Elite Violinists Can't Distinguish Between a Stradivarius and a Modern Violin 469
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "If you know only one thing about violins, it is probably this: A 300-year-old Stradivarius supposedly possesses mysterious tonal qualities unmatched by modern instruments. However, even elite violinists cannot tell a Stradivarius from a top-quality modern violin, a new double-blind study suggests. Like the sound of coughing during the delicate second movement of Beethoven's violin concerto, the finding seems sure to annoy some people, especially dealers who broker the million-dollar sales of rare old Italian fiddles. But it may come as a relief to the many violinists who cannot afford such prices."
I'm playing the world's smallest violin (Score:5, Funny)
I bet that's worth a fair bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you play with the other hand too?
Wow! Stereo!
Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's because they are "playing it wrong" in the tests
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:5, Funny)
It's because they are "playing it wrong" in the tests
No it's because they weren't using Monster Cables!
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:4, Funny)
They should have listened to it through top quality Bose speakers, connected to a 1930's vintage mic and amp with oxygen-free Monster cables. I bet then they would know the difference.
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:5, Funny)
Ugh - get it right. They are holding it wrong...
Ok, Stop fiddling around!
Re: (Score:2)
makes me feel sad for the dude who paid over 1000 BTC for a strad recently.
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:5, Insightful)
A violin made in the 1700s is still worth a lot of money, it just doesn't sound any better.
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:5, Informative)
Oh come on, this study is bogus, the artcle said it was a double-blind study, but there is noway in hell that a violinist of sufficient skill to extract from a Cremonese violin anything close to it's potential, wouldn't know a 300 year old instrument the second they picked it up; this study neither proves or disproves anything.
On the contrary, it appears that you have allowed blind prejudice to cloud your judgement. The study did look into this point specifically, as follows from TFA:-
There may be other reasons to fault the study, but " noway in hell" is not a scientifically valid reason. It has about as much weight as "because I say so".
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Theres also the psychoaccoustic nature of instrument familiarity.
Any experienced guitarist will tell you that if you pick up an unfamiliar guitar two things happen
1) They wont be quite as adept on it as they are on their own guitars.
2) The guitar will tend to "suggest" to them what sort of things might sounds good on it. This can be a pretty creative thing. I've written tonnes of lines just by picking up a new guitar and then blammo my hands just do something great.
Its a combination of the effects of muscle
Re:Time to add another layer of BS indirection: (Score:5, Informative)
Sample size being what it is, this isn't really a surprise. In the lutherie world, tests like these get conducted on a relatively regular basis to determine whether or not the qualities attributed to old master violins are replicable by newer makers. In general, the tests (often conducted under the aegis of the Guild of American Luthiers (GAL) or Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans (ASIA)) have tended to validate the claim that many modern builders - Paul Schuback, Joseph Curtin, Michael Darnton, Scott Cao, many others - are doing work that matches (or exceeds) the performance of Old Master violins.
Keep in mind that what we think of as a modern violin is emphatically NOT what the old masters built. Really. They generally made baroque violins, with lower bridges, shorter fingerboards made of maple or other fruitwood, much flatter neck angles, and lower tuning (where A could be as low as 405 to 415 Hz, vs 440 for modern instruments). Over the years, any old master violin which is being played regularly has had its neck reset to a steeper pitch, its fingerboard replaced with a longer ebony board, a much taller and thinner bridge, sometimes a new tailpiece, sometimes even a new scroll. Many times, the top has been regraduated to lighten it in an attempt to reduce mass and increase brilliance. Bass bars are routinely replaced.....some well-known Strads have fifteen to twenty chalk-fitted area patches to repair damage caused by wear, accident, or worm, and at least one has had the entire top thinned to .5mm and new spruce chalk-fitted to structurally rebuild the instrument. (See GAL Red Books; lots of articles on this topic). So the instruments are NOT what the old masters built - they've been hotrodded to suit the needs of players. Baroque violins sound beautiful (listen to Ars Musica ensemble for great examples) but lack volume and power and sustain.....and hotrodded violins have all of these qualities in spades.
What remains of the original violin after hotrodding? Well, for a lot of Strads/Guarneris/Amatis and the like, it's the arching of the top and back, and the general design of the body The patterns of arching and the shapes and outlines have been studied for over two hundred years by violin makers, and has accelerated dramatically with the advent of computing power whch can measure resonance patterns (laser interferometry. for example, and 3D scanning, and materials analysis) and there are extraordinarily accurate plans readily available for interpretation by skilled modern builders. Since, in general, the violin lutherie world is chiefly an apprenticeship system, notwithstanding a few excellent schools, builders learn their craft at the feet of great design and often with strict but excellent teachers.
The implication is that the art of violin making has continued to evolve, with greater access to the science behind the instrument as much as great manual skill to actually do the work of construction. Modern builders don't have and generally don't need magic varnishes or magic wood; they have good materials - and in fact a wider choice of materials than ever before, deforestation notwithstanding - and great skill in working with it to create superlative instruments. And honestly, while old master instruments are nice, I'll take a new, slightly 'tight' violin, and play it in until it loosens up; it costs less, is less to risk, and listeners can not distinguish between it and the ancient instrument. And I'll be delighted to be able to interact with the person that made it, and give feedback to help make the next ones even better.
Oh, and the whole magic varnish theories of people like Nagyvary are nonsense. Construction is more of a determinant than finish....think about it. Which determines structure, the construction, or the extremely thin finish layer? Yes, ash varnishes are beautiful, and salt-of-gems varnishes are beautiful, but they don't necessarily exhibit the visual properties (chiefly dichroism and clarity) of old master instruments.
Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
Important paragraphs:
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgive me, but
colors of sound that only become apparent after months of use, she says. "I played the Avery Fisher Stradivarius for 6 years," she says, "and it took me 3 years just to get accustomed to it."
Sounds an awful lot like
Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move.
Elitists come in many shapes and sizes. That doesnt mean there universally substance behind their claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Moo (Score:4, Interesting)
But there's not much substance to the study, either. You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.
It's a double blind test. Elitists can't pick out the over priced, over hyped thing from the other things. What more do you want?
Audiophiles, wine connoisseurs, art critics, and fashion designers are the masters of bullshit. They even trump holistic healers and political/religious leaders/zealots.
Re:Moo (Score:4, Informative)
They even trump holistic healers and political/religious leaders/zealots.
I don't think that's necessary the same crowd as the audiophiles and wine-tasters...
(Granted it's a similar form of bullshit: the kind which, in a happier alternate universe, is illegal by means of false-advertising law.)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Too late. The summary already gave our resident armchair-experts enough fodder laugh over how everyone is stupid except them.
Except the armchair-experts are probably right. There is a huge number of precedents for snobs thinking their choice is objectively superior, but being unable to distinguish them in a blind test:
1. French wines consistently win tasting contests over California wines, yet have no advantage in blind tastings.
2. Steinway pianos are indistinguishable from other high end (but much cheaper) pianos, when played out of sight.
3. Some of Rembrandt's greatest paintings, the very paintings that made him "great", and were considered quintessential Rembrandt masterpieces that could never be equaled by lesser artists, turned out to be fakes.
4. Monster gold plated cables.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say this is more a testament to how much modern violin building has improved. It's no longer a black art like it had been for centuries. With modern measuring instruments like accelerometers and oscilloscopes and computer analysis, it's become possible to deconstruct what made the violins crafted by the old masters so great. Then replicate many of those features into modern violins. This in no way diminishes the reputation that Stradivarius violins have built up with centuries of use. It just means modern building techniques have finally caught up to and surpassed what Antonio Stradivarius was able to do in his shop 3 centuries ago.
And I've played on many Steinway pianos. I probably cannot tell from the sound if the music is coming from a Steinway, but I sure as hell can tell if the piano I'm playing on is a Steinway. There are subtle nuances from the weighting of the keys, to the dynamic range between soft and loud, to the consistency of the weighting and tone of the notes as you play them in sequence which are characteristic of Steinway. As a friend of mine said, it's like playing on butter - so soft and responsive. (I'd add easy, except Steinway tends to weight their keys rather heavily, making them not so easy to play for younger/smaller people. The German Steinways are more guilty of this than the NY Steinways; some of the heavier ones will give your fingers quite a workout.) The cheapest piano I've played on where it was obvious the builder paid attention to little details like this was $22k, and that one still had flaws in its tone and feel. Most of the pianos I'd consider comparable to a good Steinway for playing on are in the $50k+ range - the same as a Steinway.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember once I was practicing billiards in the afternoon. A group of young adults came in and played at the table beside me. I was just messing aroung but making some impressive shots consistently and when asked how I did something, I showed them but went back to my own thing.
After an hour of this, they weren't very trying but not very good at making the shots I showed them and I was running racks of 9 ball in self practice and a few trick shots, they asked with a lot of admiration how much I paid for my pool stick. It was a two piece, carbon fiber looking thing that was matte gray-black and looked rather pretty and sleek. I told the truth. $19.99 at walmart.
Immediately, something about them changed. I still don't know exactly what. Maybe I was no longer a billiard magician honing his craft with his expensive and unobtainable wand but just some hustler with a cheap stick playing parlor tricks anybody could do with some practice, but they went quiet and we interacted little the rest of the night I was there.
If I had told them $500, but that it was only my practice stick and not the expensive one I use only on tournaments, they would probably have believed me and marveled at it and my skill some more, and probably commented how they wished they could afford such a fine piece and that my real cue must be really something.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
2. Steinway pianos are indistinguishable from other high end (but much cheaper) pianos, when played out of sight.
Wow, this is completely not true. I can teach you how to hear the differences.
One of the most important differences is the scale design, how does the designer want the piano to sound? Do you want a note to sound clear like a bell, or have more color, like a trumpet (in terms of sound waves, the bell tone will emphasize the fundamental, the colorful tone will emphasize the overtones more). Steinway chooses to make the middle and upper notes clear like a bell, and the lower notes more colorful. Steingraeber (another top piano) chooses to make it clear like a bell all the way through. Bosendorfer is notable for the extremely clear tones in the low bass.
Next up is the sound for the milliseconds when the note hits, and the sound of the sustain. Pleyel makes their pianos sound 'colorful' when the note hits by adjusting the hammer density, but during the sustain the note becomes more clear.
Another difference is the length of the sustain of the note. Once again, Steingraeber chooses to make the sustain on their piano last much longer, as compared to the Steinway, which chooses to have a shorter sustain.
There are plenty of other differences. Now, this isn't to say you will always be able to tell a difference. Yamaha in the last few years has changed their high-end piano to sound more like the Steinway. Furthermore, Steinways are inconsistent in quality; since they are made by hand, you can get two Steinways that are not of the same standard, which is frustrating when you are trying to buy one.
So, if a piano technician is trying to trick someone, they can probably get the right Steinway and the right Yamaha and adjust the voicing so the person will be tricked, but when a Steinway is regulated to its best, and a Bechstein is regulated to its best, the differences are clear and easy to distinguish.
Re: (Score:3)
As it seems, they are just vapor and will vanish if you try to catch them.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comparisons are ridiculous for anyone who has ever played a violin.
There are so many things that are wrong with this study. There are so many things that differentiate violins BESIDES how they sound to an audience.
But the question is, given that any musician's ultimate target is to eventually have an audience, shouldn't how an instrument sounds to them be the quintessential point of evaluating the quality of an instrument?
Remember: Price and rarity are another set of entities altogether. A solid gold violin couldn't be played, but would be worth a ludicrous amount of money. The very first violin ever created in the world would be a rare find (as it probably does not exist anymore), but would probably be in a conditio
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
Remember: Price and rarity are another set of entities altogether. A solid gold violin couldn't be played,
You've never been down to Georgia, I take it.
but would be worth a ludicrous amount of money.
I'd bet it against your soul, because I think I'm better than you.
Re: (Score:3)
What the musician has to do to generate those sounds is the other half.
It is obvious that you didn't read TFA. One of the tests was to have the subjects play the instruments in the dark. They could not tell the old violins from the modern violins even when they were playing them.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more interesting however was a man around the WW2 who make 'original' Vermeers, i.e. paintings which were not copies of existing paintings but were so good and a such a match to the style and quality that people believed they were (almost) real Vermeer works.
That would be Han van Meegeren [wikipedia.org], one of the greatest art forgers of all time. After the liberation of Holland, he was arrested, and charged with treason for selling Dutch masterpieces to the Nazis, including some to Herman Goering. He faced the death penalty. His defense was that he had indeed sold the paintings, but that they were forgeries, and he painted a new "Vermeer" to prove it.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
A modern instrument may sound better right away she says, but an old Italian may be able to produce more colors of sound that only become apparent after months of use, she says.
The phrase "confirmation bias" springs immediately to mind. People hear what they want to hear, and the knowledge that they're playing on a three-century-old, million-dollar violin gives them certain expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
A modern instrument may sound better right away she says, but an old Italian may be able to produce more colors of sound that only become apparent after months of use, she says.
The phrase "confirmation bias" springs immediately to mind. People hear what they want to hear, and the knowledge that they're playing on a three-century-old, million-dollar violin gives them certain expectations.
If that were the case, then you'd expect them to think the older, more valuable one sounded better right away, not the newer, less special one; so this seems to be a statement against confirmation bias.
Re:Moo (Score:4, Informative)
If that were the case, then you'd expect them to think the older, more valuable one sounded better right away, not the newer, less special one; so this seems to be a statement against confirmation bias.
The problem is that the quote I was addressing was comparing a more subjective, post-hoc judgment to an approximately objective evaluation. (I say "approximately objective" because it's hard to do something like this perfectly objectively; the article addresses a number of the limitations involved.) The blind test showed that the violinists' preferences - based purely on sound qualities - after an hour of playing had no correlation to the provenance of the violin. The complaint of the quoted study participant was that this was unfair because she only understood how special the Strad she used after months of playing it. The difference is that she knew exactly what that instrument was, and her knowledge almost certainly informed her feelings about it.
Re: (Score:3)
It just sounds better when caressed by the ghost of Stradivarius.
On the other hand I bet you you've bought a car/bike/game/etc. at some point in your life that was great fun initially, but had annoying little aspects that weren't immediately obvious but started started to really bug you over time. Or similarly started a game that seemed like just a way to kill some time until something decent comes out, only to discover that it possessed some ineffable quality that made it one of your favorites. You can't
Re: (Score:3)
Another big issue is that these were 12 top of the line violins. Its pretty impressive honestly to say that violins that hundreds of years old can sound identical to 12 top of the line modern violins. No other 300 year old instrument is likely to sound as good as a modern top of the line version.
Re:It was a big mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
...not to include a couple of clunkers in the test; the sort of violins the average student may possess at high school.
Why? They can be dismissed out of hand. Not a professional by any means, but almost a decade of lessons during childhood. The difference between a "clunker" and a quality instrument is instantly obvious to the player.
There are the differences in construction and the parts. I have seen student violins pop their glued seams. I have heard the wood creak as they are handled and placed in position, as pressure from the bow is applied. Cheap fingerboards tend to vibrate uncomfortably. I went a few times to a violin shop and just played around on the various instruments. I was young enough that I didn't care about cost, just went around playing them. Violins in one area felt like fingernails on a chalkboard and sounded similar. I found part of the shop with a stash of violins that felt like silk and had beautiful tone, and after falling in love with several of them was gently told that those were far outside hat we could afford.
If I could tell that kind of difference as a non-professional youth, I cannot imagine a professional picking up a squeaky, creaky 'violin shaped object' as they are called, and confusing it for a well-made instrument.
Re: (Score:3)
We will however know that we are nearing the end of them when the Majick argument comes into play:
"The Strads know, and they refuse to play better than the other violins when they know they are being tested"
I already know musicians that believe that magic was used in the construction of Strads, (as well as Zildjan cymbals) so it isn't at all unlikely they will use the same excuses that the E
Re: (Score:3)
Inuit, not Eskimoes as you put it, don't have 50-100 different words for snow. There are many references for this, but one should suffice. http://curiosity.discovery.com... [discovery.com]
misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
"cannot tell the difference" -- that's not what is being said here. Instead, the violinists were asked which ones they preferred. Certainly they could distinguish between them.
Re:misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
"cannot tell the difference" -- that's not what is being said here.
That is what is being said. TFA states that they could distinguish between individual violins, but that they could not tell which were old and which were new. So if you have two violins, A & B, and you play one and then the other, and then you pick either A or B at random, the subjects could tell whether you are playing the first or the second, but they could NOT tell which was old and with was modern.
Re:misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an informative blog piece by one of the testers:
http://www.violinist.com/blog/... [violinist.com]
Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing new. Audiophiles and musicians are notoriously stubborn when it comes to accepting reality. There are still people who insist that vinyl records are a more genuine/accurate representation of sound than digital formats. There are people who insist that they can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts.
Science and math proves all of these things wrong, yet people still insist they're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Chi does exist. She lives with Hideki.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern lossy compression algorithms cut off these overtones ....
The interference caused by the overtones is audible and is therefore preserved in a well implemented A/D conversion, and anything significant in the audible range will not be discarded by a decent compression algorithm. No need to have the overtone itself preserved at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you do double blind testing, with 'experts' on the test panel.
Much is bullshit.
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:4, Informative)
You can only hear up to like 20k Herz. ... nevertheless we can hear if it is 'there' or not.
But there are so called overtones, multiples of the base frequency. In this case 40k, 60k, 80k 100k etc.
No human is able to hear 40k and above frequencies, but we all can hear if a 20k frequency is combined with an 40k overtone, or an 100k overtone even. Modern lossy compression algorithms cut off these overtones (as the overtone itself is unhearable)
Completely false. Often repeated. But completely, utterly false.
The human ear can only make out an amplitude rise equivalent to a ~20k Hz sine wave (lower as you age). No amount of "overtones," monster cables, or megahertz sampling will change the ability of the hairs inside the ear to move/accelerate only so fast. The ear is mechanically band limited.
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:5, Informative)
The 4k Hz "beat" signal is perfectly captured by the digitization. What's your point? Lack of understanding what a band pass filter actually does?
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not sure about the 20KHz limit. I have high frequency hearing loss. However I swear I was able to sense a 32 kHz sonar transponder within a meter or two of my head. It must have been cranking out the dB's. Gave me a headache. It was a rare occasion of my hearing what others could not.
You were hearing the harmonics.
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, that is bullshit!
Not exactly. Most audio systems out there cannot reproduce much above 16Khz or below 60Hz. Your average amplifiers and speakers are going to be rolling off pretty badly at 16Khz so even if YOU could hear stuff above 20Khz, it won't be coming from your speakers trying to reproduce the material. You might be hearing distortion products that high, but I doubt it. Headphones tend to be a bit better on the high end, but even then the average starts to roll off at 20Khz but most of us simply cannot hear above 20Kzh, ever.
Human hearing rolls off pretty badly above 18Khz, even for the young. It's worse when you get older. And I dare say that you know NOBODY who can hear much above 25Khz and if they do they are under 25 years old. Nobody is going to hear 30K, so I have no idea how you think you can hear 100K. What you MIGHT be hearing is distortion products caused by your equipment trying to reproduce material above 20K, but these products will be BELOW 20K and are actually DISTORTION not really the material.
So your point is correct in part, just not for the reasons you suggest. I'll bet you cannot hear above 25Khz (20Khz if you are over 30) measured using a pure single frequency sine tone no more than 10dB louder than a minimum discernible 1Khz pure tone. Higher sampling rates really only matter when transcoding between sampling rates, which points to the ONLY real reason you would like to over sample beyond the Nyquest rate for the highest frequency you can hear. What's more, I'll bet that while you MIGHT be able to hear a difference, you won't be able to reliability tell me which material was recorded at a higher sample rate if you let me choose the material. In fact, I'll bet I can get you to prefer the lower sample rate more often than not.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't say they weren't different. He said people think that vinyl is "more genuine" or "more accurate" than digital. Genuine is a weasel word -- it's ill-defined. (Probably the most reasonable definition here is "closest to how the creator of the music intended for you to hear it". But, I digress. It's hard to measure.) Vinyl is certainly less accurate than a good digital representation.
It can be different, though, because it introduces flaws that the digital representation doesn't have. Maybe those fla
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:4, Informative)
I've got about a dozen recordings on both CD and vinyl. My own experience is that vinyl has different timbre, which many describe as "warmer" than the CDs I have. It certainly feels more... I dunno what words best describe it... "organic" maybe? It's definitely different. But is it better? That's up to you.
Yes, that "warmer" sound is called "low pass filtered". As a vinyl recording is limited to about 60 dB, while a CD has 96 dB, the vinyl recording is missing lots of higher frequencies (and some of the very low ones too). You can easily simulate the "warmer" sound of vinyl by just low pass filtering the CD signal. And the "better" sound in this case is more likely "what I was listening to when my listening taste developed". As the turnover from vinyl and MC to CD happened between 1980 and 1995, older people born before 1975 tend to like the low pass filtered sound better, while younger people who were never that much exposed to the 60 dB sound of vinyl, think it just sounds hollow or muffled, if they hear it now.
(Real, live music has a much higher share of high frequency noise than both vinyl and CD, but it gets mastered and filtered to the tastes of the listening public.)
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, that "warmer" sound is called "low pass filtered"...
(Real, live music has a much higher share of high frequency noise than both vinyl and CD, but it gets mastered and filtered to the tastes of the listening public.)
Since you know so much about live music, what instrument do you play?
I play keyboard, electric and acoustic six string fingerpick and steel string guitar and electric bass, Harmonica, flute, and dabble in drums. And I agree 100 percent with him.
And while we're at it, what gear do you listen on which so accurately informs you that digital is so much better.
His description is exactly what happens with vinyl. It's also similar to tube amps. We tend to like the particular distortions that we like. There are many settings in different programs that will tailor a sound to a particular style, which does depend a lot on the technology used to make them. A typical sample is an equalizer panel, say in iTunes. Assuming no distortion in any other part of the system, there would be no need for anything other than "flat". In fact, in a perfect system, any adjustment is just adding distortion.
But we don't hear like that. I do love the sound of tube amps. But I'm not so conceited as to declare that the best. You can listen to Rameau with hip hop filtering on your system as far as I care - it's what you like.
DIstortion is even desirable at times. Guitar on an overdriven tube amp makes for a very interesting sound.
But to the subject at hand, it isn't difficult to prove that digital has much higher potential for much less distortion compared to vinyl or tube amps. It's all just that some people prefer the distortin that they like.
Note: a lot of CD music these days is coming out with a lot of distortion and compression in the original mix.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a true audiophile, you can only listen to live music.
I'm both a performing musician and an engineer. I've had a strong interest in audio since I built my first Heathkit tuner in 1971. During my college days, I built solid state Dynaco units, and later spent a number of years designing and building loudspeakers. My first loudspeaker was from a design in the August 1976 issue of Audio Magazine for a Theil aligned enclosure of 20 cubic feet. It was the size of a refrigerator. Was 3 db down at 20 hz. Loads of fun.
The definition of a "true audiophile" is a
Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score:4, Insightful)
that there's no difference
That's not the original claim. It was:
There are people who insist that they can hear the difference
Re: (Score:3)
Can you show me the math that proves that there's no difference between an uncompressed audio source and a 320kbps mp3?
There's a difference between "no difference at all" and "no difference that can be detected by human hearing".
Yes, but you *can* tell the difference if... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but you *can* tell the difference if you play the recordings on the original vinyl with a tube amp. That's how Stradivarius intended his instruments to be heard. He even held the wood close to a fire for a few minutes, to give it that warm sound.
ha! (Score:2)
nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn! *stands and claps*
Re: (Score:2)
Your jest might not be too far from the truth. While the violinist are extremely skilled in their playing ability. Are they of equal skill in listening, to the degree an audiophile would be? The older violins will have more of an earthy sound. A bit flatter but with greater depth and woody-ness. (My experience on this is my 1920 German violin to my 1990 Italian one) The influence of modern day size and dynamic compression techniques in recordings has in general made us treble happy. We like sharper more acu
Re: (Score:3)
You're unwittingly pointing out the flaw in the study. The Stradivarius arguments been going on for hundreds of years... the tube amp argument for 30. But technology has changed. New violins are better than what was made even 10 years ago. The same goes for transistor amps (at least in regards to instrument amplifiers) If I were to play guitar for you on a 1950s tube amp, and then a 1980s transistor amp you would immediately declare the transistor amp utter crap. Trained ear or not. Now if I were to use one
Re:Yes, but you *can* tell the difference if... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're unwittingly pointing out the flaw in the study.
The point of the study was to show that for the purposes of musical performances, there is no value in a Stradivarius over a modern recreation. Stradivarius violins should be appreciated as a work of art and for their historical significance, but no longer as a musical instrument that is actively used.
Sorry about the loss of the magic (Score:5, Insightful)
People have some kind of innate (or maybe learned, but deep) fondness for "authentic". They'll pay for things that were touched by celebrities, as if there's some kind of magic that's transmitted through it.
These were, almost surely, the best violins available. The Stradavari family had extraordinary skill, surpassing anybody else at the time. It's remarkable and amazing that it should take us centuries to make other instruments with similar precision, balance, and quality.
But it's not amazing that we should eventually do so. There was no magic to these instruments, just tremendous hard work and a commitment to quality. These are rare, but hardly unique, especially over the course of centuries.
Let us appreciate these for what they are: remarkable artifacts of history, hand-made to extreme precision, durable enough to stand the test of time and be selected for their quality. There's no point in adding an additional layer of BS about some magic, unattainable extra that can't possibly be reproduced. It doesn't diminish the instrument, nor does it make every hack a great musician. Great instruments and great musicians will continue to make great music; surely that should be enough without sullying it with gullibility.
Re:Sorry about the loss of the magic (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like ancien mechanical clocks are marvels of engineering especially at the time of their fabrication, they're totally imprecise compared to even a low-cost crystal-clock Timex plastic watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Just (Score:2)
have some play a few violins of different quality and record them.
See if there is even a scientifically measurable different in the sound. At that point you can determine if any change that may be there is within the optimal human range to detect.
Of course that's just sound, it could mechanically be better, or feel better when held.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an OK violinist (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in my mid-thirties now, and have been playing since I was 5. I played 5 hours a week until high school, which rose to nearly 10 a week. I took a hiatus from playing in college. I play about twice a month now, having many other demands on my time. I'm not all that good, but I enjoy it and hope to pass some form of love of playing music to my children.
I can tell the difference between my crappy violin and nicer ones in the store. Do you know how much a top quality modern violin costs?
These things aren't remotely affordable. A crappy old one might cost $1,000. A top quality modern one will cost you what a decent house might. Saying that a modern violin is more affordable than a Strad is like saying that a Bugatti Veyron is more affordable than a F-16 fighter jet. I'm not buying either one.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell the difference between my crappy violin and nicer ones in the store. Do you know how much a top quality modern violin costs?
Perhaps a few multiples of $10,000; I've never heard of new instruments going for significantly more than this. (Only the best grand pianos cost that much.) If you're a professional musician, an investment like this isn't unreasonable, and is certainly much more attainable than a Strad. I also know amateurs who play on instruments (not just violins) that cost as much as a
Re:I'm an OK violinist (Score:5, Informative)
"Few multiples" of $10K won't buy you much in the range of around half the orchestral instruments. You'd be flat out trying to pay $30K for a pair of Clarinets or a trumpet, but the less popular instruments can get very, very pricey. As a bassoonist, many of our top of the line instruments are rather expensive. A good Fox or Heckel will be around $30K - 50K USD before custom keywork is factored in (can add up to $10K to the base price). My Fox Contra was, 10 years ago USD $30K so it would be significantly more than that to replace it now. If I was to purchase the same instruments here in Oz about triple that price in AUD.
Double basses and 'cellos also are upwards of $50K in the USA for good ones. Harpsichords also up over $30K for a reasonable one that wasn't assembled from a kit (lots in kit form for $15-20K). Harps also waaay up there in price. That's just from instruments I'm personally familiar with that I either play or someone in my family plays.
What Strads did they use? (Score:2)
It's well known that many Stradivarius violins have only average sound quality- and there hundreds of them.
I for my part ... (Score:2)
can distinguish sounds of a violine much better than I'm able to play a violine. .... nevertheless: I hvae not such a good ear for 'tunes' or tones ... why should a 45 year old violinist be better off than me?)
In fact: I cant play a violine at all.
Who came to the brain dead idea that an elitist violinist has perfect ears? (I have perfect ears, I'm 47 but on hearing tests I'm 14 year old
Re: (Score:3)
What do the violinists think? (Score:2)
Well, at least Stradivarius is as good as a top quality modern violin. Maybe they don't consider the Stradivarius as better. It could be something similar to a fancy dress: adding festivity and status. It can be the feeling that you're just playing with something very rare that used to be the top. And sometimes people just want the opportunity to find out if there is something special to a legendary instrument.
Sometimes period instruments and associated techniques add authenticity. I know that there used to
the conclusion is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
The real conclusion that should have been drawn, is most people who claim they are experts, are not.
Much like how over 90% of Ivy league-educated economists were unable to see a bubble was forming in real estate nearly 10 years ago.
We live in a society where we act as if a person's credentials actually mean something, but most of the time, in reality, they mean absolutely nothing. It's just a placebo effect.
Stradivarius instruments were not created by God (Score:2)
I do not understand why some people believe these instruments have something so powerful it cannot be replicated. If Antonio can do it, so can a good modern human.
We are all human and what one human can do, so can another. We need to look at our generation as no worse than generations past, and in some ways better.
The value of a Stradivarius (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell the difference between a signed first edition of On the Origin of Species and a regular seventh edition either if I'm only allowed to look at certain pages, but that doesn't mean they're of equal value. The value of a Stradivarius lies not in the sound it produces but in its provenance.
Re:The value of a Stradivarius (Score:5, Insightful)
I play guitar. I have a few nice guitars, and I thought I had an expensive habit. A friend who is a concert viola player has a "mid range" viola from a good maker, and it cost $45K about 15 years ago. Probably worth $60K or so today. And that isn't from one of the better modern makers.
And my wife gives me grief for my $2k used Tom Anderson guitar.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Tom Andersons, is that they're like rabbits and tend to multiply in your collection.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I just checked and there is currently a first edition of On the Origin of Species on Abebooks for 135k, and it's inscribed by Darwin's son. No autograph. Still, if I have Silicon Valley level money I'd probably snap it right up.
Re: (Score:3)
But the provenance is only of value because of the superior sound. Paintings by my grandma are 'rare,' but not valuable.
Of course this is all old news in the art world. Painters are "great" because of their great works. Their works are valuable because they are by great painters. Yet forgeries are indistinguishable from authentic works on artistic merit, so verification is turned over to chemical composition of paint
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, quality is what is important, because initially quality is the distinguishing factor. However, if there is a large enough amount of time between when this quality first appears and when this quality can be replicated then the provenance becomes important too. There's nothing irrational about it; given a choice between two things of equal quality, the thing that has a greater number of desirable features will be more valuable. And considering the history of an object as valuable is only irrational
Re: (Score:3)
This is 100% about entertainment, so the Strad may be better IF you are allowed to tell the audience that is what you are playing.
You can be certain that if a string player is using an instrument by a famous maker, it will be specifically mentioned in the program. Wind players only mention the brand of instrument they play on if they're paid to endorse it - of course most wind players seldom play on anything more than a few decades old.
What's in a name? (Score:5, Funny)
flawed study equipment (Score:3)
They didn't use Monster(tm) cables!
Audio engineer's perspective (Score:2, Informative)
3 years ago I had the privilege and pleasure of running sound mix for a piano (9 foot Steinway) and violin concert. The violinist played a borrowed Stradivarius. I expected it to be deeper, richer, fatter, fuller, etc., like a viola, but it was kind of bright. Turns out that's what makes them so good. The violinist commented that it's like playing an electric guitar- you get much more volume for the same bow effort and enables far more dynamics. He was almost giddy with excitement. It certainly made a
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that the Stradivarius is the single coil pickup of violins? (ie Fender Stratocaster)
(And you were expecting it to sound more Gibsony?)
Sigh.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Many of the old strads have been modified to have a taller bridge
or this or that to improve on the voice.
The old strads that were less than wonderful have been used
as kindling or rebuilt and refitted to be playable. i.e. only the
instruments that stand the test of time made it to today.
One anomaly in the good ones that is almost impossible to measure
is the way the wood was dried. One supply had been submerged in
volcanic ash and was gently permeated with silica as well as it
was cured for decades before being sawn into boards and finally
dried. Should someone pull some Mt. St Hellen spruce out of Spirit
lake and slow cure the boards well we could have a modern fiddle
that in 700 years will prove to be a master.
They're collectables... (Score:2)
People impose value on something and then suddenly everyone has to have one.
If I had the world's greatest art at my fingertips... would I fill my home with it? No. I already have access to the same art. I can get prints or lithographs of any of it and really its close enough that would would care. And if you want to talk about the texture of the brush strokes... fine, there are some prints that exactly match the topography of the original work so closely that it takes a forensic art expert to suss it out.
I
Was that an appropriate location for a test? (Score:2)
Looks like thet did the test in someone's living room -- shouldn't they have rented a concert hall or someplace more appropriate to where the instruments would be played on tour?
Double-blind? (Score:2)
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf! /ducks
Re: (Score:2)
That's not double-blind. I haven't watched TFV in its entirety, but for instance @19:00 there is a violinist playing with goggles and a researcher handing her the instruments that can see clearly what is what.
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf! /ducks
That's what I was thinking too, but they said that the instruments were identified by numbers -- is a Stradivarius obvious to a causal observer?
I can see why they didn't go truly double-blind with goggles on the researchers when dealing with a 10 million dollar instrument.
Out of context (Score:4)
These things are analog. You tune them by twisting a wooden peg. They don't even have frets! Each instrument is unique and so are we. Professional players really take their time searching for an instrument that suits them.
I play trumpet Thank God. Our instruments are MUCH cheaper. But most of the pro players I play with own several instruments because of all the little variations between them. Go to the home of any serious guitar player and ask how many guitars they own... It's quite common to find guys who own a dozen or more.
Are the Stravdivari and Guarneri violins worth the 8 figure prices? It's all a matter of supply and demand. There are only so many of the old instruments and if enough people want them, then the price goes up. The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it, which in the case of violins, does not necessarily correlate to how well it plays.
My wife also plays baroque violin and has a French instrument, made in 1774, which cost her only $12k. She tried out nearly 20 baroque violins before she settled on this one and it's a gem. There aren't many people playing in the baroque style, so there isn't as much demand. Most of the old Italian instruments have been altered over the years from their original form. "Modern" violins (those made after about 1830 or so) have necks that are bent further back and put more tension on the strings. They are engineered to play louder than the older instruments. The bows are bigger and heavier as well. And the bows are concave instead of being convex and have more horse hair on them so they play louder.
Because there isn't as much demand, the prices for the old instruments are much lower. The old instruments are worth that much because people are willing to pay for it, not because they necessarily are "better".
Re: (Score:2)
Articles and comments like this are made by people who are not musicians, let alone people who play violin professionally. In the world of today, we live with technology all around us. Everyone has their preferences and some technologies suit some folks better than others. The Mac guys hate Windows and I hate 'em both. But modern technology is consistent. Set 10 MacBook Pro laptops up and they all work EXACTLY the same. Not so for violins. Not even for modern makers.
That's true as long as you stay within the pure digital design constraints that the computers were designed for, but if you give them to an overclocker and ask him to tweak them to give the very best performance (such as you'd expect a professional violinist to do - get the best sound from the instrument), you'll find that each one behaves slightly differently. One might have a faster CPU clock speed, while another one might be tuned for faster memory timing and/or latency.
Re: (Score:3)
Articles and comments like this are made by people who are not musicians, let alone people who play violin professionally.
This probably isn't what you meant, but the actual PNAS article makes it clear that the authors have some real expertise:
Article Is Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Read an account about it here:http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/
First of all, the violinists were able to tell the difference between old and new violins.
It was a double blind study about which violin the violinists preferred to play. And since musicians that play the same instrument have different ideas of what kind of sound they prefer, it should not be a surprise that some preferred newer models. Of course, no two violins are created equal, and some Stradivariuses sound better than others. There were some constraints to the study, however. The older violins are worth several million of dollars and they were loaned on the condition that they could not be tuned.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. The study was blinded, not double blinded.
Re:Article Is Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The older violins are worth several million of dollars and they were loaned on the condition that they could not be tuned.
First, your link refers to an earlier article (also in PNAS) with a smaller sample size. Second, the condition wasn't that they couldn't be tuned, it was that "tonal adjustments" like moving the bridge or replacing the strings were not allowed. I would assume that simply tightening the pegs was permissible.
whatever (Score:2)
Facebook: $16bn WhatsApp, $1bn Instragram (Score:4, Interesting)
There are more than enough examples of ridiculous amounts being spent on not much more than popularity or a whim. Why is it so surprising people are willing to spend a lot on legendary and very rare instruments from several hundreds of years ago?
Maybe our modern-day instruments can hold up to those legends simply because today violin makers are standing on the shoulders of giants like Stradivari? A brand-new violin still costs a fortune and the most famous violin-makers today still select their clients very strictly. You essentially have to apply to even be allowed to pay them all that money.
And without trying to be too "voodoo" about this but as a musician myself, I am wondering just what kind of effect this privilege of playing such a rare instrument could have on the violinist. Maybe part of the "myth" is simply that the feel-good knowledge of playing one of the most legendary instruments out there can slightly improve an artists performance to push it to where "magic" happens?
World-class athletes do all sorts of "magic" to push themselves beyond their limits, to get just a slightly better performance. Why should the same not be true for performing star musicians?
The study was wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Easy to believe (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably some really bitchin' funny cat videos. Who has time to make violins by hand?