I’m visiting your city and happened to pick up the March 27th issue of Chicago Reader. You use an analogy in your Straight Dope piece that’s inappropriate and at the very least, mildly offensive.
“Just as there are people who own stereo systems capable of producing sound at a level of detail that no one of our species can possibly appreciate, there are people who feel that only a barnyard animal would consider drinking wine from anything but a crystal glass of a shape optimized for the specific grapes involved.”
In fact, the very best stereo system obtainable still can’t, and arguably may never, exceed the human ears ability to register dynamic range, sonic detail and incredibly minute amounts of distortion. Granted, many people lack the ability, desire or need to develop a sophisticated ear. These people shouldn’t and usually don’t go down the high end path. Others own the equipment of which you speak for the wrong reasons. There are also people who can perceive and appreciate the sonic subtleties you disparage, and what’s more, aren’t offensive about it. My livelihood and that of many who work in fields encompassed by professional audio and music happens to depend on that ability.
I think Cecil was indulging in a little hyperbole there. Coincidentally, the hyperbole is the optimum wine glass shape for tasting the wines of Southern Paraguay.
True about frequency. Frequency response was pretty much licked by the '70’s. 30Hz to 18kHz or 20kHz is not at all uncommon even with a middling investment. But by our 40’s a lot of us can’t top 15k with our battered ears so there you go. The headbanging, rock and roll generation is in really bad shape. Many people in their 30’s have hearing abilities once relegated to the '60’s or latter.
I fail to see how anything could be construed as “offensive” in that column. Unless, of course, you’re a barnyard animal. (When you’re not looking, they’re all swilling Chateauneuf-du-Pape out of Waterford crystal goblets.)
According to this seemingly even-handed Slate article, the shape of the glass does affect flavor due to its influence on where the wine falls on one’s palate.
But what would that matter? I thought the whole thing about different parts of the tongue being sensitive to different tastes was simply a persistent but erroneous myth.
That’s what the Riedel people told me. But that could only possibly have any effect for the fraction of a second when wine was on that part of your palate but nowhere else. Soon the wine is everywhere in your mouth and the aroma is up your nose, so I just don’t believe it.
I was thinking about this, too. Producers of SACD players claim frequency response upwards of 80kHz, which I understood to be inaudible to the human ear. “So if you can’t hear it, what’s the point?”, I thought.
But I also have read in some audiophile mags that the reproduction of these upper-range frequencies can be perceived by audiophiles with a finely tuned ear as an “extension of detail or ambience” that isn’t captured on standard recording/playback formats.
So with regards to wine glasses, I thought it was a pretty clever analogy, myself, because just like audiophiles that have trained ears, oenophiles have highly sensitive and practiced noses and palates, and they have demonstrated that certain varietals are more expansive and expressive given certain glass shapes and surface to air exposure ratios. The carbonation effect with flutes for sparkling wines is well understood as well.
Of course, as always, YMMV, and there is certainly a proportion of people that own these glasses because they can afford them, not that they can appreciate them, just as some affluent people buy the best stereo they can afford without every fully appreciating it’s capabiities.
And the image of barnyard animals swilling CdP from Waterford goblets had me rolling! Especially since many Southern Rhone reds have that “barnyardy” descriptor attached to their bouquets!
Mr. Beggs, I believe Cecil was referring to the “more expensive must be better” snobbery frequently seen by wine connoisseurs and audiophiles. One example that has been recently discussed is whether extremely expensive speaker wire (hundreds of dollars per foot) can improve the sound over high quality wire that costs several dollars per foot.
Agreed, the notion that different parts of the tongue are differently sensitized is well disproved. Methinks that, perhaps, the Riedel folks have a very sophisticated sales approach that is effective with those who are vulnerable to such things.