In the current (May 13th-19th, 2017) edition of the Economist there is a short piece entitled "Violins" that I want to bring to your attention. It is about new violins and old violins, specifically Cremonese (Guarneri, Stradivari, Amati) vs. Joseph Curtin (modern violin maker in Michigan). With Dr. Claudia Fritz of the University of Paris, presiding, experiments were held in Paris and New York that proved to the majority of both musicians and listeners (other musicians, critics, composers etc.) that new fiddles out performed old ones. There were some sort of goggles used so that the players could not tell what instrument they were playing. The audience was also prevented from seeing the instruments somehow. All this done without inhibiting sound transmission. Both solo and orchestrated works were performed. You can read the whole story in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And this is only the latest evidence of this apparent reality, as according to the article, similar experiments have reached similar conclusions prior to this. The article concluded with the observation that these results notwithstanding, world class players are not about to give up their preference for their Cremonese fiddles.
This reminds me very much of some of our dilemmas and debates such as the ever popular: analog vs. digital, tube vs. transistor, and subjective listening vs. measured performance parameters. If it has taken a couple of hundred years and counting for the debate on fiddles to remain unresolved, what hope have we to ever reach resolutions to some of our most cherished and strongly held preferences? This is asked while hugging my turntables and tube electronics.
Hi Jeff, Cables and power cords for all my c-j electronics are Audio Sensitivity, Silver Statement on the cables. Steve at Audio Sensitivity sent me a bunch of different grades of cables and cords to try with return privilege. The owner is Steve and they are located in Ontario. Tubes for the GAT are critical and I buy them from c-j, they are Philips PCC88, but they are not ordinary PCC88s. They are screened and matched, hand selected. The small tubes on my ART150 are also PCC88, but they are marked, separate and cost less than the ones for the GAT. Even though c-j charges more for tubes, in the end they last longer and are more cost effective.
Dear @billstevenson : Your thread title and against the tests on the new/old violins tell us that " Audiophiles are alone " and not what you stated or assumed.
Those tests can't tell us ( even if the conclusions were the other way around. ) that tube or analog are better than digital or SS. There is no way to prove your " take " for audio. Especially when the target is stay " truer to the recording ".
On another point.....break in... When we get a new something, it sometimes takes months for it to sound its best. The same is true for a violin. I have one that looks a lot like a Guarneri, though with lots of inspection from New York luthiers it most likely was made in Germany around the 40's.... Anyway, it sounded disappointing when I first got it, but is now (after 30 or so years of performing) is revealing great strength and sweetness.
Of course some tests could produce positive results. But not all things tested necessarily produce any positive results. Positive results can be considered as evidence. But negative results are different - because of all the things that can go wrong with the test. At the end of the day there should be a number of tests performed, not just one test by one person. Then analyze the data. If most of the test results are positive you can usually disregard the negative results. They’re outliers. Or you might conclude tests are inconclusive.
The reasons why they were negative might had to do with how the test was performed, was system related or it was something to do with the person who did the test. Of course some things like a placebo should test negative.
Furthermore, there is the issue of HOW GOOD positive results are. This varies from test to test and person to person, system to system. For some people the results may be jaw dropping, for others it might be a big yawn. One should refrain from making blanket statements or drawing too many conclusions from a single test, especially if it’s results are negative.
The point is if the test results are negative they don’t mean anything. Just like any test. I’m not sure I can say it any plainer. I don’t care who performs the test or how perfect or ideal the protocols are. If the results are negative I say throw them out!
is there really such a thing as a proper double blind test?
Yes, I think so. But it must be properly set up and conducted. Even then, its results can at best only reflect the results of the test. Correlating those results to actual listening conditions is another matter entirely.
For example, it is common to read that a listener has "failed the test" if he could not distinguish between two different cables, or amplifiers (or whatever) in a double blind test, such as an abx test. But the listener has not failed at all. Indeed, the listener is not even being tested. What's being tested are the two components that are the subject of the test. In this example, you could only conclude that the listener could not distinguish between the two components in the blind test.
1. Fourier Analysis 2. From the days of Pharaohnic Egypt, it has been accepted that mathematical analysis informs the real world. 3. As I mentioned before, an engineering solution has a basis in fact or theory. Something with neither is a contraption. 4. This is rather far from the OP, so I am signing off with this.
>>>>Look how far mathematical analysis got the Egyptians.
1. Fourier Analysis 2. From the days of Pharaohnic Egypt, it has been accepted that mathematical analysis informs the real world. 3. As I mentioned before, an engineering solution has a basis in fact or theory. Something with neither is a contraption. 4. This is rather far from the OP, so I am signing off with this.
cleeds geoffkait Well, actually you can fool blind tests. Blind tests can give misleading or just plain wrong results just like any other type of test. Operator error, mistake in the system, maybe the listener has a cold ...
Absolutely true. And establishing a proper double-blind test is more difficult than it might appear. If the test isn't properly conducted, then obviously the results aren't valid.
Blind testing has great value to designers and manufacturers. To end-user audiophiles, not so much.
>>>>is there really such a thing as a proper double blind test? The one The Amazing Randi administered involved many protocols including having to pick the correct thing under test 10 consecutive times. There were other constraints as well, sometimes negotiable, such as when and where the test would take place and how many people would participate and WHAT SYSTEM would be used for the test.
So the original post was trying to make a correlation between a subjective study at best and music reproduction. I guess based on new vs old.
So in the case of a violin who defines good. Is it the sq root of 4x??? Is it feel of the wood. Is it the tone. Is it the volume??? Who's subjective opinion get to be the objective best. Maybe if the composers were not mostly dead , they could get us closer to the sound they had envisioned.
The other problem is just because someone can play back classical music does not make them Miles Davis. And even then Miles liked to make his horn sound like a human voice. The variables are endless. You can not reach perfection if you do not know what it is.
Now to try to go from I like the new violin better to digital vs vinyl or tubes vs transistors, is one giant leap. Now we can at least take the subjective opinion out of the equation somewhat. The tenor sax should not sound like a alto sax. The grand piano should not sound like it was plugged into a amp. The biggest issue here is that we where not in the studio when they made the reference.
So if there is any moral to the story when it comes to music, you have to listen and feel it to know. Yes there are people with perfect pitch and others who are tone deaf but even the tone deaf souls should get what floats their boat. So good luck with the numbers and the marketing. If you want something great you will have to experiment and listen listen listen...
Well, actually you can fool blind
tests. Blind tests can give misleading or just plain wrong results just
like any other type of test. Operator error, mistake in the system,
maybe the listener has a cold ...
Absolutely true. And establishing a proper double-blind test is more difficult than it might appear. If the test isn't properly conducted, then obviously the results aren't valid.
Blind testing has great value to designers and manufacturers. To end-user audiophiles, not so much.
jssmith You can’t fool blind results. Take your biases and other senses out of the equation and you’re left with just the sound. Blind tests have saved me a lot of money over the years.
Well, actually you can fool blind tests. Blind tests can give misleading or just plain wrong results just like any other type of test. Operator error, mistake in the system, maybe the listener has a cold, who knows? This is especially true when there are relatively small differences between devices under test.
You can't fool blind results. Take your biases and other senses out of the equation and you're left with just the sound. Blind tests have saved me a lot of money over the years.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My opinions are as follows.
1. Shannon’s Sampling Theorem (there is only one of these), is good mathematics. It cleans up the wooly thinking surrounding ideas first propounded by Nyqvist.
2. Shannon’s Sampling Theorem does not apply to digital media. It’s ’application’ to digital media is pseudo-mathematics. The theorem does not apply, however much digital proponents claim otherwise. One has only to read the theorem - but then again, that presupposes quite a lot of advanced calculus. (Hint: examine the premises carefully.)
>>>>Well, that begs the question, what mathematical theory or theorem do you think does apply to digital media? And why do you think it’s necessary to backfit ANY mathematical theorem to try to explain or substantiate mathematically digital media? Doesn’t digital processing speak for itself?
I don’t agree, Bill. I can easily imagine a situation in which one could get more from simple instruments than complex and refined ones, at least at first acquaintance.
For example, lots of people can immediately keep time with a drum. Getting music from a cello, however, is a longer term proposition. For quite a while, the drum will sound better. Similar considerations apply to Detroit sedans vs jet aircraft.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My opinions are as follows.
1. Shannon's Sampling Theorem (there is only one of these), is good mathematics. It cleans up the wooly thinking surrounding ideas first propounded by Nyqvist.
2. Shannon's Sampling Theorem does not apply to digital media. It's 'application' to digital media is pseudo-mathematics. The theorem does not apply, however much digital proponents claim otherwise. One has only to read the theorem - but then again, that presupposes quite a lot of advanced calculus. (Hint: examine the premises carefully.)
Dear @billstevenson , @frogman , @lewm , @jollytinker and friends: We differ in opinion because we are taking personal assumptions that just don't count against the study results.
To can give a useful contribution on the subject we need to know first than all the premises and targets that were the foundation of the violin tests study and that's why I post/paste here for everyone can read it and stay in the same " channel ". I repeat, these are the premises and targets and we don't have the " rigth " to change those premises or targets and if we want it then that could be for other study but not this one:
:
""" Significance
Some studies open new fields for investigation; this study attempts to close a perennially fruitless one—the search for the “secrets of Stradivari.” Great efforts have been made to explain why instruments by Stradivari and other Old Italian makers sound better than high-quality new violins, but without providing scientific evidence that this is in fact the case. Doing so requires that experienced violinists demonstrate (under double-blind conditions) both a general preference for Old Italian violins and the ability to reliably distinguish them from new ones. The current study, the second of its kind, again shows that first-rate soloists tend to prefer new instruments and are unable to distinguish old from new at better than chance levels.
Abstract
Many researchers have sought explanations for the purported tonal superiority of Old Italian violins by investigating varnish and wood properties, plate tuning systems, and the spectral balance of the radiated sound. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has been investigated scientifically only once very recently, and results showed a general preference for new violins and that players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old. The study was, however, relatively small in terms of the number of violins tested (six), the time allotted to each player (an hour), and the size of the test space (a hotel room). In this study, 10 renowned soloists each blind-tested six Old Italian violins (including five by Stradivari) and six new during two 75-min sessions—the first in a rehearsal room, the second in a 300-seat concert hall. When asked to choose a violin to replace their own for a hypothetical concert tour, 6 of the 10 soloists chose a new instrument. A single new violin was easily the most-preferred of the 12. On average, soloists rated their favorite new violins more highly than their favorite old for playability, articulation, and projection, and at least equal to old in terms of timbre. Soloists failed to distinguish new from old at better than chance levels. These results confirm and extend those of the earlier study and present a striking challenge to near-canonical beliefs about Old Italian violins.
The violins of Stradivari, Guarneri “del Gesu,” and other Italian makers of the 17th and 18th centuries are widely believed to possess playing qualities that are both immediately discernable to experienced players and not found in new instruments. Over the past two centuries, numerous playing and listening tests have challenged this belief by pitting new violins against old . Although results often favored new instruments, the tests typically lacked sufficient rigor for the results to stand as scientific evidence.
It is only recently that well-controlled studies of player preference have appeared in the literature . In a 2010 double-blind test held in a hotel room at the International Violin Competition of Indianapolis, 21 experienced violinists compared three new violins with two by Stradivari and one by Guarneri del Gesu. Results showed that the most-preferred violin was new, the least-preferred was by Stradivari, and players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old. However, the small number of violins and brief evaluation periods (less than an hour for each player) left many questions unanswered, the most obvious being whether results would hold with a larger set of test violins, a different group of players, longer evaluation periods, and more true-to-life test conditions.
Although the Indianapolis study focused on player preferences, violin quality can be judged from several other relevant points of view—including those of listeners, colleagues in an ensemble, recording engineers, and orchestral conductors. There is no a priori reason to assume that all should agree or that one party’s preference is more “correct” than the other. For example, a violinist might prefer an instrument that is the easiest or most inspiring to play whereas listeners choose another because it carries better in a hall.
That said, violinists have at least two advantages over their audiences when evaluating instruments. They are inside a feedback loop and so base their judgments upon interaction rather than passive listening. They are also very close to the instrument, where its sound is most intense and least colored by room modes. And, in the end, it is violinists who choose their instruments and whose judgments are therefore most consequential.
The current study was designed to retest the Indianapolis findings with a larger number of violins and then explore how well judgments carry from a small venue to a larger one. Whereas the Indianapolis study relied on 21 players of various levels, this study concentrated on the judgments of 10 renowned soloists. Blind tests were conducted in both a small rehearsal room and a concert hall, with the option of piano accompaniment and listener feedback in the latter.
Materials and MethodsThe Team:
Although it is unusual to describe the team, given the nature of this experiment, we believe it important to provide some details. Designing an ecologically valid experiment that answers questions relevant to the violin world requires a variety of experts with differing interests. The team thus included several scientists, a violin maker and researcher who builds and sells new violins, a violin soloist who owns and plays an Old Italian violin, a professional violist and instrument dealer who owns several Old Italian instruments, and a string engineer and amateur violinist who owns and plays an Old Italian violin.
General Design:
The experiment was designed around the hypothetical premise that each soloist was looking for a violin to replace his or her own instrument for an upcoming solo tour. Tests were structured to emulate as far as possible the way a player might do this search in real life. Typically, a number of instruments are informally tested at a violin shop; then one or more are taken away for testing in other contexts—almost certainly including a concert hall, with one or more colleagues present to give feedback. We decided to allow the soloists the greatest possible freedom to test instruments as each saw fit, believing this freedom would give the most meaningful results—as opposed to standardizing interactions between players and test instruments (e.g., by requiring players to spend the same amount of time with each instrument, or to play the same musical excerpts on each), which would however have the advantage of eliminating some variables.
We believed that 12 violins (6 old, 6 new) would allow a nice variety of instruments, yet still be manageable for the players. In a real-life situation, players would rarely be presented with so many instruments at once, but in the authors’ experience, players tend to quickly eliminate instruments they find unsuitable, then spend more time on those that seem a better fit. We polled nine soloists (by means of a questionnaire sent before the experiment) about the time needed to comfortably evaluate instruments within the context of the experiment (i.e., choosing from among 12 violins a replacement for their own for an upcoming tour). Their average estimate was 50 min, with a SD of 30 min.
In light of this average estimate, each soloist was scheduled for a pair of 75-min sessions, each held on a different day in a different venue . Before each session, soloists were given written instructions . After their first session, they were interviewed; after the second, they answered a brief questionnaire.
When testing violins in real life, players typically use their own bows, which through constant use have become, in effect, extensions of their right arms (5). We therefore asked the soloists to use the bow they normally played and to use that same bow throughout the study. We are aware that the choice of bow may affect the perceived quality of a violin and so introduce an unconstrained variable—but so too would asking all players to use a single, unfamiliar bow. To facilitate testing, we provided players who used shoulder rests with additional ones of the same model.
During both sessions, soloists wore modified welders’ goggles, which together with much-reduced ambient lighting made it impossible to identify instruments by eye. The fact that the new violins had been antiqued helped eliminate any tactile clues to age, such as unworn corners and edges. It was proposed that a dab of scent be placed under the chinrest of each violin to mask any distinctive smells. This idea was, however, deemed unacceptable by those responsible for the condition of the old violins, who felt the essential oil might possibly infiltrate the varnish. However, no distinctive smells were detected by the authors, nor were any reported by participants.
Two of the authors (C.F. and I.W.) were present during the sessions; they made notes of the subjects’ comments but responded only to confirm what had been said and to move players from one task to the next. The researchers were seated behind the players and, in any case, were scarcely visible to subjects, given the dim light and goggles.
A large, back-lit timer helped participants keep track of the time.
Test Instruments:
A pool of 15 new and 9 Old Italian violins was assembled by the authors. The new violins (none of which were used in the Indianapolis experiment) were built by professional makers in Europe and North America and were between several days and two decades old. Makers were invited to submit only instruments that were “antiqued” (i.e., made to resemble old instruments). The makers agreed not to publicize their involvement in the experiment and were aware they would never know whether their instrument had been included in the set of 12 test violins. Old violins in the pool included 2 by Guarneri del Gesu (both made after 1740), 6 by Stradivari, and 1 by another well-known 18th century Italian master. None of these violins belonged to or were played by the invited soloists. All were loaned on condition that their identity remain confidential (thus, the very general descriptions used throughout this paper).
It was assumed that the parties who loaned instruments had an interest in them sounding their best and so had them set up and adjusted accordingly. All violins were therefore kept in the exact condition in which they were received. This condition was monitored throughout the study by separate “guardians”—J.C. for new violins and T.G. for old. Other than a slight buzz that developed with one of the new instruments and the replacement of a reportedly uncomfortable chinrest on one old violin, none of the instruments presented problems, nor did any soloists report difficulties with setup or adjustment.
Six old and 6 new violins were selected from the pool by means of informal blind tests designed to eliminate instruments with the least impressive playing qualities . Just which instruments were included in the final 12 was not revealed to the makers, dealers, collectors, and players who submitted them. None of the test instruments were unusual in terms of size, proportions, or setup. Although not all had the same strings, all had very typical combinations of a steel E-string and metal-wound synthetic-core lower strings.
Venues:
The experiment took place at two locations, both on the outskirts of Paris, France. The first was the home of a family of professional string players. The room used was one favored for rehearsals and individual practice. The second was a 300-seat concert hall, well-regarded for its acoustics. An acoustically transparent screen was installed between the stage and the seats, where a small, varying audience included at times soloists not currently involved in a test, authors other than C.F. and I.W., and a few interested outsiders.
Violinists:
Whereas the Indianapolis study involved players of varying levels, including soloists, orchestral players, and amateurs, this study involved only soloists. Although the preferences of players at all levels is potentially interesting, the preferences of soloists were felt to be most important for our purposes due to their high playing standards under widely varying conditions and their (typically) broad experience playing top-quality violins. We also considered the common belief that it takes a top player to “get the most” out of an instrument, especially in terms of projection. And there is the fact that the real-life choices of soloists have been very important in forming the reputations of individual violin makers, past and present. To give the experiment maximum credibility, we tried to choose internationally known soloists and/or those who had won major international competitions.
Time constraints limited the number of players we could work with. The old instruments were available for just a few days, and the auditorium for a day and a half. Considering the estimated time (50 min on average; see required by soloists to choose a single favorite violin from a set of twelve, we judged that giving more time to fewer players would lead to more reliable judgments than would the converse.
In the end, 10 soloists were invited, along with an eleventh who participated in the final session only. Ranging in age from 20 to 62, their combined awards included Avery Fisher career grants (2) and first prizes in the Tchaikovsky (2), Sibelius (1), Paganini (1), and Long-Thibaud (3) competitions, along with many other lesser awards, including a silver medal at the Queen Elizabeth Competition.
Although 10 soloists may seem a relatively small number, it should be remembered that the world population of players at this level is not large—indeed, the combined number of first prizes awarded in the above competitions in the past 50 y is about 90. Given our selection process, however, the 10 soloists can hardly be regarded as a random sampling of this population, and we have no information on how and to what extent they might differ from it. Consequently, in this paper, we consider those 10 individuals as our population of interest and limit ourselves to descriptive statistics (i.e., avoiding confidence intervals and significance tests).
Two of the soloists regularly play new instruments but have in the past played extensively on violins by Stradivari and/or Guarneri del Gesu. A third soloist, who owns and performs on both a Guarneri del Gesu and new violins, came to the experiment with a new instrument. The other seven soloists play old violins—including instruments by Carlo Bergonzi, Gagliano, Gobetti, Guarneri del Gesu, Storioni, and Vuillaume.
Soloists were given no information about the test instruments although the publicity generated by an earlier study (1) may well have led them to expect a comparison between new and old. """
That we like it the results or not it does not change the result of those tests where the prefered violins were the new ones. Btw, no audience/listeners participated only the very well regarded soloists.
Try to diminish the results ( as some of you are doing. ) needs another different study that can proves that that one is wrong and not only opinions.
+1 bill. Why doesn't it take listeners months to train their ear to hear the superiority of the expensive violins. I suspect that it's because they "know" that they are listening to a superior instrument. Put a blindfold on and the superiority of the expensive instrument is not so easily heard.
I have no axe to grind in this discussion one way or the other and made my principle point in the opening post. But I must take exception to the contention that the results of the comparison do not provide useful insight. Let me summarize my understanding of the basic argument that the results prove nothing. First, the player is not familiar with the instrument, that it takes months and long hours of practice and familiarization to acquaint oneself with the instrument before optimal musical realization could be expected. Second, that each instrument, even from the same maker, is unique and that some are more suited for certain musical performance than others. In fact some are better than others even from the same maker. Finally there are the artists themselves, and what they need or want in terms of feel and so on from their preferred instrument. For these reasons, it is argued that simply picking up an instrument and playing it for an hour or so in comparison to another proves nothing. Have I got that right? If so, then it should be obvious, without need to refute the validity of any of those points, they would be equally valid for both instruments and for all participants. That is, for both the performers and for the audience. So, if the initial impression is that the new violins out performed to old ones in general for all concerned after only an hour or so of play, that it could be reasonably assumed that the new violins would also out perform the older ones, but by an even wider margin, after months of familiarization.
That this evaluation is subjective and not measurable is axiomatic. Music is subjective and there is much that we don't know and can't measure at the current state of the art. That does not mean that differences in sonics cannot be discerned by music lovers of all ages and abilities.
On the issue of "key points": the study is questionable because its methods are based on the faulty assumption that playing the violin is a simple, mechanical process. The trouble, as Frogman pointed out, is that it takes a lot of time and adjustment for any player to get the best sound out of a particular instrument. I also imagine it’s easier to do so with a new instrument that isn’t as ’fussy’ and isn’t hyper-controlled by the foundation that owns it. That means that the methodology of this study has a bias towards modern instruments.
I would also add that the same thing goes for hearing. Discerning the differences between these instruments is a process of learning and adjusting over time, and that isn’t possible within the terms of this study. So Lewm is right when he says that the study produces no "hard data." It only shows that a few people had a few subjective reactions to a few particular violins. there’s nothing generalizable about that information.
Terry, why on Earth would you think Shannon’s theorem is pseudo science or pseudo mathematics? Besides the Shannon sampling theorem does actually apply to digital signals. There is more than one Shannon theorem. Aren’t you totally on board the perfect sound forever train?
Terry ....pseudo-science, the OP refers to another pet peeve, digital audio, which is often justified with pseudo-mathematics. For example, to see that the Shannon Information Theorem does not actually apply to digital media, one has only to read that theorem. (Hint: inspect the premises.)
Whoa! Back up! Beep, beep! Shannon's Theorem? When was that ever used to justify digital audio? Why would you think it needs to be justified?
Thank you rcprince and frogman. You have explained why the so-called 'scientific' test was probably not, in fact, scientific.
Science is a method of knowing, and it requires not only a knowledge of scientific practice, but of the subject matter (in this case, violins and violinists and institutional owners of violins).
And just like this research appears to be pseudo-science, the OP refers to another pet peeve, digital audio, which is often justified with pseudo-mathematics. For example, to see that the Shannon Information Theorem does not actually apply to digital media, one has only to read that theorem. (Hint: inspect the premises.)
It seems to me that anyone who claims that a violin is worth millions because of its superior sound should be able to identify it with a blindfold (or goggles) on. I just don't understand the absolute resistance to blind tests. It seriously weakens their case.
Raul, I am not a violinist; but, that is not important. What is important is that, from my vantage point, you seem to be choosing to argue points that are not really the key points here. No time right now to address some of your retorts, and frankly I'm not sure that it would be productive to do so. In the meantime, and the reason that I wonder if it would be productive is, for starters. that there is such a wide gap in our respective understanding of what "the magic" means IN THIS CONTEXT. Regards.
rcprince, I have heard that more than once. In my case the other players were not drowned out at all, her husband, a Dane, played a fine Steinway, her sister, the the cello player and another Korean tiger, had a great sound as well. I think I was just closer to the violinist . It must be something in the water in Korea , we have 3-4 Korean players in our world-class St. Paul CO and they are beyond good. Gil the Great played the Mendelssohn here and as soon as it ended he made a bee-line straight to the Korean violist and shook her hand like crazy .
I did have a similar thing happen a few years ago down in Rochester(MN) with local talent playing Brahms . All the Quartet players were up to it but the cello played has such a fine instrument it made the whole very hard to listen to . Talked to her for a minute after, didn't ask about the instrument. but learned she was a Eastman grad, turned Doc at Mayo .
Schubert, the Guarneri del Jesu that I did the deal on had previously been owned by a man who sold it to a dealer because it had too big a sound for the string quartet in which he played--he needed an instrument that would blend better with those of his compatriots. I had a similar experience hearing Sarah Chang play the Bach concerto for two violins with a smaller local orchestra, her violin (also a Guarneri del Jesu) made the concertmaster's (the other soloist) violin sound weak and anemic in comparison, though it too was a fine instrument.
Dear @frogman : """
tests and in the reporting of the methadology and results there are other issues that are often not reported.... """
other that the players that were in all those tests no one can say what you posted. You are only assuming that with out any single prove other that your words that for me in this case has a little minor level that the ones coming from the players/soloists.
For your post is clear you are " biased " through what you name " magic ".
Results says other things and NO a kind of tests like this can't be takes months or weeks to do it because is a double-blind test where those players just do not know which violin are playing. Even the tests were with ligth at very low shine effect to impede identification.
I respect your opinion but mine is diferent, You say that " mood " moment in a player does not affects the player performance, well that's what you said where I think that some way or the other it affects. You can't prove your opinion only because you are a violin player. No, I can't prove my opinion neither.
There are other similar tests in that site and I choose this one because in my opinion was the more complete that under the tests scenario conditions exist no " magic " but preference for the new instruments with no-biased soloists/players.
Have you many doubts about?, ask them through the tests leaders. These people seems/look to me are non-biased through the new or old instruments. Why should them be that way? and I'm refering to the National Academy of Sciences USA.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
@lewm : hard data? which one are you looking for?, come on.
To respond to Raul's challenge way up this thread, after my post stating that the article in the Economist is based on subjective judgement, not "scientific" proof. Raul, I didn't "expect" anything; I was merely pointing out the fact that the article recounts a group experience that produced opinions, not hard data. I don't at all deny the possibility that the best new violins may sound "better", to a room full of expert listeners, than a Strad. Also, many expert players and listeners remark about how different one violin can sound from another, even two violins made by Stradivarius.
Isn't it possible that after centuries have gone by the Strads and the Guarneris are growing more different from one another, because of differential effects of aging and environmental effects? Whereas brand new violins, the best ones, may sound much more alike if from the same maker, because their characteristics have had less time to diverge. Thus it would not so much matter if one compares any Strad to a top quality new instrument, but it matters more to compare a known "great" Strad (or Guarneri) to a top quality new instrument. By the way, I have never heard any other violin sound like any violin played by Heifetz.
I was in a small hall in a small town in Wisconsin listening to a fine touring trio "Trio Copenhagen" playing the Ravel. I was no more than 20 feet away from the violinist , one of the Korean wonders , and her sound overwhelmed me and I do mean overwhelmed me, as in I was shaking . And I’ve been to a lot of concerts . Had a little meet and greet after and I asked her what kind of violin do you have? She was obviously tired from the tour and she said just one word , Guarneri . I believe the Creator blew his breath upon that instrument .
Almost everything recorded by Heifetz was played with a Guarneri. Anyone can hear what a Guarneri sounds like, but IMHO you’ll be much more likely to hear how that violin really sounds on vinyl or tape.
So recently I walked into a violin shop in downtown Boston, just as the proprietor was playing a violin. The instrument belonged to a customer and I couldn't help but notice that the sound was unusually powerful, as if there was a freight train moving towards me from across the room. I didn't even notice it at first - the feeling hit me unconsciously and then gradually worked its way into my (sometimes dim) awareness.
I poked around the shop for a while as the proprietor talked about violin strings with his customer, and then I went outside to feed the parking meter. When I came back in the owner and the violin were gone. I said to the proprietor, "that was a nice violin you were playing." He gave me an impish grin and said, "Guarneri."
For what it's worth, I heard that violin with a completely blank slate, no expectations whatsoever. I won't say that it's impossible for a modern violin to approach that sound (I doubt that's true) but I will say that the sound of that violin was unlike anything I've heard before or since. And I've heard a lot of fiddles....
Agreed, which is to say that obsessive compulsive behavior and dissecting differences often misses the point to folks that might stare in wonderment as to "why can't they just see the forest and enjoy it for what it is? Oh that's right, too many trees in the way, just another perspective but not from those that truly appreciate and discern what makes something truly special, if not for everyone at least for them. Great post Frogman, as always.
As Shakespeare said in Hamlet , "There are more things in heaven and earth ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy" .
Studies like this are conducted by people who think we can know everything, we can’t . Some things are just a mystery and that’s that and is as it should be .
Abnerjack, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. The whole point of the discussion is the older instruments are NOT preferred, at least in tests with trained musicians. Hel-loo! Note to self: Why hasn’t anyone mentioned expectation bias?
I suppose there is no answer as to why these wonderful old instruments are preferred, but I have read that some think that the passage of time somehow imbues these pieces with that something extra. Or maybe the design or craftsmanship is superior?
+1 to the Frogman's post. Having been involved as a trustee (and audience member) for years with that orchestra he's referring to, and having also been intimately involved with the financing and leasing of one of these instruments for a prominent US concert violinist and having spoken with him on numerous occasions as to what about the instrument made it different to him and worth going after, I can attest to everything Frogman is saying, and there is little that I could add to it.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
