otherwise its just a matter of how much setting up you want to do. Also, thats very variable person to person. I'll play better on the cheapest RG than the most expensive LP! (assuming both are well set up).

Just to be clear, when I've been talking about 'feel' before, I've assumed a basically decently put together guitar thats set up well. I think everyone has, but I thought I'd better make that explicit.

(a) I know what double blind is. :) I'm saying it's virtually impossible when trying (not listening to a guitar, I mean actually playing it) a guitar, because if you know anything about guitars, there will be clues even if you're blindfolded.

Compare a gibson versus an epiphone? Most guitar players will be able to feel the nitro finish, and smell the vanilla (?) that gibson sprays on its guitars. Ditto expensive fenders versus squiers (apart from the vanilla thing). Different hardware fitted to different guitars will feel different, as will different neck profiles, fret sizes, etc.

It can be done with listening, as you said, but I'm not convinced how much use that is (especially if the player is being a smart alec and trying to disguise what the instrument is; conversely, someone accentuating the differences between the two instruments could also be accused of not playing fair). Thinking back to music class at school, an awful lot of people couldn't tell a flute from a trumpet, that doesn't mean they sound the same, lol. Not to mention, the recording techniques etc. will affect the final sound of the thing as well (as you know more than I do :lol: ).

(b) to a certain extent, but then you're into personal preference regarding neck profiles etc.

I'd say more expensive guitars, generally (and excluding chancers like devries), play better than cheaper ones.

Sorry :oops:

I was just saying. On the double blind thing that is.

Yes, there will be definitive differences between things that you could feel, of course. Neck joins between epis and gibsons, too. You could tell a feline lion from a normal LP nearly instantly for the same reason.

I suppose the interesting part would be before you noticed any of those things :lol:

I dont' see that much of a correlation between price and performance/playability/whatever, personally. Its there, sure, but its more of a 'pay more take less chance' thing.

[JJretroTONEGOD]

Speaking of ears playing tricks - here's the trick mine play. Whenever I hear a chorus pedal I feel physically sick. It really makes me want to throw up. Anyone else have a vomit reaction to a particular sound ?

I know what you mean, I get the same thing with vibrato, it does something metaphysical to me that makes me feel weird, I'd never listen to it with a huge hangover

[Elliot]

As to the Squier vs 63 Fender thing = there was this (the plug ins no longer work on my computer) - and I remember that the Squier sounded pretty good.  Likewise, corksniffing aside, I personally think a CV Strat would hold its own these days - after Fender were never a 'craftsman' guitar - more a Henry Ford production line thing. 

http://www.21frets.com/squier_jv/jvvs63.htmhttp://www.21frets.com/squier_jv/jvvs63.htm

[FELINEGUITARS]

Sometimes I think that if you take a couple of guitars - one production and one more high end, and have them both nicely fret dressed (where needed) and set up by the same tech and then did a comparison test it would be interesting .

You would be introducing a level of preparation intro both that may have been there in the high end guitar but missing on the production guitar.

Then you would be contrasting the underlying build and choice of materials and components.

We have had many cheap guitars come in that were freaking awesome , but needed some TLC to bring out the best in them

I have for example been very pleased with the Squier Classic Vibe strats and teles - ok they lacked a bit in the quality of hardware, but they had such a genuine feel of a strat/tele that they seemed more pure to the original than many higher end Fenders by comparison.

Here is a previous thread on a Squier CV revamp that came out really nicely

https://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=24803.msg326386#msg326386