NPR: Can You Pick The Strad? A Double-Blind Violin Test

[NorseHorse]

Double-Blind Violin Test: Can You Pick The Strad? : Deceptive Cadence : NPR

I don't know what a Strad is supposed to sound like, but I can tell you that I like the sound of the first violin more than the second.

I'm guessing they put on the same strings and tension as a modern violin, which may not be ideal.

What model was the new violin?

And finally - who recorded this?

[Rolo 46]

Read about this in the paper
Its a university project
They recorded it I spose
They all wore welding goggles so as not to identify the the fiddles
The all preferred the modern instruments
(doesnt the Berlin Phil use Yamaha fiddles ?)
Technology moves on
Yam can possibly give consistent tone, economy, volume and ease of play unknown to the ancients
PS I preferred the 1st too,its new....
Anyhow can they tell tone so close ????

[Don S]

Originally Posted by NorseHorse

Double-Blind Violin Test: Can You Pick The Strad? : Deceptive Cadence : NPR

I don't know what a Strad is supposed to sound like, but I can tell you that I like the sound of the first violin more than the second.

I'm guessing they put on the same strings and tension as a modern violin, which may not be ideal.

What model was the new violin?

And finally - who recorded this?

I've heard a couple strads (both violin and cello) that up close, sound a little edgy, but in the hall.....

[Celloman]

Fan: Oh Mr. Heifetz, you're violin makes a beautiful sound!
Heifetz: That's funny, I don't here anything.

Sent from my GT-P7310 using Gearslutz.com

[GIACOMO-_]

:

[Arthur Stone]

Thread already here: Stradivarius? Can a violinist tell the difference?

[Jim Williams]

Who cares?

We really need to know why the 57 stratocaster sounds better then the 55 stratocaster.

I expect another "study" will decide that.

[tourtelot]

Did you hear the article on NPR about the medical doctor, also a violinist, who CT-scanned his violin, then borrowed a (I think) Strad, and is now manufacturing new violins that are, presumably, identically constructed to the Strad. Pretty fascinating.

Found it! CT Scans Re-Create 307-Year-Old Violin : NPR

D.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Who cares?

We really need to know why the 57 stratocaster sounds better then the 55 stratocaster.

I expect another "study" will decide that.

Jim, the original article describes experienced concert violinists stating with supreme confidence that "this one is too young" when it was the Strad and vice versa.

It's not about violins, it's about perception and how easily our perceptions are thrown off track, how our eyes and expectations override our ears and fingers. And how double blind testing provides a control for those interfering influences. And how the emperor turned out to be bare-assed, again.

Fran

[faramita]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Read about this in the paper
Its a university project
They recorded it I spose
They all wore welding goggles so as not to identify the the fiddles
The all preferred the modern instruments
(doesnt the Berlin Phil use Yamaha fiddles ?)
Technology moves on
Yam can possibly give consistent tone, economy, volume and ease of play unknown to the ancients
PS I preferred the 1st too,its new....
Anyhow can they tell tone so close ????

No, obviously you did not read it.

I do not think Berlin Phil uses yamaha violins

[faramita]

Originally Posted by tourtelot

Did you hear the article on NPR about the medical doctor, also a violinist, who CT-scanned his violin, then borrowed a (I think) Strad, and is now manufacturing new violins that are, presumably, identically constructed to the Strad. Pretty fascinating.

Found it! CT Scans Re-Create 307-Year-Old Violin : NPR

D.

Plenty of people did and do that. That does not mean instruments they are making are even good, let alone great.
It is funny to see people here pooh pooing the idea of old cremonese instruments being better than new ones, and than slagging of somebody for thinking Zoom h4 is good piece of kit.

Let me just mention that violin is an accoustic instrument. Although sometimes in recordings it is difficult to tell the difference (not in this test though), you might not have that much difficulty in a concert hall hearing a performance, rather than a few notes. Difference might be miniscule to some. And btw the Stradivarius in the recording was not the Solomon Stradivarius in the picture. Just another bit of misleading the public common in these populist articles.

[Sounds Great]

Second one sounds much more pleasant to me. Must be a pretty big difference if I can hear it on a distorting MP3.

[The Listener]

I also liked the second clip more, whatever it is...

But the recording quality is nothing special...

I guess, if the makers have the knowledge and old enough wood and other proper materials they can make perfectly good sounding modern instruments, no?

Then again - I believe art is magical and some instruments also possess it.

edit: accidentaly found this interview with Joshua Bell - I like how he thinks about art, violins and all: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...ri-violin-sale

Artists who don't think at least a bit in philosophical/magical way, that are not at least partly "dreamers", are usually less interesting to me or even boring. The same with recordists - the most beautiful sounds I heard came from the guys who combine some "esoterica" with rational mind... Music is a very strange and irrational thing us humans do... when you really think logically and rationally about it.

edit: just read the article till the end - I SWEAR I didn't cheat... I SWEAR on my mother's grave.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by The Listener

...
Artists who don't think at least a bit in philosophical/magical way, that are not at least partly "dreamers", are usually less interesting to me or even boring. The same with recordists - the most beautiful sounds I heard came from the guys who combine some "esoterica" with rational mind... Music is a very strange and irrational thing us humans do... when you really think logically and rationally about it.
...

I agree. What sets the pro apart from the amateur is, the pro makes money from his esoterica, while the amateur spends money for it.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

I agree. What sets the pro apart from the amateur is, the pro makes money from his esoterica, while the amateur spends money for it.

That is the definition of a pro and amateur isn't it? One makes money, the other does it just for the kicks of it.

Speaking of violins - most musicians (except a very few top superstars) don't (and usually can't) spend those crazy amounts on those multimillion dollar instruments. I know a guy who plays a Guarnieri and he got it for lifelong use (for being an outstanding talent) as a gift from his home City.

As far as I know not many of those maestros "own" those instruments, but mostly have them "permanently on loan". Just making money (and art) with them.

Another comment on the test - no one can play the same twice and the differences between performances influence the judgement greatly - but even on that poor recording the second example sounded a bit nicer balanced, nicer highs, more "woody" body, etc.

The one who plays the instrument can judge how it feels in their hands the best and how that influences the outcome, the sound, the emotion...

I'm sure you can make outstanding music with modern violins. But then again - two of my favorite modern violinists - Gidon Kremer and Joshua Bell (and many other greats) play a variety of old instruments from Amati, Stradivarius and Guarnieri workshops... I'm sure they are not delusional. Dreamers maybe...

[GIACOMO-_]

Originally Posted by NorseHorse

Double-Blind Violin Test: Can You Pick The Strad? : Deceptive Cadence : NPR

I don't know what a Strad is supposed to sound like, but I can tell you that I like the sound of the first violin more than the second.

I'm guessing they put on the same strings and tension as a modern violin, which may not be ideal.

What model was the new violin?

And finally - who recorded this?

Ridiculous test. First vioin is shrill, sharping, nervous, not omogeneous and ungraceful compared to a Stradivari.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by GIACOMO-_

Ridiculous test. First vioin is shrill, sharping, nervous, not omogeneous and ungraceful compared to a Stradivari.

There is not "a" Stradivari sound. Every instrument sounds very different, some not well conserved ones or not well modified ones (most Strads are heavily modified for modern standards) are also just bad sounding.

Also a violin that sounds shrill 2m away could sound great 12m away. A violin sounding full and warm 2m away could sound dull 12m away.

A violin that sounds great with a Bach sonata could sound "lost" in the Brahms concerto and vice versa.

etc. etc.
But humans have a fetish for brands.

[faramita]

+1.

[matthewd]

If this is the project I think it is by Claudia Fritz, then it was recorded at the CMS (Centre for Music and Science) at Cambridge University. I wasn't there at the time but know the studio well and she was in there an awful lot so it seems the research was quite thorough but I have to admit I haven't read but I know it was published and she has been inundated with journalists who presumably love to challenge the received wisdom.

Matt

[Rolo 46]

Originally Posted by faramita

No, obviously you did not read it.

I do not think Berlin Phil uses yamaha violins

Depends what paper you read dear boy
Do you know the choice of the BPO for fiddles ?

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by The Listener

...

Another comment on the test - no one can play the same twice and the differences between performances influence the judgement greatly - but even on that poor recording the second example sounded a bit nicer balanced, nicer highs, more "woody" body, etc.

The one who plays the instrument can judge how it feels in their hands the best and how that influences the outcome, the sound, the emotion...

I'm sure you can make outstanding music with modern violins. But then again - two of my favorite modern violinists - Gidon Kremer and Joshua Bell (and many other greats) play a variety of old instruments from Amati, Stradivarius and Guarnieri workshops... I'm sure they are not delusional. Dreamers maybe...

The business of picking the violin from the two clips is a pointless offshoot of the real point of the article:

Well, a research team recently tried to find out. They gathered professional violinists in a hotel room in Indianapolis. They had six violins — two Strads, a Guarneri and three modern instruments. Everybody wore dark goggles so they couldn't see which violin was which.

Then the researchers told the musicians: These are all fine violins and at least one is a Stradivarius. Play, then judge the instruments.


Joseph Curtin, a violin-maker from Michigan, was one of the researchers. "There was no evidence that people had any idea what they were playing," he says. "That really surprised me."

Curtin says of the 17 players who were asked to choose which were old Italians, "Seven said they couldn't, seven got it wrong, and only three got it right."

In other words, these soloist level pros could not tell the difference with the fiddle in their hands and under their bow, when they couldn't see the violin.

It's not about violins, it's about perception and the degree to which our eyes and our preconceptions override our ears and hands.

Fritz says some of the players told her they were certain which were the new violins and which were the old Italians.

"'Ah, it's just a bit too new for me'," she recalled one musician saying. "And it was a Strad. Another one said, 'Ah, I love the sound of this one, it really has the sound of an old Italian, ah, just so warm.' And it was a brand new violin. "

When Fritz asked the players which violins they'd like to take home, almost two-thirds chose a violin that turned out to be new.

Picture that seasoned pro, confidently stating that "it's just a bit too new for me" while playing a Strad. Then think of all the confident pronouncements about the difference in the sound of two transparent preamps or converters.

Fran

[faramita]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Depends what paper you read dear boy
Do you know the choice of the BPO for fiddles ?

the paper linked in op

I do not know the policy in PBO, but generally you bring your own fiddle. I somehow doubt that they issue a standard Yamaha violins to violin sections.
That would be an unusual policy to say the least.

[Rolo 46]

That link is not a paper its a NPR puff
So you are not conversant with BPO policy then.

Its journalistic slant and personal opinion.
Typical internet dialogue
On both our parts
Do you have a sense of humour ?
Its needed round here

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Depends what paper you read dear boy
Do you know the choice of the BPO for fiddles ?

My brother in law is a violinist in the BPHO and as fas as I know there is no brand driven policy, the string players all choose and purchase their own very high quality instruments.

[aracu]

It's the age of the wood that can't be easily duplicated.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by aracu

It's the age of the wood that can't be easily duplicated.

Were there a lot of other violins built around the same time? Do they sound better than modern instruments as well?

[aracu]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Were there a lot of other violins built around the same time? Do they sound better than modern instruments as well?

It's often said that the sound improves with age, with wood instruments...

[faramita]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Were there a lot of other violins built around the same time? Do they sound better than modern instruments as well?

They are reputed to. One would have to consider the likelihood that the bad ones from that period would be unlikely to survive.

[faramita]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

That link is not a paper its a NPR puff
So you are not conversant with BPO policy then.

Its journalistic slant and personal opinion.
Typical internet dialogue
On both our parts
Do you have a sense of humour ?
Its needed round here

I am not taking these things too seriously. They are just opinions even if some are shrouded in mysterium of "scientific" research. As I mentioned somewhere
else, you might prefer sound of a modern instrument, or modern piece of recording kit as opposed to vintage. That does not mean you are deaf or stupid, it just means you prefer that sound.

My brother in law is a violinist in the BPHO and as fas as I know there is no brand driven policy, the string players all choose and purchase their own very high quality instruments.

that is what I would have thought. It would be difficult to enforce a policy of uniform string instruments on violinists (and violists and cellists) as they (we) are ridiculously attached to our own instruments.

[johnsound]

I think that any owner of a genuinely rare string instrument will tell you that it takes time to get to know it and how to get the best out of it, and it's fairly well known that some of these 'old masters' are notoriously difficult to play. It's also known that not all of them are actually that good these days: if they haven't been well-looked after, or played regularly (many of these instruments live in bank vaults - almost certainly the fate of the late Bernard Greenhouse's Strad, which is currently the subject of a sealed-bid auction) then they can at best take time to settle and at worst be permanently damaged. A test like this doesn't really show anything other than that some players found it easier to get a pleasing sound from a new instrument than from an old one in an hotel room in Indianapolis. If it shows anything at all, I think it shows rather a lack of insight on the part of the researchers.

And I, like the last poster, can't imagine any orchestra management trying to impose one maker's instruments on their players: it just wouldn't happen.

Regards,

John