Nonsense. The screening of apps starting in the very beginning with a process designed to enable that very thing. Apple stated from the start that they would be screening apps. Only fools believe it's for anything other than Apple's best interests.
Wrong. Current 12MP DX sensor SLRs have pixels smaller than 6 microns and they are certainly not limited to f/5.6 by even the most absurd definition of "diffraction limited". This sensor has a pixel size roughly the same as a 10.5MP DX frame SLR so f/13 or f/16 no problem. f/22 starts to see diffraction. There is no hard limit, only a knee in the curve of resolution.
I find it interesting that so many people here are commenting about "dense wood". Dense wood isn't the issue, it is uniformity of density. Violin tops are made of spruce specifically chosen because of its lack of density. Violin makers are looking for stiff and light, not dense. Since the character of an instrument is largely considered a function of its top, "dense wood" is the opposite of what is important. If they wanted that they wouldn't use spruce.
Nagyvary does not make violins so it is impossible for "his" to sound better. Nagyvary varnishes someone else's violin and since there is nothing to suggest that his varnish ruins a great violin, it is possible that he can luck into a decent sounding instrument. Nagyvary is known to produce violins that are ultimately considered kindling just as often as anything good. He's a fool.
Among modern makers that is a popular answer. Other makers are respected as well. A great deal of effort is spent trying to understand the techniques that were actually used and whole schools exist to teach those ideas.
These seemingly complex ideas are more likely minority opinions. After reading about this study on violin making forums, it appears many makers are getting a good laugh out of it.
An instrument sounds very different to you when you are playing it than when someone else plays it for you. That is well known and it comes as no surprise. Anyone who finds this a revelation knows nothing of the subject.
There are plenty of examples where the finest instruments being built today compare favorably to the old greats. That doesn't suggest, however, that premier artists are simply fools or that their opinions should be disregarded. Blind testing of these instruments is extremely difficult.
That would imply that such a test were feasible. These remaining instruments have centuries of use and maintenance so it is unknown just how much they differ from when they were new. Conducting such a test is hugely subjective and studying the "structure of the wood" is easier said than done.
A whole lot of bright minds have studied these issues for a whole lot of time. They've probably considered that, even attempted it, yet no such conclusion has been made to date.
Nagyvary is a con artist. Any variation in his instruments is due to the quality of the maker as he is not a maker himself. He has renewed the spin of his ideas for decades, gotten nowhere, and is considered a charlatan in the community.
This is assumed but there's no evidence to support it. In fact, some of today's great makers don't believe it is true. It is not assumed, for example, for guitars.
Many believe that modern makers can already surpass the great old instruments and that the study was flawed because it presumed that hadn't been achieved for a reason. The best new instruments have no bearing on the prices paid on the old ones.
except that, if you read the article, it's uniformity of density that they found different. Also, it is low weight and density that prized in violin wood.
"High density again would provide for more fidelity in sound transfer."
Many states have laws requiring slower traffic to keep right. In those states it is against the law to drive slower than traffic in the fast lane regardless of the speed limit. Some people feel morally superior by enforcing speed limits through deliberate road blocking but in doing so they are violating traffic laws in a way more troublesome to traffic than the "speeders" they intend to annoy.
"So my health insurance company currently has responsibility to manage every part of my life which effects my health? If not, why does that necessarily change if the state or federal government becomes my health insurance company? "
Clearly the government has more authority than an insurance company and, being a far larger bureaucracy, is more corrupt. Surely this doesn't need to be explained to you.
"Sorry, but single payer makes heath care cheaper than a for-profit system, as there are no parasitic investors taking money out of the system."
"And don't give me the fat-people-will-cost-me-more in a public system argument, because they are costing you more in a private system, unless fatter people at your work pay more for their insurance plan..."
Where is the evidence that fatter people cost more in ANY system?
Those weight increases are due to substantial increase in size of these vehicles. A Honda Civic today is far larger than any car Honda made in 1979. It's base engine is far larger and offers twice the power. Before you go spewing nonsense, get your facts straight.
Slashdot Mirror
too bad the apple mouse sucks so bad
It's natural to excuse your own behavior by claiming everyone else does it too. Doesn't make it true.
No, not everyone does "crazy stuff" when they are 15. Many know better.
Transmeta failed because its product sucked.
Nonsense. The screening of apps starting in the very beginning with a process designed to enable that very thing. Apple stated from the start that they would be screening apps. Only fools believe it's for anything other than Apple's best interests.
Wrong. Current 12MP DX sensor SLRs have pixels smaller than 6 microns and they are certainly not limited to f/5.6 by even the most absurd definition of "diffraction limited". This sensor has a pixel size roughly the same as a 10.5MP DX frame SLR so f/13 or f/16 no problem. f/22 starts to see diffraction. There is no hard limit, only a knee in the curve of resolution.
...and if the public think we should own slaves then we should own slaves. If the public think we should kill savages, then we should.
I find it interesting that so many people here are commenting about "dense wood". Dense wood isn't the issue, it is uniformity of density. Violin tops are made of spruce specifically chosen because of its lack of density. Violin makers are looking for stiff and light, not dense. Since the character of an instrument is largely considered a function of its top, "dense wood" is the opposite of what is important. If they wanted that they wouldn't use spruce.
The article certainly didn't say that the density of the wood influenced the sound. Did you read it?
You think any owner of a multi-million dollar strad would allow samples to be taken from it? Think again.
Nagyvary does not make violins so it is impossible for "his" to sound better. Nagyvary varnishes someone else's violin and since there is nothing to suggest that his varnish ruins a great violin, it is possible that he can luck into a decent sounding instrument. Nagyvary is known to produce violins that are ultimately considered kindling just as often as anything good. He's a fool.
Among modern makers that is a popular answer. Other makers are respected as well. A great deal of effort is spent trying to understand the techniques that were actually used and whole schools exist to teach those ideas.
These seemingly complex ideas are more likely minority opinions. After reading about this study on violin making forums, it appears many makers are getting a good laugh out of it.
An instrument sounds very different to you when you are playing it than when someone else plays it for you. That is well known and it comes as no surprise. Anyone who finds this a revelation knows nothing of the subject.
There are plenty of examples where the finest instruments being built today compare favorably to the old greats. That doesn't suggest, however, that premier artists are simply fools or that their opinions should be disregarded. Blind testing of these instruments is extremely difficult.
Only to the ignorant.
That would imply that such a test were feasible. These remaining instruments have centuries of use and maintenance so it is unknown just how much they differ from when they were new. Conducting such a test is hugely subjective and studying the "structure of the wood" is easier said than done.
A whole lot of bright minds have studied these issues for a whole lot of time. They've probably considered that, even attempted it, yet no such conclusion has been made to date.
Nagyvary is a con artist. Any variation in his instruments is due to the quality of the maker as he is not a maker himself. He has renewed the spin of his ideas for decades, gotten nowhere, and is considered a charlatan in the community.
This is assumed but there's no evidence to support it. In fact, some of today's great makers don't believe it is true. It is not assumed, for example, for guitars.
Many believe that modern makers can already surpass the great old instruments and that the study was flawed because it presumed that hadn't been achieved for a reason. The best new instruments have no bearing on the prices paid on the old ones.
violins have many resonances and a tendency toward one frequency would be specifically avoided.
except that, if you read the article, it's uniformity of density that they found different. Also, it is low weight and density that prized in violin wood.
"High density again would provide for more fidelity in sound transfer."
You might as well give up.
How does net worth mean that you are invested in the government? How is lack of it an indicator that you aren't?
Many states have laws requiring slower traffic to keep right. In those states it is against the law to drive slower than traffic in the fast lane regardless of the speed limit. Some people feel morally superior by enforcing speed limits through deliberate road blocking but in doing so they are violating traffic laws in a way more troublesome to traffic than the "speeders" they intend to annoy.
"So my health insurance company currently has responsibility to manage every part of my life which effects my health? If not, why does that necessarily change if the state or federal government becomes my health insurance company? "
Clearly the government has more authority than an insurance company and, being a far larger bureaucracy, is more corrupt. Surely this doesn't need to be explained to you.
"Sorry, but single payer makes heath care cheaper than a for-profit system, as there are no parasitic investors taking money out of the system."
That is irrelevant to his point.
I can see you really got the point. Good thing you posted anon.
"And don't give me the fat-people-will-cost-me-more in a public system argument, because they are costing you more in a private system, unless fatter people at your work pay more for their insurance plan..."
Where is the evidence that fatter people cost more in ANY system?
Those weight increases are due to substantial increase in size of these vehicles. A Honda Civic today is far larger than any car Honda made in 1979. It's base engine is far larger and offers twice the power. Before you go spewing nonsense, get your facts straight.