#2 sounds much wider and deeper on my ipad. As an aside, my late wife owned, and I now have a Niccolo Gagliano 1763 (or 5, the label is faint) on loan to a fine player, since I play another instrument.
#1 to me sounds like the real thing, a fine tone only found in highly aged instruments. #2 is not bad either, a wide dynamic range, but the tone sounds distinctly young to my ear. So which is which?
The first one has a sweeter sound while the second hits you like a punch. Both are good and it's the player's and listener's choice as for which is the best. I'll go with the first one.
They both sound amazing... mostly due to the playing. Tough to justify the extra million dollars for the original unless you’re a collector or investor.
Very odd, the copy has this huge powerhouse sound on the g-string and then the rest of the violin sounds like a different instrument altogether, kind of sweet sounding but also narrow and confined. The original sounds perfectly balanced all across, with beautiful richness but also clarity
Is this Tchaivosky from the great concert movie? loved that one. Also, it is hard for me to tell the difference, although I think the first one sounds better.
If that was a 1770 Nicolas Gagliano, then either he was having a bad year or his violins are grossly over rated. The Carletti is the better sound, much to my surprise. At 1/10 the price tag of a Nicolas Gagliano, Carlo Carletti is the way to go!
I got it right. The old violins probably have INFERIOR sound when projection/strong sound is considered, to newer copies, if well done. That was my assumption in this case and oroved right.
Is it surprising if you think about what kind of music people listen these days? I do not listen violin that often (prefer piano), but if you've listen to a classic concert, 1 is obviously the real thing. 2 sounds muted, but I guess people associate it with having "more bass"... which is important these days. Actually classic music is about clarity. BTW, a hint to the channel's author - you get much more views if you write the price tags of the instruments :). Just another thing these days. I've seen similar videos blow up above million view, just because there is huge number in the title.
![Ranking ALL Violin TECHNIQUES [Difficulty Tier List]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_q9kGrjg5qI/mqdefault.jpg)
#2 sounds much wider and deeper on my ipad. As an aside, my late wife owned, and I now have a Niccolo Gagliano 1763 (or 5, the label is faint) on loan to a fine player, since I play another instrument.
I play a violin made by Gennaro Gagliano. Yet, I preferred the sound of the copy. LOL. But then I was listening on my iPad speaker.
💖
🎻#2👂more seasoned tone! Even if it is not guessing,i wud have preferred to have #2!.😊😀cheersxxx
I'd say number 2 is the original. But it sounds a little boxy. I would prefer the copy, if I am right.
100% correct
@@Pieschacon No, numer 1 is the original. Read the video description.
No, number 1 is the original. Read the video description.
#1 to me sounds like the real thing, a fine tone only found in highly aged instruments. #2 is not bad either, a wide dynamic range, but the tone sounds distinctly young to my ear. So which is which?
The first one has a sweeter sound while the second hits you like a punch. Both are good and it's the player's and listener's choice as for which is the best. I'll go with the first one.
They both sound amazing... mostly due to the playing. Tough to justify the extra million dollars for the original unless you’re a collector or investor.
Grandissima come sempre d'altronde 🎻🎶🌹
Very odd, the copy has this huge powerhouse sound on the g-string and then the rest of the violin sounds like a different instrument altogether, kind of sweet sounding but also narrow and confined. The original sounds perfectly balanced all across, with beautiful richness but also clarity
Is this Tchaivosky from the great concert movie? loved that one. Also, it is hard for me to tell the difference, although I think the first one sounds better.
#2 is real Gagliano. #2 sounds more responsive, well seasoned or rounded, better projection.
I would say that 1 is the real Gagliano. I know nothing about violins but I do know something about listening to music.
If that was a 1770 Nicolas Gagliano, then either he was having a bad year or his violins are grossly over rated. The Carletti is the better sound, much to my surprise. At 1/10 the price tag of a Nicolas Gagliano, Carlo Carletti is the way to go!
1 Real - fine body with bad bridge, 2 copy - copy body with fine bridge
Number 1 is gangliano ,,I had one for longtime ago number two is Germany
I'm at 2:10 and locking in my guess for no. 2
Dang. Kudos to Carletti!
#1 ?
I prefer the copy
I got it right.
The old violins probably have INFERIOR sound when projection/strong sound is considered, to newer copies, if well done. That was my assumption in this case and oroved right.
Both of them.italia violins the sound as same,,.i go with numbest one...more sensitive,
The first one is the original I guess.
When everyone said #2 sounds better, has better bass and other stuff bt she said that the original is #1
Is it surprising if you think about what kind of music people listen these days? I do not listen violin that often (prefer piano), but if you've listen to a classic concert, 1 is obviously the real thing. 2 sounds muted, but I guess people associate it with having "more bass"... which is important these days. Actually classic music is about clarity.
BTW, a hint to the channel's author - you get much more views if you write the price tags of the instruments :). Just another thing these days. I've seen similar videos blow up above million view, just because there is huge number in the title.
#2 has richer basses.
Excelente Copia
#2
#2 is pretty good, and not far removed in color from #1. But it has a lot less power and somewhat less clarity.
Acima da media
#2