Strad sound is the varnish?

[Bob]

and not the little ice age?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/study-confirms-superior-sound-of-a-stradivari-is-due-to-the-varnish/

[lelle]

I have heard of this before, neat to find that a study confirms it. Now we just need a couple of more studies to reproduce the same result, and it might be considered settled.

[timothy42b]

No, it's in the bracing.

No, wait, it's in the closed cells of the wood because of how it aged before being used, rather than open cells like today.

No, wait, it turns out in blind tests there is no difference........

No, wait............

There have been a lot of articles purporting to have found the difference.  Meanwhile in the most carefully designed experiments most people can't identify the strad anyway.  Hmm.

Musicians are superstitious people.  But at least we're doing something worthwhile.

[goldentone]

There have been a lot of articles purporting to have found the difference.  Meanwhile in the most carefully designed experiments most people can't identify the strad anyway.  Hmm.

Yes, I saw that article.  And it was musicians that couldn't tell the difference.

[emill]

An MIT study says:
"The researchers found that a key feature affecting a violin’s sound is the shape and length of its “f-holes,” the f-shaped openings through which air escapes: The more elongated these are, the more sound a violin can produce. What’s more, an elongated sound hole takes up little space on the violin, while still producing a full sound — a design that the researchers found to be more power-efficient than the rounder sound holes of the violin’s ancestors, such as medieval fiddles, lyres, and rebecs."

https://news.mit.edu/2015/violin-acoustic-power-0210

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/science-stradivarius-researchers-sound-depths-violin-design-n304686

[timothy42b]

News flash:  when geese migrate, they fly in a Vee shape, and one side is always longer than the other.  Aeronautical engineers have studied this for years, and the reason has finally been identified:
*
*
*
*
*
*
8\
*
*
There are more geese on that side.

[keypeg]

Meanwhile in the most carefully designed experiments most people can't identify the strad anyway.  Hmm.

I just read through one of those studies, and could not find the pertinent information I was looking for.
- In regard to the old instruments that were brought out, how long had they remained unplayed?   The tonewood of a violin "opens up" from the vibrations of being played, and "closes down" again when not played.   If you take two identical violins, and one is played - esp. well (consistently in tune while well tuned) over a few months, and the other one isn't, the unplayed one will sound comparatively disappointing.
-  same question for the new and newish violins
- If the old tuning had a lower A, and the modern tuning has a higher A, would the way the tonewood shaped itself make a difference if it is now being played to a higher A?
- I assume that all violins were given the same brand and quality of strings. Those strings would take time to settle in, so wereh they continually retuned for a week while the strings settled?

So was this actually carefully thought through - with the input of violinists?  Or were important elements left out?

The article also talks about the "superiority" of Stradivarius violins.   The violinists I've talked to have said that this is a myth, and some strads were amazing, and some could be right duds.

[Bob]

You can't use "most people" though or even "most musicians."  It would have to be someone who can actually tell, or at least someone who can tell for a string/violin instrument.  It sounds like those people can't though, which sounds like a positive.  I always though if people could tell but it couldn't be measured, then it it just meant the measurement tool wasn't measuring the right thing or wasn't good enough.

I've heard of something similar with cryogenically freezing brass instruments, but in that case, there were people who could tell the difference between frozen and not frozen by sound and by playing the instrument.

[keypeg]

You can't use "most people" though or even "most musicians."  It would have to be someone who can actually tell, or at least someone who can tell for a string/violin instrument.
[/quote
I pointed out that an instrument that hasn't been played, or that has not been played for a long time, does not have its full sound.   A violinist will know this, but scientists creating the experiment would not.  If this was not taken into account, then the entire experiment was flawed.

It's like if you want to test which wine glasses have the most clear sound when tapped, but you stuff some of them with kleenexes.  Not being played for long enough beforehand is like stuffing with kleenexes.

[timothy42b]

It's like if you want to test which wine glasses have the most clear sound when tapped, but you stuff some of them with kleenexes.  Not being played for long enough beforehand is like stuffing with kleenexes.

That sounds logical, and I'm sure we have a huge body of anecdotal evidence from violinists that they can hear the difference. 

But do we have any actual well designed experimental evidence that they can in fact reliably hear the difference?  There are a large number of similar claims where the difference disappears when experiments control well for the other variables.

[keypeg]

That sounds logical, and I'm sure we have a huge body of anecdotal evidence from violinists that they can hear the difference. 

But if the violins have not been properly primed, then they will sound nasally because of that lack of priming.  By priming I mean that they need to be "played in".  If a violin has not been played regularly for a few months - if they have sat on the shelf for years - the sound will deteriorate.  Unless this part was taken care of, the test is nonsense.  The anecdotal evidence of violinists who tested violins under those conditions will be meaningless, if that factor has not been taken into account.

[timothy42b]

But if the violins have not been properly primed, then they will sound nasally because of that lack of priming.  By priming I mean that they need to be "played in".  If a violin has not been played regularly for a few months - if they have sat on the shelf for years - the sound will deteriorate.  Unless this part was taken care of, the test is nonsense.  The anecdotal evidence of violinists who tested violins under those conditions will be meaningless, if that factor has not been taken into account.

I really don't think they got their Strads from museums, though. 

You're bringing up a possible confounding factor with no evidence it applies - and you're assuming they're not smart enough to have thought of that. 

How long does it take to "prime" a stringed instrument?  One chromatic scale from top to bottom?  An hour playing, eight hours of playing?  Do we have any data? 

[timothy42b]

I googled the three people who designed and performed the two Strad studies.

One is a professor studying violin acoustics, one leads research and development for D'Addario the string maker and is known as an accomplished violinist and violist, and the third is a violin maker. 

I think we can assume these three know about the potential for unplayed violins to sound different. 

The researchers did say that the players could tell violins apart, and that's a long way from being a given.  Carefully designed studies (like the triangle test) often show that people can't identify differences that they are sure are major ones. 

[keypeg]

I googled the three people who designed and performed the two Strad studies.

One is a professor studying violin acoustics, one leads research and development for D'Addario the string maker and is known as an accomplished violinist and violist, and the third is a violin maker. 

We still don't know how they set this up.  The whole thing is iffy from start to finish.

[timothy42b]

The players were elite professional violinists.

Does it make sense that they could not detect the nasally tone of an unplayed violin?

If they could not, I submit that maybe it doesn't exist.  At least, not in any meaningful way - if the best in the world can't hear it, it is unlikely to be noticeable my me. 

But I suspect it does exist, and that someone who designs acoustic experiments on stringed instruments for her living does take as much care as humanly possible to eliminate confounding variables. 

[keypeg]

The players were elite professional violinists.

Does it make sense that they could not detect the nasally tone of an unplayed violin?

It does not necessarily have to be a nasaly tone - that would be the extreme.  I am saying that the quality of a violin's tone is affected by how much it is played.  Thus if you compare a less played instrument to a much played instrument, you will not know how much of the quality difference comes from which factor.  We do not know how the violins were prepare the months before being played.  That is a simple fact at this point.

If they could not, I submit that maybe it doesn't exist.

Obviously it does exist.  Even I can hear it, and I never passed the stage of being a learner. 

[timothy42b]

Obviously it does exist.  Even I can hear it, and I never passed the stage of being a learner.

Here's a link to a better description than the popular press versions:
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5395

I'm sorry, I find it arrogant to assume that musicians and researchers of this level would not be aware of factors that could so easily throw off their results.  Remember too that all violins were played multiple times (ABAB) by multiple violinists; any change in their priming should have been obvious. 

This study is unusual for quite the opposite reason.  Typically the better the experimental design, the less difference is noted.  The fact that there was some level of concurrence over the preferred vs nonpreferred instruments is somewhat surprising. 

Beer drinkers typically cannot perform above chance at the triangle test (two beers presented in random order, AAB, ABA, or whatever - the task is tell which one is different).  However, beer is fragile and easily goes skunky when exposed to bright light.  If one beer had even seconds in sunlight it would be instantly recognizable - would any beer researcher not know that?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723583/Lager-It-tastes-Drinkers-struggle-distinguish-big-brands-blind-taste-tests.html

[keypeg]

I'm sorry, I find it arrogant to assume that musicians and researchers of this level ....

Here's the misunderstanding right there.  I am not assuming anything.  In fact, I wrote against assumptions.  In the info given originally, we did not have all the facts, and we cannot assume that all factors were taking into account, or were. If I had any conclusion it was that "we don't know".

[keypeg]

I suggest going to Maestronet, the Pegbox section where the luthiers hand out.  They are very knowledgeable (have to be).

I noticed the article kept stressing on the idea of sound projection.  I think I understand that at the time of Stradivarius, performances were not done in large concert halls like today, projection demands would therefore not have been the same - so why the focus on projection ?  The article keeps saying it is "believed" that Strads are superior instruments: who believes it?  If you talk to violinists, usually they'll tell you that some are great, and some are junk.

If modern instruments were found to project more, that makes total sense, since the demands of modern concert halls would demand this.  Not ony are concert halls larger (and definitely larger than in a chamber performance), but the orchestra that the violinist must play over is bigger and louder.

If, indeed, old Strads are better, why the focus on varnish and only varnish?  You have the trees supplying the tonewood, where they came from, how the wood was handled, stored, dried - how the luthier then prepared the wood - what process he used to make the instrument.   Then there is the master craftsman himself.  I once had the privilege to watch a luthier at his work - shaving down wood, testing the sound, dropping a piece of tonewood on his desk for the sound before deciding to use it or not.  Like, there is more to it than the final coat you put on the finished product.

Like all in all, it seems rather one-sided.  I'd be interested in what luthiers have to say.