HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Listening Tests => Topic started by: kraut on 2012-01-03 06:03:44

Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: kraut on 2012-01-03 06:03:44
not so golden after all:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocke...s-and-new-ones/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/02/violinists-can%E2%80%99t-tell-the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones/)

Quote
What’s more, no one has tested whether violinists themselves can truly pick up the supposedly distinctive sound of a Strad. The common wisdom is that they can, but Fritz and Curtin showed that this isn’t true. “Many people were convinced that as soon as you play an old violin, you can feel that it’s old, it’s been played a lot, and it has a special sound quality,” says Fritz. “People who took part in the experiment said it was the experience of a lifetime when we told them the results. They were fully convinced they could tell the difference, and they couldn’t.”


Having read the article first in the German "der spiegel", I do not have to wait for the usual excuse of those that will maintain those listening tests were done wrong, the wrong violins were chosen etc.etc., all the usual bull those of the golden ear persuasion come up with to not have to accept test results that speak counter to their religion that "everything influences sound and everything is audible".

Quote
The test was a true “double-blind” one, as neither the players nor the people who gave them the violins had any way of knowing which instrument was which. The room was dimly lit. The players were wearing goggles so they couldn’t see properly. The instruments had dabs of perfume on the chinrests that blocked out any distinctive smells. And even though Fritz and Curtin knew which the identities of the six violins, they only passed the instruments to the players via other researchers, who were hidden by screens, wearing their own goggles, and quite literally in the dark.


It seems to me reading through the article, that just about everything had been done to eliminate bias by double blind testing.

Quote
There are some issues with the study. Curtin, being a maker of new violins, has an obvious bias, but the double-blind design should have prevented that from affecting the results. The sample size – six violins and 21 players – is fairly small, but as large as can be expected when dealing with rare and incredibly expensive objects. There might also other variables that could affect the players’ perceptions – perhaps, for example, they might feel differently in rooms with different acoustics.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: itisljar on 2012-01-03 06:57:53
Thank you for interesting read - I was, too, for some time, very suspicious about that "Stradivari sound".
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: hawkeye_p on 2012-01-03 08:08:41
Having read the article first in the German "der spiegel", I do not have to wait for the usual excuse of those that will maintain those listening tests were done wrong, the wrong violins were chosen etc.etc., all the usual bull those of the golden ear persuasion come up with to not have to accept test results that speak counter to their religion that "everything influences sound and everything is audible".


Having read the discussion following the article (http://forum.spiegel.de/f22/geigen-mythos-blindtest-entzaubert-die-stradivari-51259.html)in "Der Spiegel", your prediction turned out to be correct.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: botface on 2012-01-03 12:17:26
Am I missing something here? As I read it the test shows that 21 violinists comparing 6 violins - both double blind and sighted - failed to favour the ones with the highest reputation.

Is that it?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: dhromed on 2012-01-03 12:36:22
Did you expect a grand finale where the violinists don sunglasses and walk away in slow-motion from an exploding violin workshop?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: kraut on 2012-01-03 14:15:08
Quote
As I read it the test shows that 21 violinists comparing 6 violins - both double blind and sighted - failed to favour the ones with the highest reputation.

I guess not everybody is good at reading comprehension.
There is no "special" distinguishing sound that makes those violins special, they could not distinguish between an "old" and a "new" violin.
Quote
They played each instrument for a minute, and said which they preferred. Unbeknownst to them, each pair contained an old violin and a new one. For the most part, there was nothing to separate the two, and the players preferred the new instrument as often as the old one


I find this article especially interesting - for those I have to spell it out to:  because if there is no distinguishing sound that you can seperate an old violin from a newborn one.....
and then there are those who can distinguish between amplifiers, losless codecs, dacs, cables, pennies on top of your speaker.....


Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-03 14:25:04
Next task: Make the new violins look old, so people are still unable to tell the difference when the camera zooms onto the soloist.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: db1989 on 2012-01-03 14:25:32
Did you expect a grand finale where the violinists don sunglasses and walk away in slow-motion from an exploding violin workshop?
Calling it now: Post of the Year.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: botface on 2012-01-03 15:33:05
Quote
As I read it the test shows that 21 violinists comparing 6 violins - both double blind and sighted - failed to favour the ones with the highest reputation.

I guess not everybody is good at reading comprehension.
There is no "special" distinguishing sound that makes those violins special, they could not distinguish between an "old" and a "new" violin.
Quote
They played each instrument for a minute, and said which they preferred. Unbeknownst to them, each pair contained an old violin and a new one. For the most part, there was nothing to separate the two, and the players preferred the new instrument as often as the old one


I find this article especially interesting - for those I have to spell it out to:  because if there is no distinguishing sound that you can seperate an old violin from a newborn one.....
and then there are those who can distinguish between amplifiers, losless codecs, dacs, cables, pennies on top of your speaker.....

I disagree. As you pointed out above they were asked which instrument they preferred not if they could discern a difference between any of the instruments. And yes, it was mildly interesting but I was expecting something to support the assertion in the thread title
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-03 16:57:52
I think it's worth noting that the modern instruments are not just any new violin that was lying around, they are brilliant replicas, made by someone with over 30 years experience of reproducing those ancient instruments.  The maker of the modern instruments is Joseph Curtin.  From his website http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/READinstruments.htm (http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/READinstruments.htm)
Quote
Joseph Curtin has been building violins and violas since 1978. His body of work includes museum-quality replicas of Old Italian instruments, personal models based on those of Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu, and innovative instruments reflecting 21st century design and aesthetics. His clients include some of the most distinguished artists of our time.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: bred on 2012-01-03 17:55:11
I've never heard a Stradivarius.

But the sound of two violin should be very different, and the wood is not the only variable involved.
For example the quality of the string or the bow fog influences the sound.

Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: zipr on 2012-01-03 18:14:18
Here's another story on it, which includes audio samples:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/...e-strad?ps=cprs (http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?ps=cprs)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Jebus on 2012-01-03 18:22:04
I think it's worth noting that the modern instruments are not just any new violin that was lying around, they are brilliant replicas, made by someone with over 30 years experience of reproducing those ancient instruments. The maker of the modern instruments is Joseph Curtin. From his website http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/READinstruments.htm (http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/READinstruments.htm)
Quote
Joseph Curtin has been building violins and violas since 1978. His body of work includes museum-quality replicas of Old Italian instruments, personal models based on those of Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu, and innovative instruments reflecting 21st century design and aesthetics. His clients include some of the most distinguished artists of our time.



Yes, and the claim being tested here is that violins produce a richer sound as they age. So the ideal scenario would have been brand-new strads compared to classic ones; obviously not possible.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Carledwards on 2012-01-03 19:08:23
The biggest factor in how violins sound is who is playing it. I had an instrument made for me in the early nineties by a fine old luthier named Claude Watson. His instruments, which he called "Emanuel," were expensive and highly regarded. It took him almost two years to finish mine as he was very elderly at the time. When I took delivery, I asked him if it would sound better as it aged. He said, "It will sound better the more you play it because you will get better."
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-03 19:28:36
Yes, and the claim being tested here is that violins produce a richer sound as they age. So the ideal scenario would have been brand-new strads compared to classic ones; obviously not possible.


The claim being tested is definitely not "that violins produce a richer sound as they age", it's "can the new instruments be distinguished from the ancient?".
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: bred on 2012-01-03 20:34:33
Here's another story on it, which includes audio samples:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/...e-strad?ps=cprs (http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?ps=cprs)


In these two samples the sound difference is clear.


Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: andy o on 2012-01-03 20:51:27
The reasonable assumption is that the instrument the violinists "preferred" was the one they thought was the Stradivarius, so in a sense, yes, they could not tell the difference. Ed Yong has updated the post to indicate that one of the violinists actually commented (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/02/violinists-can%E2%80%99t-tell-the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones/comment-page-1/#comment-69743) there, and it's what he says.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-03 21:39:57
This test is another piece of evidence that there is no magic Stradivarius sound, but it's not the exposure of simple phoolery; it's more like testing handpicked $10,000 speakers against $100,000 dollar speakers, since a violin is a transducer. The outcome is interesting, precisely because you couldn't predict the outcome from first principles.

Most old violins that are still played are not in their original state, as they've been modified for changing playing conditions. And maybe, back then, with gut strings and smallish halls, the Cremona violins really were on average the best, but the best later luthiers have learned how to do as well. Interestingly, Hilary Hahn, who I think of as the nerd's violinist and who could certainly get the use of a Stradivarius if she wanted it, plays a 19th c. Vuillaume, though it is a Stradivarius copy.

On old instruments: I once had to ask a group of musicians and music teachers about depreciation on new instruments (bureaucratic requirement). I got a very detailed and helpful statement on concert-grade pianos (about a 10 year life before they're consigned to practice), but nothing on other instruments, either depreciation or appreciation.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-03 23:00:39
I didn't see any evidence that there isn't something fantastic about the sound of a Stradivarius, or that there was any "audio phoolery" to be exposed.  It's interesting reading the reactions of the participants because they are not at all like the typical denial one encounters when an "audiophile" is presented with some real data.  These people are not "audiophools"; they are people who have been open minded enough to put their assumptions to the test of reason and empirical investigation, and to appreciate the results.  It's unfair to paint them as subscribers to "phoolery"; in fact to do so is "phoolish"    One of the best conclusions is from a participant linked to by andy o, who said, amongst other sensible things, "the best modern makers are as good as the best old makers".  I don't see this test as having more than a superficial resemblance to abx vs sighted testing of magic pebbles or similar.  The conclusion certainly was not that "all violins sound the same" so there is also no analogy with "audiophiles" who claim solid state amps that measure identically somehow sound different if they can see them.  I also don't see that the reputations of those famous old violin makers have taken a knock.  Their instruments sound as good today as they did before the test, for the most part being indistinguishable from the very best instruments that the best makers produce today.  That is no small compliment, rather a testament and an endorsement.  What has been shown is that the best modern makers are at least as skilled as their forebears, and more specifically that the best modern makers are expert at reproducing the sound and tactile experience of their illustrious predecessors.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-03 23:41:06
I quite agree, Takla. I thought that was what I was saying. It was certainly what I meant to say.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-04 00:13:18
I quite agree, Takla. I thought that was what I was saying. It was certainly what I meant to say.


I misunderstood, excuse me.  I'd noticed that thread had originally been inappropriately entitled "golden ears" (yawn) and that some responses seemed to be trying to challenge claims which had not been made, debunk myths which nobody involved swore by, and unfairly associate nonsense with people who very had graciously offered their both their assumptions and almost priceless possessions for public scrutiny.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: kraut on 2012-01-04 01:00:00
Quote
I'd noticed that thread had originally been inappropriately entitled "golden ears" (yawn)
.

I don't give a flying fuck about your yawning - a sign of ennui precipitated by ignorance, not taking into consideration that previous tests, including measurements, were done to disprove the notion of either superiority or difference.

Quote
However, the many blind tests from 1817[8][9] to the present (as of 2006) have never found any difference in sound between Stradivari's violins and high-quality violins in comparable style of other makers and periods, nor has acoustic analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius)

The term golden ear stands because despite since the 1800's accumulated  evidence including this newest one that points to inaudibility of differences, there are still those who  maintain differences are audible; justifiably then inviting comparisons between the audiophools of all couleur.
That has nothing to do with the participants at all - again, reading comprehension seems to be an issue - but with those that defend their indefensible stance contrary to evidence commenting about those tests.

Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-04 01:11:17
I don't give a flying fuck about your yawning......

The term golden ear stands because .... but with those that defend their indefensible stance contrary to evidence commenting about those tests.


That's nice, and well done on the aerobatics.  But the test wasn't about people making unreasonable claims and refusing to see reason or accept surprising results.  It described people who were willing to submit their ideas and opinions to empirical analysis, and who met the results with good grace and good sense.

As well as the thread title being misleading and non-descriptive, your very first post went so far as to strongly oppose and castigate people who were not even in evidence and opinions which had even not been expressed, but you decided to assume that these wicked people with their bad opinions would inevitably arrive and start doing all kinds of things which, in fact, didn't happen:
Quote
Having read the article first in the German "der spiegel", I do not have to wait for the usual excuse of those that will maintain those listening tests were done wrong, the wrong violins were chosen etc.etc., all the usual bull those of the golden ear persuasion come up with to not have to accept test results that speak counter to their religion that "everything influences sound and everything is audible".


You do not have to wait for someone to exist or an excuse to be made before you start arguing with these (unmanifested) people and dismissing their (imaginary) excuses.  This truly is the age of reason.  Happy flying!


Edit: and the more I think about it the more I wonder how anyone can get angry on seeing such a well conducted and rational test!  It involves people who are the best instrument makers, and people who are among the elite of performers, people who are immersed in the tradition and culture of these instruments which are virtually held sacred.  And the result?  They all seem to agree that the modern instruments costing a mere $30000 are a match for the legends of the past costing millions.  What the hell has this to do with "golden ears" or audiophools and why would it be reported here in terms of frustration, or cause people to express their hostility to "the enemy",  when it is clearly an episode which show the triumph of the rational!?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: andy o on 2012-01-04 03:18:54
But the test wasn't about people making unreasonable claims and refusing to see reason or accept surprising results.
Sure it was. That's why the prefacing bits about others trying in vain to distinguish the sound, through history.

Quote
It described people who were willing to submit their ideas and opinions to empirical analysis, and who met the results with good grace and good sense.
No study like this is about the individuals themselves. That's why sample size was a "problem". Do you think the scientists would have asked for, and the owners of the instruments would have lent, those expensive instruments just to see what those 21 people could hear?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: kawaiigardiner on 2012-01-04 06:11:45
Here's another story on it, which includes audio samples:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/...e-strad?ps=cprs (http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?ps=cprs)


I answered the question correctly but I have a feeling that those who answered was more a guess based on slight differences and then being unable to associate the differences to a particular violin. IMHO when ever I hear individuals go on about perceived differences it sounds like a re-hash of the 'pear cables' direction of some person's review claiming that the product makes the 'music really swing' (what ever the heck that means) - sorry I can't find the original review, it seems to have disappeared.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-04 07:06:28
But the test wasn't about people making unreasonable claims and refusing to see reason or accept surprising results.
Sure it was.


Surely the claims were not, a priori, unreasonable. Claiming to hear a difference between complex constructions of wood that generate sound is nothing like claiming to hear the difference between copper and silver interconnects.

There was already evidence that Stradivarius violins, qua Stradivarius, have no distinctive sound, and this is further evidence that a claim that they have fails, empirically. But it certainly does not prove that there is no difference between competently made violins, the way there is no SQ difference between competently made amplifiers.

It proves that the prestige of Stradivarius instruments is socially constructed, the product of scarcity, and has the nature of a bubble, feeding on itself. So one expected, but to show that requires not merely the organising of difficult and elaborate tests, but repeating those tests: like establishing that people, for the most part, prefer speakers with flat response. One might have expected that, but it's not inevitable, since it involves people, who are very non-linear, so you need to replicate results a lot.

Of course, if we now get a lot of deniers, that's unreasonable.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: DonP on 2012-01-04 14:25:34
So in the study were the new instruments brand new?  The "new" violin in the NPR story with the sound clips was made in 1980.

FWIW the cellist in the last concert I went to is really into her carbon fiber cello.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-04 16:50:27
IIRC one was three days old.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-05 02:29:27
........ the heft of the real thing could have still influenced them.


The antique instruments could not be reliably distinguished from the new ones by the extremely skilled and experienced performers, who are intimately familiar with such instruments, which very strongly suggests that this was not the case.  There was some effort to disguise any differences such as applying perfume to the chin rests so that an old instrument could not be identified by its smell from an instrument made the previous week.  In any case there should be no difference in "heft" (size? weight?) because the new instruments are intended to be as close to perfect replicas as possible of the ancient ones, in construction, sound, and use.  Reading the article helps a lot
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-05 03:38:16
My point is you have to have an expert on violin construction who can point these things out which the test researchers may be clueless about.


The instigator of the test is an apparently highly-regarded violin maker; the article says that the trust the violinists had in him was crucial to their participation. The article also points out that he had an interest in demonstrating the high quality of modern violins, but the procedures should have prevented that from influencing the results.

But what you say about knowledge of the instrument affecting the way people play is surely true. In the two samples linked from the article, it's clear the violinist plays the modern instrument with more vibrato--whether consciously or not, who can tell. But anyhow, it is likely that violinists who accept these results will still want to play an old Italian instrument. Given what an extraordinarily demanding task playing a violin must be, they're entitled to whatever help placebo will give them; athletes have lucky socks, why not let musos have talismanic fiddles. As long as we know it's the playing that counts.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Nessuno on 2012-01-05 08:42:15
>implying the violinists were privy to the identities of the instruments

Quote
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocke...;new-ones/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocke...;new-ones/)[/url] ]The test was a true “double-blind” one, as neither the players nor the people who gave them the violins had any way of knowing which instrument was which. The room was dimly lit. The players were wearing goggles so they couldn’t see properly. The instruments had dabs of perfume on the chinrests that blocked out any distinctive smells. And even though Fritz and Curtin knew which the identities of the six violins, they only passed the instruments to the players via other researchers, who were hidden by screens, wearing their own goggles, and quite literally in the dark.



But, with all this blindness and hand to hand exchanging of violins, are we sure that in the end they really succeed in recollect the right instruments... or there are chances from now on there will be a 1980 violin travelling in a "Stradivari" carrycase? 
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: mzil on 2012-01-05 09:33:24
^Ha! Good point Nessuno!
---

Quote
And even though Fritz and Curtin knew which the identities of the six violins, they only passed the instruments to the players via other researchers, who were hidden by screens, wearing their own goggles, and quite literally in the dark.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the violins were being handed off, person to person at each exchange, with only the first hand off not being blinded (Fritz and Curtin "knew", which is fine by itself). I see a big problem here. It doesn't matter if you have even a dozen different intermediate carriers of the delicate and expensive violins, all blindfolded, before the ultimate test subject actually gets it placed in their hands. When a person places an extremely expensive, fragile, and delicate item in another person's hands, they will do so (possibly subconsciously) very carefully, purposefully, methodically, delicately and slowly. The recipient can easily tell this level of concern, based on how quickly and casually the giver hands them the item. This will then bestow upon them a general sense of the product's value and fragility, on a subconscious level, even if they are blindfolded (and the room reeks of perfume  ). This is the "tell", ie the "giveaway".  The greater sense of value given to the Strads could easily be passed on almost indefinitely, from blindfolded to blindfolded person, all based on this delicacy and swiftness of hand to hand exchange.

Instead, the violins would need to be both placed on, and then picked up from, a table, in a blind manner, to break this (subconscious) relay of human communication, via hand to hand exchanges. The human to human contact could be a clear giveaway as to which is the "Oh my god that's valuable, so don't drop it!" DUT.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-05 11:10:20
I seem to be having some pretty serious reading comprehension problems, too, because I see things like:
Quote
O1, the Stradivarius with the most illustrious history, was chosen far less often than any of the three new violins.

and
Quote
This time, a clear favourite emerged. The players chose one of the new violins (“N2”) as their take-home instrument most often, and it topped the rankings for all four qualities.

and
Quote
As before, O1 received the most severe rejections.


but also
Quote
Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins

and
There is no "special" distinguishing sound that makes those violins special, they could not distinguish between an "old" and a "new" violin.

and
Quote from: kraut link=msg=0 date=
accumulated evidence including this newest one that points to inaudibility of differences


It's so confusing.  Reading is hard!
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-05 14:55:29
@gumboot, I'd been wondering about that, too. I guess you'd need a proper statistical analysis to tell if the preferences expressed amounted to anything significant, or were just  noise on top of no consistent difference. I think our problem is imprecise writing, rather than sloppy reading.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-07 01:27:41
One reason why this test, and the few others like it, is actually news is that it took a lot of effort to get the controlled circumstances. It's not surprising that many violinists should have believed that old Italian violins did have a significant sound, since they would have been relying on memory. That's dodgy enough, but when you add the institutional glamour around the name Stradivarius, it's unsurprising things went wrong. Placebo is very powerful (which is probably why people with access to Cremona instruments won't get rid of them: they did compare pretty well with the very best of modern productions, and if they make the performer feel special playing them, then maybe that has an effect on the performance.)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-07 10:46:46
I think the test, or the write-up cited, fails because it still conflates subjective notions of good and bad with scientific notions of correlated and random.

The parts I quoted previously suggest correlated, in direct contradiction with the title of this thread.  The question of whether the big name is actually preferable, and trying to bring science into that, is laughable.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Kees de Visser on 2012-01-07 12:03:16
Placebo is very powerful ... maybe that has an effect on the performance.
Exactly my thought and also my experience. I remember a violin competition where 2 of the 5 finalists got access to a Strad for the final (with orchestra). One of the 2 did win, but it's impossible to say if the Strad made the difference.
IMO it would be interesting to test two situations:
- do experienced Strad players perform worse on a modern violin
- do modern violin players perform better on a Strad

Both groups would need to get used to the other violin for a while and the comparison (recordings) should be done by themselves and other listeners.
Unfortunately this kind of test is very difficult to organize and it contains subjective elements (better/worse).
Anyway, classical music is full of myths and this one seems pretty harmless to me
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-07 14:20:52
If I'm understanding this correctly, the violins were being handed off, person to person at each exchange, with only the first hand off not being blinded (Fritz and Curtin "knew", which is fine by itself). I see a big problem here. It doesn't matter if you have even a dozen different intermediate carriers of the delicate and expensive violins, all blindfolded, before the ultimate test subject actually gets it placed in their hands. When a person places an extremely expensive, fragile, and delicate item in another person's hands, they will do so (possibly subconsciously) very carefully, purposefully, methodically, delicately and slowly. The recipient can easily tell this level of concern, based on how quickly and casually the giver hands them the item. This will then bestow upon them a general sense of the product's value and fragility, on a subconscious level, even if they are blindfolded (and the room reeks of perfume  ). This is the "tell", ie the "giveaway".  The greater sense of value given to the Strads could easily be passed on almost indefinitely, from blindfolded to blindfolded person, all based on this delicacy and swiftness of hand to hand exchange.


Well, it is fair to assume that there is a placebo bias favouring the Strads in a non-blind test. Had the result been in favour of the Stradivarii, then we would start scrutinizing the «degree of blindness» in the design of experiment: did they judge from sound or from other knowledge giving the identity away?

Here the Strads did not turn out better in an attempted double-blind experiment.  Then the design of experiment either
- reduced the placebo down to a level where it did not affect the outcome (say, what if one X of many was affected?)
or possibly
- reduced the placebo down to a level where it did affect the outcome, but only to a level where it compensated for the actual worse sound of the Strad,
or possibly
- outright misled some the violinists into thinking that B was A and therefore by placebo chose an inferior modern violin, thinking it was the real thing, to a degree that it compensated for those who chose «right».


But we do not need to invoke placebo to explain why the Stradivarii «won» the test, because they didn't.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-07 14:36:20
More references at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90914111418.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111418.htm) , by the way. Not the first time the old wood fails to live up to the reputation.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-08 21:23:18
Has anyone posting here actually read the study itself?  I have many questions on it, but since I have not read the study (just a bunch of news articles), I could never in good conscience draw many of the conclusions or offer any of the critques mentioned here without reading the study very carefully.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-08 23:45:34
but since I have not read the study (just a bunch of news articles), I could never in good conscience draw many of the conclusions or offer any of the critques mentioned here without reading the study very carefully.


I'm not sure you understand how the internet works.  There's a process that has to be followed.  It starts with researchers making things up to support their clients' business plans, then it's digested through a series of magazine articles, newspaper articles, etc., then it's blogged, reblogged, tweeted, retweeted, posted on wikipedia, replaced with something entirely unrelated, and then it becomes a fact.

It's only once it becomes fact that we can wave it around and try to make a point about how stupid everybody else is.

The stuff you're talking about is like fact ore.  It's no use to real people.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-09 02:45:15
We seem to be caught in a certain cycle....  http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 (http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: andy o on 2012-01-09 04:54:08
but since I have not read the study (just a bunch of news articles), I could never in good conscience draw many of the conclusions or offer any of the critques mentioned here without reading the study very carefully.


I'm not sure you understand how the internet works.  There's a process that has to be followed.  It starts with researchers making things up to support their clients' business plans, then it's digested through a series of magazine articles, newspaper articles, etc., then it's blogged, reblogged, tweeted, retweeted, posted on wikipedia, replaced with something entirely unrelated, and then it becomes a fact.

It's only once it becomes fact that we can wave it around and try to make a point about how stupid everybody else is.

The stuff you're talking about is like fact ore.  It's no use to real people.

Well the important thing is you have found a way to feel superior.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-09 07:18:25
Well the important thing is you have found a way to feel superior.


Superior to the internet!  Woo!
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Nessuno on 2012-01-10 21:27:42
A hopefully interesting contribution to this thread by report of yours truly: yesterday evening italian radio station RAI Radiotre aired a live symphonic concerto from the Teatro alla Scala, soloist was the violinist Frank Peter Zimmerman playing a Stradivari.
After the concert he was interviewed. I was listening rather distractly when my attention was raised by the speaker asking this very question:- has been written on some magazines that in a test some colleagues of yours have failed to prefer a Stradivari over more recent instruments, what about? - Zimmerman admitted that a newer instrument of comparable built quality may results easier to play and if played to someone not fully acquainted to it, even easier to the ears. This might happen, he continued, because an instrument such as a Stradivari is an unicum, possesses a personality of his own, indeed a very strong one, and requires the player a deeper knowledge and to respectfully go along with it to fully reveal its superior qualities.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-10 22:09:49
...so Zimmerman's implication is that the test duration favored newer violins over older violins, that older violins have something called "personality" that newer ones do not, and that as one plays with older violins for longer periods of time you'll play it better but that won't happen with newer violins, and if the test playing had been longer then the old violins would have been favored?  That's quite a bundle of claims, supported by....what exactly?

I guess if I had spent a fortune on an old violin, then I'd make up something like that to protect my investment.  But since I have not, I think ToS #8 requires Zimmerman and anyone who believes him to prove each of those claims.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-10 22:46:30
...so Zimmerman's implication is that the test duration favored newer violins over older violins, that older violins have something called "personality" that newer ones do not,


Probably not so much that new ones don't have personality, but that they're a little more uniform (or at least they aim for a common standard) and much more likely to be what people learnt on, so everybody will have experience with them.

It shouldn't be at all surprising to suggest that an old, rare device might have irregularities which take some time to learn to work around or exploit.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: andy o on 2012-01-10 23:40:58
The evidence contradicts Zimmerman, no matter how well he plays the violin. As told by Nessuno, his claims fit perfectly the original title of "golden ears" of this thread.

btw, godrick, don't know if you have seen it yet, but the study was linked to in Yong's post. It's been there all this time.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-10 23:42:21
...so Zimmerman's implication is ...ra ra ra.... then I'd make up something like that to protect my investment.  But since I have not, I think ToS #8 requires Zimmerman and anyone who believes him to prove each of those claims.


I think your insistence is misplaced.  Why can he not claim that an older instrument is harder to play?  These are objects made of organic materials that change in shape and size over time, and not consistently either. Those materials decay, both visibly and invisibly, as well as alter with the seasons (temperature and humidty), and do so inconsistently, and this matters hugely in an instrument whose sound is defined in the most part by the resonance of its body.  Typically such instruments have even been damaged and repaired several times.  A new instrument of comparable craftsmanship is likely to closely conform to the builder's template and naturally be be easier to play, being a regular shape with predictable responses.  These are not PCBs!  Anyone who has lived in an old wooden (or wood framed) house of a few hundred years vintage knows that nothing fits....everything has expanded or contracted until doors are loose or they stick, floorboards have gone from even to wave like, the old lead windows no longer fit the no-longer square frames; these are differences that can be found from week to week or month to month according to the season.  Can you imagine playing a wooden musical instrument of the same vintage?????  Even if it has benefited from the most meticulous care it will definitely be a more idiosyncratic object with every passing decade. 

Some things that lots of people are irrationally overlooking in their headlong rush to sound like bona fide rationalists (or at least modern www era reproductions of the same):

The value of a Stradivarius in today's market no longer derives from its supposed sound quality.  These are historic objects, associated with notable persons over hundreds of years.  It wouldn't matter at all if the general consensus became that a gratis software emulator, or a plastic toy, sounded even better, any more than if you found Noah's Ark but some dull person proved that a passenger ferry of 1980s vintage would carry more pairs of beasts further in less time, and smell better too.  If some authoratitive and universally accepted authority concluded today that the best instruments by modern makers sounded as good as, or better, than any historic Strad then the change in financial value of that Strad in the next day's market would be Z E R O.

A famous, experienced, and brilliant violinist chooses to describe his intrinsically unique antique instrument as having a personality, as something idiosyncratic that is not easy to play, that takes time to master.  He claims that putting in the same effort with a modern instrument does not produce the same reward of better sound.  Is this actually irrational at all?  Do the people claiming a lack of reason actually use reason?  Do they have real knowledge and expertise in the way organic materials change with temperature and humidity, and the differences between wood that was treated and used 300 years ago and similar materials that are just a few weeks old?  Do they have real expertise in becoming expert in using ancient artefacts that are not of uniform shape, and which perform in unexpected ways?  Can they compare that to their experience of using modern versions of the same artefacts which behave in predictable ways and are new enough to closely match the designer's or manufacturer's template?  He claims that he produces a different performance with this violin than he does with other violins.  What is wrong with that claim?  Do you know that he would produce the same performance with a different instrument, or are you making a mere assertion, founded on nothing more substantial than the expectation of anonymous peer approval?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: andy o on 2012-01-10 23:47:26
And he was being kind of a condescending dick to his colleagues too (again, as told by Nessuno ), one of which was gracious and open-minded enough to acknowledge he was wrong in the very blog post linked.

We seem to be caught in a certain cycle.. (http://www.lalinguaarabapertutti.com/)
..  http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 (http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174)

i think you are right


No, he's not. The linked blog post doesn't resemble that at all. I'm surprised how many people just are complaining that there's no sources, just shows that they didn't read the post at all.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 00:20:43
Why can he not claim that an older instrument is harder to play?

Because experienced violinists in a controlled blind study fail to tell the difference between this supposedly «harder to play» old instrument and well-crafted replica.

If it were indeed more difficult, wouldn't they have felt and heard the difference?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: DVDdoug on 2012-01-11 00:46:00
Because experienced violinists in a controlled blind study fail to tell the difference between this supposedly «harder to play» old instrument and well-crafted replica.

If it were indeed more difficult, wouldn't they have felt and heard the difference?
I don't believe they "failed to tell the difference".  I believe there was a difference and they generally preferred the more modern insturment, and perhaps they thought the modern instrument was the Stradivarius.    And, this was not an ABX test where they would know if A or B was the Strad.    That would have been an easier test, and I doubt you could fool the owner of the instrument (assuming the owner is a violinist who regularly plays the instrument).  And, I assume every Stradivarius sounds different!  ...Although some may sound very similar too.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 01:11:22
Because experienced violinists in a controlled blind study fail to tell the difference between this supposedly «harder to play» old instrument and well-crafted replica.

If it were indeed more difficult, wouldn't they have felt and heard the difference?
I don't believe they "failed to tell the difference".  I believe there was a difference and they generally preferred the more modern insturment,


Well, you are right, I mixed this up with another such test I was reading.  There was one of the Strads that turned out less preferred (the one assumed to be one of Stradivari's early instruments, not the one from his recognized 'golden' age).

And, this was not an ABX test where they would know if A or B was the Strad.


No, they did not, you are right that this would have been an easier test.
What they did (part of the test):
At 21 instances, a violinist evaluated the same pair twice, i.e. ABXY, but without knowing that X or Y were A or B. They were asked for preference among (A,B), and then for preference among (X,Y) without knowing that they were indeed the same pair.
Out of these 21 re-pairings, 11 kept their order of preference, and 10 reversed it. That is as close to a fifty/fifty as you can get on an odd number.


(I do not see this detail in the newspaper report linked to here -- I have access to the scientific article in http://www.pnas.org (http://www.pnas.org) .)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: MichaelW on 2012-01-11 01:11:51
I don't believe they "failed to tell the difference".  I believe there was a difference and they generally preferred the more modern insturment

SNIP

  And, I assume every Stradivarius sounds different!  ...Although some may sound very similar too.


I was wondering a while back whether the test did indicate a preference for modern instruments, but I don't have the stats-fu to work it out for myself. IIRC, the least preferred instrument in the test was a Stradivarius.

Presumably, any instrument with "personality" will also have a different level of difficulty in playing, hence Zimmerman's instrument may well have marked and distinctive difficulties. To some people, of course, difficulty, and the rewards of overcoming difficulty, are of value in themselves. Hence the survival of Linux on the desktop.

There is, of course, nothing absurd in the claim that an artifact has personality: I have had a number of cars with personality, but now I can afford better.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-11 01:30:42
Why can he not claim that an older instrument is harder to play?

Because experienced violinists in a controlled blind study fail to tell the difference between this supposedly «harder to play» old instrument and well-crafted replica.

If it were indeed more difficult, wouldn't they have felt and heard the difference?


No, not "this" old instrument.  This is not the same instrument as those in the blind study.  These are not mass produced items and there is no reason to expect them to be identical when new, and even less after 300 years.  These are not transistors rolling off a production line.  When people with no experience of either the instrument in question, nor of the modern replicas, make assertions about how the instruments feel or play or sound, then they are being more irrational than anyone.  Even if these were mass produced objects of known specification and condition then it would still be unreasonable for persons with no data of any kind(!) to pronounce on their qualities (or otherwise) based only on their expectation or bias.

I did read the article.  The test made no attempt to investigate whether a player's ability to exploit any of the instruments was different over an extended period of time, and it definitely made no such comparison between the old and the new instruments.  There is absolutely nothing in the tests or conclusions that either endorses or contradicts Zimmerman's report that with an antique instrument it can take a long time to learn to exploit it, but that a new instrument doesn't reward such familiarity in the same way.  I don't know if this is the case or not, but given that these are objects that rely on tension and resonance and inevitably will not retain perfect original shape, form, mass, integrity over 300 years then it is hardly an outrageous claim.  Because I don't know if it's the case or not I can only say that it's not impossible; more surprising is that people with exactly the same knowledge, experience and data (ZERO!) feel able to make an unembarrassed assertion to the contrary.  I detect a bias.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 01:58:32
When people with no experience of either the instrument in question, nor of the modern replicas, make assertions about how the instruments feel or play or sound, then they are being more irrational than anyone.


Well, the null hypothesis would be 'Strads are no better than anything else'. It is the $10 million instrument that has the burden of proof, just like the producer of $1000/meter 'audiophile' cables, or 'anti-ageing' snakeoil.

When people hold their assertions about how the instruments feel or play or sound until after they know the name and the price, that is when it becomes nonscientifical.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: mzil on 2012-01-11 02:35:20
I did read the article.

Do you mean you paid the $10 (for two days access) to read the whole PNAS PDF article? Or you mean you read the abstract of it only, that Yong linked to?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 08:07:45
I did read the article.

Do you mean you paid the $10 (for two days access) to read the whole PNAS PDF article? Or you mean you read the abstract of it only, that Yong linked to?


Probably rather that his/her institution (university or other) already has paid for access to the journal with all its contents, so the per-view cost is zero. That's the usual terms of subscription.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Kees de Visser on 2012-01-11 08:14:55
Do you mean you paid the $10 (for two days access) to read the whole PNAS PDF article?
There's quite some interesting information in the free supplemental document:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/01/...201114999SI.pdf (http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/01/02/1114999109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201114999SI.pdf)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-11 08:17:11
It's how they make their money, isn't it.  They just get someone to cite them in a blog post that makes contradictory inferences from the data so that people have no choice but to buy access to get the story straight.


In any case, it seems to me that as much as people have complained that nobody else is reading the citations, people haven't bothered to read those complaints, either; or the problem would surely have gone away long ago.  And it hasn't.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 09:43:05
It's how they make their money, isn't it.  They just get someone to cite them in a blog post that makes contradictory inferences from the data so that people have no choice but to buy access to get the story straight.


If scientists or scientific publishers would ever need the mass media to publish oversimplified/dumbeddown/misleading coverage of the result of research, they already have their demand overfilled for ages to come.


The National Academy of Sciences has a subscription policy where you as a student can get full access for $40 a year, while a large corporate might pay more than $9000 every year -- for this single journal. Obviously, not to undermine that $9k/year subscription cost, they have to put some price on each single article. But most of those who need the PNAS journal, subscribe.

(Pricing of scientific journals is a very confusing matter. Academies of sciences often employ price differentiation as above.  Many commercial publishers do as well. Then there are quite a few journals where the publisher charges an outrageous amount of money just to reap from those subscribers who do not question price. I've seen such journals cost twenty times what researchers would think of as the closest competition.)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-11 14:26:59
I am a bit surprised anyone took exception to my post that Zimmerman or those that believe him need double blind test proof to back up his assertions.  Zimmerman made 4 claims regarding differences between Strads and newer violins, and per ToS #8, one needs to prove claims of differences.  Also per ToS #8 neither I nor anyone else need to prove the lack of a difference.

I hope Zimmerman puts his Strad where his mouth is and allows his Strad to be used in future testing.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-11 14:31:27
I did read the article.  The test made no attempt to investigate whether a player's ability to exploit any of the instruments was different over an extended period of time, and it definitely made no such comparison between the old and the new instruments.  There is absolutely nothing in the tests or conclusions that either endorses or contradicts Zimmerman's report that with an antique instrument it can take a long time to learn to exploit it, but that a new instrument doesn't reward such familiarity in the same way.  I don't know if this is the case or not, but given that these are objects that rely on tension and resonance and inevitably will not retain perfect original shape, form, mass, integrity over 300 years then it is hardly an outrageous claim.  Because I don't know if it's the case or not I can only say that it's not impossible; more surprising is that people with exactly the same knowledge, experience and data (ZERO!) feel able to make an unembarrassed assertion to the contrary.  I detect a bias.



I don't object to Zimmerman's implication that it takes time to "learn" an intrument, but I object to his claim without proof that no such effect applies to newer violins.  Again, per T0S #8, such a difference claim needs proof.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-11 14:53:35
I don't object to Zimmerman's implication that it takes time to "learn" an intrument, but I object to his claim without proof that no such effect applies to newer violins.  Again, per T0S #8, such a difference claim needs proof.


And when Mr Zimmerman signs up to HA you'll be able to let him know......... 
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: mzil on 2012-01-11 15:45:08
Takla, I'm still curious to hear from you directly, as opposed to other people's conjectures of what they believe is probably the case, regarding if you meant you read the original paper in full, or rather just its abstract and notes. Also, do you still have access now on an unlimited basis, or did you buy a 48hr access period and that time window has now expired?

Thanks.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-11 16:06:52
the free supplemental document:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/01/...201114999SI.pdf (http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/01/02/1114999109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201114999SI.pdf)


Aha, that part is free access? Good.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: andy o on 2012-01-11 16:25:18
It's how they make their money, isn't it.  They just get someone to cite them in a blog post that makes contradictory inferences from the data so that people have no choice but to buy access to get the story straight.
It's a conspiracy!


Quote
In any case, it seems to me that as much as people have complained that nobody else is reading the citations, people haven't bothered to read those complaints, either; or the problem would surely have gone away long ago.  And it hasn't.

Nobody had complained that they had to pay, as is the case with many other studies published. Someone who is used to reading studies should know that, shouldn't they? They had complained that the study and/or references were not available. And again, one of the violinists has commented there at least twice.

Don't you think it'd be more useful if you went and told Yong directly what you think of his conspiracy to hide the real data? If he doesn't admit it, others there might support you and something might actually be accomplished, at least as far as your concerns.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-11 21:23:44
Takla, I'm still curious to hear from you directly, as opposed to other people's conjectures of what they believe is probably the case, regarding if you meant you read the original paper in full, or rather just its abstract and notes. Also, do you still have access now on an unlimited basis, or did you buy a 48hr access period and that time window has now expired?

Thanks.


No I didn't read the full, paid for paper.  I read the linked article describing it.  I too was impressed with the way that people who have absolutely no knowledge of me socially or professionally were able to speculate so plausibly while being completely wrong.  It was entertaining, and also dovetailed quite nicely with various other comments in this thread which sounded plausible and authoritative, and had that warm, fuzzy *feel* of seeming rational, all the while being something else.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: mzil on 2012-01-11 21:56:19
^Oh, OK. Thanks.  I had hoped you might be able to clarify (clear up) a question I had about their test, having read the original paper in full and hopefully still having access to it. Oh well.

Based on some responses, I think my question also might have been misinterpreted, by some, as being either judgmental of you or judgmental of the journal for charging money. I didn't intend either, at all. Sorry if I worded the post poorly so that it might be misconstrued in one or both of those two ways.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-11 22:03:26
Zimmerman made 4 claims regarding differences between Strads and newer violins, and per ToS #8, one needs to prove claims of differences.


I claim that black is different from white, and I offer no evidence to back that up.  So nyah!


Also, it is my understanding that Takla only read every third word of the article plus all of those words ending with a vowel.  Takla also ran the test, participated in the test, and built nine of the voilins tested.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: db1989 on 2012-01-11 22:08:52
Totally legitimate analogy, A+++, would read again.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-11 22:14:04
Totally legitimate analogy, A+++, would read again.


Well, I was about to pop back in and make that a little less sarcastic, but maybe I should just take my A+++ and be done with it.

But I won't.

Is there anything that can be posted on the internet which is not subject to TOS#8?  Surely the plausibility of some claims is sufficiently obvious that it's not really worth challenging them.

Moreover, without some notion of how they can be tested in a scientifically valid way, what exactly is the point of demanding such a test?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Takla on 2012-01-11 22:48:24
Is there anything that can be posted on the internet which is not subject to TOS#8?


Yes, anything which is not originally posted on HA.  TOS refers to Terms Of Service, and that these TOS are specific to HA, and are meaningless to anyone who has not explicitly signed up to HA and thus accepted them. TOS is an acronym, not a talisman or holy writ.

I don't know if it's true that a 300 year old instrument takes longer to master than a new instrument, but I can see that this is not an outrageous claim, nor does it deserve derision, ridicule or unqualified dismissal.  If an acknowleged virtuoso violin player says that this is the case then he is free to do so as he likes, without reference to the TOS of a board of which he is not a member and likely totally unaware!  If the same person had claimed that capacitors or transistors or PCBs from different production runs caused different sounds, or were harder to solder, then that could be easily dismissed.  But he didn't.  He made the claim that an insrtument which  is by definition a unique object has idiosyncratic qualities.  This may or may not be true but it is certainly not an intrinsically absurd claim.  He is not subject to TOS#8, nor is he obliged or required to prove his claim, because he is not making that claim at HA and has not signed up to those Terms Of Service.  I have registered here so I have accepted those TOS.  But I have not made that claim.  What I have done is point out that the claim is not absurd or ridiculous and may be reasonable, given the peculiarities of a unique instrument, manufactured of changeable materials, of considerable age.  That noting something so simple and unambiguous as this leads to me also being ridiculed and insulted doesn't say a lot for the people claiming to be rational actors.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-12 04:07:49
Takla, you continue to miss my point, so I take it you do so deliberately.  I am quite willing to agree that it takes time to gain familiarity with an instrument.  I am quite unwilling to agree that this only applies to old instruments, much less that such selective familiarity will allow an old instrument to eventually sound better than new ones as Zimmerman implies.  Read and read these simple sentences over and over again until this sinks in.  If you post again defending how it takes time to learn how to play an old instrument I'll have to conclude that reading comprehension is something you've rejected on principle.

And Takla, do you realize that ToS #8 is hardly an invention of HA?  Does anyone here get that there is something called the scientific method and something called peer-reviewed published studies that strictly follow ToS #8 and many other requirements to establish validity of claims?  I get the impression that many of you think that ToS #8 exists for snobbish purposes.  In short, no, no one should suspend their need for ToS #8 while reading anything anywhere, nor suspend the need for reading comprehension or many other critical thinking skills.  Just because someone can post anything elsewhere doesn't mean one should suspend all forms of reasonable judgement while reading it.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-12 08:14:48
I am quite willing to agree that it takes time to gain familiarity with an instrument.  I am quite unwilling to agree that this only applies to old instruments,


It makes sense.  If there is no objective difference in the ease of playing an old or new instrument, but they are not the same, then it's reasonable to expect that if you learnt to play on a new instrument then the old one would be subjectively more difficult, and if you learnt to play on an old instrument then the new one would be subjectively more difficult.

Who learns on a Strad?

However, if an instrument can be made objectively easier to play, such that it inevitably sounded better sooner in the hands of a n00b, then you would expect that after centuries of development (centuries, FFS!) it would be the norm for new instruments.


much less that such selective familiarity will allow an old instrument to eventually sound better than new ones as Zimmerman implies.


Whether it sounded better or worse would simply be a matter of opinion.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: godrick on 2012-01-12 17:09:31
So once one learns how to play on a certain instrument, it becomes that much harder to become familiar with another?  Your "reverse learning curve" theory is fascinating.  If that makes sense to you, please stay away from sharp objects and cliffs because your sense is a bit off.

Glad to see your proof that the newer violins tested were made objectively easier to play, keeping in mind that you are contradicting your apparent belief that the old violins sound better than newer ones (implying that we have not improved or have lost our ability to make the best violins) with a claim that "centuries of development" have led to inevitable improvements in making instruments easier to play, bust somehow not better sounding.  I will completely ignore for the moment the illogic of luthiers generally focusing their expertise to make the best violins easier to play rather than making them better-sounding, but for now I will be satisfied if you prove this claim as well.  If you think the violins tested were intended for "n00bs", then I again recommend staying away from sharp objects and cliffs.

This just gets better and better...
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: botface on 2012-01-12 18:39:20
This just gets better and better...


Not from where I sit. It's just getting sillier and sillier
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-01-12 18:44:12
I am quite willing to agree that it takes time to gain familiarity with an instrument.  I am quite unwilling to agree that this only applies to old instruments, much less that such selective familiarity will allow an old instrument to eventually sound better than new ones as Zimmerman implies.


Well ... I'll give him this point:

If two instruments both require a fair bit of practice to utilize their full potential, then you are unlikely to realize the full potential of either in a 20 minutes session, and differences detected in such a short term -- if any -- might not be positively correlated to any difference in full potential experienced when a world-class musician has spent a year practicing on the instrument.

(Even garage band musicians do notice that one guitar is easier to handle than another ...)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-12 21:39:57
So once one learns how to play on a certain instrument, it becomes that much harder to become familiar with another?


That's not what I said, but I'll accept some blame for the confusion because I didn't say it either way explicitly.

Here's what I should have written:
  "if you learnt to play on a new instrument then the old one would be subjectively more difficult to play, and if you learnt to play on an old instrument then the new one would be subjectively more difficult to play."
But I did (and still do) think that that's the only sensible way to read it.


Glad to see your proof that the newer violins tested were made objectively easier to play, keeping in mind that you are contradicting your apparent belief that the old violins sound better than newer ones (implying that we have not improved or have lost our ability to make the best violins)


When have I ever asserted or implied that old violins sound better?

I said it was a matter of opinion.  In some people's opinion vinyl sounds better than CD.  That's fine, too.  You can't prove or disprove their opinion, and you'll struggle to prove that it isn't really their opinion because you can't do blind tests when the difference is demonstrably perceptible.


with a claim that "centuries of development" have led to inevitable improvements in making instruments easier to play, bust somehow not better sounding.


As above, but also, when have I ever asserted that playability improvements were inevitable?  It was one possibility out of two.  There was a condition attached, and even if that condition were met I still only asserted that it would be an expectation.


I will completely ignore for the moment the illogic of luthiers generally focusing their expertise to make the best violins easier to play rather than making them better-sounding, but for now I will be satisfied if you prove this claim as well.


I will completely ignore that I never claimed it, and reiterate that if the player of the instrument does well with that instrument then the instrument must surely sound "better" than another instrument with which they do not do so well.  Which one do you think they're going to buy?



Quote from: Porcus link=msg=0 date=
(Even garage band musicians do notice that one guitar is easier to handle than another ...)


TOS#8?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: db1989 on 2012-01-12 21:57:55
Quote from: Porcus link=msg=0 date=
(Even garage band musicians do notice that one guitar is easier to handle than another ...)

TOS#8?

Are you being serious? (It’s getting hard to tell in this thread.)

My answer? No. ToS8 applies to audible sound quality, not the ease of playing any given instrument. Are you really attempting to equate the two?

Otherwise, let me be struck down here and now for asserting with confidence that my mistreated-but-somehow-still-with-us Yamaha from a starter-pack is, for me, significantly easier to pick up and play than my criminally underused ~£900 Fender Telecaster. The action is lower; various ergonomic factors such as the type of bridge and the thinner neck make it easier to play, probably due largely to familiarity/habit; and I don’t have to worry about damaging it (any further). So my technique might be slightly better (albeit still very limited, mind you!) on the former. However, it will almost definitely sound worse as an instrument. Porcus sort of covered this in the same post whose remainder you ignored.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Gumboot on 2012-01-12 22:10:34
Are you being serious? (It’s getting hard to tell in this thread.)


No, strictly trolling.


Porcus sort of covered this in the same post whose remainder you ignored.


You mean the bit that says what I've been saying over and over again?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: db1989 on 2012-01-12 22:19:36
My bad—I’m tired too many words hurt poor brain.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: knutinh on 2012-05-16 11:09:16
If it takes one year of practice to appreciate the qualities of one instrument, and learning a new one will "unlearn" the appreciation of the previous one, then what does this tell us about the instruments that expert players use and advocate?

It would mean that most people owning and loving a Stradivarius have little idea if that instrument is the right choice for them. It might be that some other instrument costing 1/10th is really "better", but if they invest the required year of burn-in, they would have to compare it to the 1-year old memory of how it used to feel like playing the Strad.

Any theory is possible, but I think that this one needs some empiry before I am ready to accept it. Is it possible to make new Violins look exactly like a Strad, to the point that any perceived difference must be in the sound and physical feel? In that case, one might ask 20 violin players to make a complete swap to an unknown brand violin for a year. Give 10 players brand A, 10 players brand B, and figure out after that year who are most happy with their instrument, who are practicing the most, who use the least amount of anti-depressiva etc.

-k
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2012-05-16 13:14:36
If it takes one year of practice to appreciate the qualities of one instrument, and learning a new one will "unlearn" the appreciation of the previous one, then what does this tell us about the instruments that expert players use and advocate?


It's complex.


Quote
It would mean that most people owning and loving a Stradivarius have little idea if that instrument is the right choice for them. It might be that some other instrument costing 1/10th is really "better", but if they invest the required year of burn-in, they would have to compare it to the 1-year old memory of how it used to feel like playing the Strad.


Could be, or not.

Quote
Any theory is possible, but I think that this one needs some empiry before I am ready to accept it. Is it possible to make new Violins look exactly like a Strad, to the point that any perceived difference must be in the sound and physical feel? In that case, one might ask 20 violin players to make a complete swap to an unknown brand violin for a year. Give 10 players brand A, 10 players brand B, and figure out after that year who are most happy with their instrument, who are practicing the most, who use the least amount of anti-depressiva etc.


Blind comparisons help reduce the number of variables that could potentially affect the outcome of the evaluation, but blind tests of certain items, even headphones, is difficult.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: DonP on 2012-05-16 14:33:24
If it takes one year of practice to appreciate the qualities of one instrument, and learning a new one will "unlearn" the appreciation of the previous one, then what does this tell us about the instruments that expert players use and advocate?

It would mean that most people owning and loving a Stradivarius have little idea if that instrument is the right choice for them. It might be that some other instrument costing 1/10th is really "better", but if they invest the required year of burn-in, they would have to compare it to the 1-year old memory of how it used to feel like playing the Strad.


Do Stradivarius (or other high prestige violin) owners typically play just the one on a regular basis?  For that matter, do the players generally own the instrument, or are they usually on loan from some patron/collector?
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: DVDdoug on 2012-05-17 21:34:23
Do Stradivarius (or other high prestige violin) owners typically play just the one on a regular basis?  For that matter, do the players generally own the instrument, or are they usually on loan from some patron/collector?
I assume most are kept in a vault, or in a highly-secure museum-like setting.  At this moment, probably only 2 or 3 are out of their vaults.  If you own a $1 million diamond, you don't wear it every day, and you can't take the Stradivarius to every practice.  You might not even use it for every performance…  Maybe only for very-special solo performances.    You can’t keep it in your closet, or lying around your music room, and you can't just grab the Strad and jump into your car, or into a taxi and drive to the concert hall without security guards.

Wikipedia has a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments#Violins) of instruments that includes ownership and location for many of them.  I would guess that most people with the means and desire to own a Stradivarius are not violinists. Or perhaps they can "play", but they don’t feel their skills do it justice.  For example, I could imagine an orchestra-conductor who knows how to play a violin, but he/she rarely if-ever performs violin in public, and he/she only takes the Stradivarius out of the vault when a master uses it to perform a very-special solo.  Or, perhaps the 3rd-violinist in the orchestra happens to own one, but it would be audacious  to play it himself/herself…

I know someone who has a grand piano in her house, but she can't play.  As far as I know, she, nor anyone in her family, plays any instrument.  It's just a beautiful piece of art (and at least once, she has hired a pianist for a party). 






Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: DonP on 2012-05-18 03:10:07
You can’t keep it in your closet, or lying around your music room, and you can't just grab the Strad and jump into your car, or into a taxi and drive to the concert hall without security guards.


Been known to happen...

Yo Yo Ma forgets stradivarius cello in cab (NY times) (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/17/nyregion/in-concert-searchers-retrieve-yo-yo-ma-s-lost-stradivarius.html)


But it does answer the issue  wrt the previous post was that a player can be "used to" more than one instrument at a time.
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: knutinh on 2012-05-18 10:27:52
Do Stradivarius (or other high prestige violin) owners typically play just the one on a regular basis?  For that matter, do the players generally own the instrument, or are they usually on loan from some patron/collector?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truls_Mørk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truls_Mørk)
Quote
At present, Mørk is large in the international concert scene. His extensive discography spans from a Grammy-award-winning recording of the Shostakovich Cello Concertos to a critically acclaimed[citation needed] recording of Bach's Suites for Solo Cello.
...
Mørk plays a rare Domenico Montagnana cello (Venice, 1723), the scroll of which was made by Stradivarius. Valued at around 12 million NOK it once belonged to a Belgian gentleman who named it the "Esquire". It was bought by a bank in Norway (SR Bank), and is on loan to him.[1]


I believe that concert pianists (or players of pipe organs) do not usually bring their own instrument. Accordingly, they may not have 1 year of playing experience on one particular instrument before using it a concert or in a recording, although:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinway#.22Piano_bank.22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinway#.22Piano_bank.22)
Quote
Steinway maintains a "piano bank" from which performing pianists, especially Steinway Artists, can select a Steinway piano for use in a certain concert, recording or tour.[113] The idea is to provide a consistent pool of Steinway pianos with various characteristics for performing pianists' individual touch and tonal preferences. Performing artists choose a piano for use at a certain venue after trying some of the pianos of the "piano bank".
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: knutinh on 2012-05-18 10:58:35
If it takes one year of practice to appreciate the qualities of one instrument, and learning a new one will "unlearn" the appreciation of the previous one...

It's complex.
...
Could be, or not.
...
Blind comparisons help reduce the number of variables that could potentially affect the outcome of the evaluation, but blind tests of certain items, even headphones, is difficult.

Then I would be tempted to compress this topic:
"It has proven difficult to show audible/tactile benefits of certain vintage high-quality violins vs certain recent high-quality violins using short-span blind testing. More elaborate long-term testing may or may not return different results, but we have no indication that they will."

-k
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-05-25 16:22:40
Well, if violinists cannot identify the Stradivari, then bankers might of course be prone to placebo as well

http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...d-a-832274.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-case-of-disgraced-stradivari-dealer-dietmar-machold-a-832274.html)
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: mzil on 2012-05-25 17:51:40
^That was interesting.
---

To all: See if you can hear which is "darker" or "more feminine", as the French violinist Renaud Capuçon mentions in the audio clip at the top of this link (http://www.wqxr.org/#!/articles/wqxr-features/2010/sep/13/stradivari-vs-guarneri-expert-explains-difference/).

30 second samples Strad (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=74525#samples)

30 second samples Guarneri (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Namedrill?name_id1=6605&name_role1=1&name_id2=49886&name_role2=2&bcorder=21&comp_id=712)

True, not a completely fair "apples to apples" comparison, as the article mentions, but still I thought it might be fun to compare, even if not scientifically valid.

The article mentions Guaneris are signed by the maker, does anyone know if this is also true of Strads?

[I hope providing the links in this post is acceptable, instead of creating a second one. I'll be glad to fix that, if need be.]
Title: Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins
Post by: Porcus on 2012-11-19 15:58:21
Well, if violinists cannot identify the Stradivari, then bankers might of course be prone to placebo as well

http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...d-a-832274.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-case-of-disgraced-stradivari-dealer-dietmar-machold-a-832274.html)


Conviction time:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...us-8301364.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dietmar-machold-the-renowned-violin-dealer-who-duped-clients-with-fake-stradivarius-8301364.html)
http://www.theworld.org/2012/11/violin-machold-convicted/ (http://www.theworld.org/2012/11/violin-machold-convicted/)