Blind test of 6 different bowlbacks

[Joe Bartl]

Thanks, again, for doing this. My preferences were No. 3 in first place (didn't know a Ceccherini could sound this good); No. 1 in second place; followed by nos. 4, 5, 6 in no particular order; and ending with No. 2 in last place. It struck me that some of the comments that I didn't quite understand might be related, as Randi Gormley suggested, to variations in listening equipment. I should try listening to these samples again with earphones. I did enjoy your playing. Thanks.

[Tim Logan]

Thank you so much for this great post. Before I read the reveal I listened to the recordings twice. I had a hard time deciding between 5 and 4. This, to me, so beautifully reinforces how individual both the instruments and our tastes are.

[Rdeane]

In order of preference: 5, 6,3,4,2, 1
I enjoyed your playing!

[Hudmister]

Apart from the tonal comparison (I like number one) there is the beauty contest aspect. Number two is just a real looker and gets the gold star. Glad I didn't see them before listening since a fair exterior is a silent recommendation.

[Bob Clark]

Thanks for posting this comparison. I sure enjoyed it. My top 3 were 3,2,5, in that order. I have a feeling though, that the order of those three could vary day-to-day. I'd sure be happy with any of the three.

Best wishes,

Bob