Science discovers sound secret

[Martin Sheridan]

You will all be glad to know that scientific research has once again discovered the secret of the sound of the great old instruments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080702/sc/stradivarius_dc

At the end of the story is a link to the full article/research.

[GerardSamija]

I got an error message on the Yahoo! News site from your link, but a search of that site did turn up a few stories relating to this published research. One article, in the Vancouver Sun, mentioned the source article, which was published on the Pl0sOne site:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0002554

Goes into a bit more detail than any of the several versions I looked at from various sites and newspapers, and with less drivel and fewer errors than the populist writers seem to deem necessary.

I'd say in partial response to the core thesis - that consistent densities between spring and later growth throughout the plates play a role in sound production, and that this consistency was greater in Stradivari's time than in the modern era - may have some merit. But as usual, it is a terrible mistake and a brutal mistreatment of the man (and several of his contemporaries who achieved similar brilliance) to chalk so much up to mere growth patterns in wood. Stradivari used quite a range of maples and spruces, from a few difference regions, with a lot of variation in grain structure and depth/intensity of flame (in the maple), and from different parts of the trees. His wood was not always 'ideal', especially considering the violoncelli, where a lot of very wavy spruce grain and even some closely adjacent knots are evident, and quite a lot of 'winging' to compensate for too-narrow wood. Surely the glue lines for these wings, alongside the glue lines for centre joins on bellies and those on backs (when not single-piece backs, which he often used for violins, but by no means in all) would play havoc with this theory, as hide glue is not identical to maple or spruce in density. Then there's the changes in relative absorption of the sizing/sealing material, which would vary quite a lot between relatively straight-grained spruce, and the oft-exposed end cell grain in curly maple. Absorbed materials, whatever this sealant might have been, account for considerable changing of density at least in the first 0.5mm or so of the wood, again tossing this theory quite a curve.

It is my opinion, and hardly an original one at that, that Mr. Stradivarius understood more about violins than most anyone else, ever, before or after. One article retelling this story says that he began making violins in 1680. RUBBISH! He'd been making violins since at least the age of 18, after several years already in apprenticeship, so by the time he hit 36 years of age, in 1680, he'd likely already made hundreds and had no doubt already become one of the finest makers in the land. He began putting his own *name* into violins around that time, where previously his master's label had gone in, but that makes no difference to the fact that he was a past master already by the time Viotti came along and exposed a violin of his to the crowds in Paris, the turning point made to seem so important in one of the versions of this story.

He understood all aspects of what was needed to render a satisfying sound, and make a beautifully proportioned and elegantly finished instrument. No magic tricks. No deals with the devil. No immersion in fermenting applesauce, soaking in goat urine, roasting over chesnut hulls, prayers to the god Pan, nor any other silliness. What a load of rubbish these investigators have wrought over the past century, almost always in the name of debunking the greatest craftsman and artist our trade has ever seen. To reduce his 'secret' to any one or small collection of tricks demeans not only the maker himself, but anyone who buys into such nonsense. There is merit in investigation, and sure, one day we will have better understanding than we do today, especially (again, in my opinion) of the complex and subtle interplay of geometry, materials, whatever physical elements are involved, which he understood so deeply by practice and intuition. But these are all just so much conversation, not conclusions which might be easily reproduced once we know the secrets.

If one could bring old Tony back to life, I'd be willing to bet a large sum that giving him a stack of any old wood, nothing special, and some decent tools, we could watch in wonder as he created more masterpieces still. He was that good.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Martin Sheridan

You will all be glad to know that scientific research has once again discovered the secret of the sound of the great old instruments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080702/sc/stradivarius_dc

At the end of the story is a link to the full article/research.

Well the abstract says:
"Either of these mechanisms may help explain the acoustical differences between the classical and modern violins."

Whether the analysis is meaningful or not or even correct or not, there's no claim to have accounted completely for any sonic differences. Of course, there is no "secret." What makes the instruments differ are, after all, differences in physical characteristics. The holy grail seems to be the ability to attribute bona fide sonic characteristics to one or a combination of physical parameters. I think we'll have to wait a bit longer.

[bongomania]

Isn't this like the 19th thread here on that article?

[GerardSamija]

My apologies if my rant made it seem as though I were lumping this experiment in with some of the wackier stuff in the past. I actually enjoyed the article quite a lot, while feeling that the various 'news' sites didn't do it justice in trying to popularise notions of Stradivarian secrets and final answers, as they always seem to do. I realise my meaning wasn't exactly clear in this regard. It's hardly quackery in the Nagyvarian ballpark... more like good solid research without an obvious predisposition or personal agenda.

As for being the 19th thread... how's that possible? The article was only published today, June 2, 2008. Guess I'd better go have another look at the newer postings.

[John Sprague]

Originally Posted by GerardSamija

My apologies if my rant made it seem as though I were lumping this experiment in with some of the wackier stuff in the past.

I appreciated your message though. To elaborate on what I said in one of the other threads, I was on the phone once with Jeff Loen, who owns Kenmore Violins and who also published an exhaustive book of graduation maps of great instruments that every serious violin maker would enjoy. Jeff, having handled many Strads, said the secret is to spend your life making violins. I've always liked that answer.

[Sam Sherry]

Yessir. Nicely said per usual.

Ron Bolduc, my old maestro, said something about milling fretboards which has proven true about many other things and certainly seems appropriate here: "The first two hundred are the toughest."

[GerardSamija]

Okay, if golden quotes are in the offing... I ran across one mentioned in an old Violin Society of America journal, circa 1984 or so. It was printed on a button which the author - sorry, can't remember who it was after a couple of decades - was handing out to anyone who would take them at a VSA convention and competition. It said: 'Stradivarius made new violins.'

Apparently there were a lot of efforts made by makers at that time to 'antique' instruments with worn varnish and various dings in the wood, some going so far as to fake serious repairs. As a novice maker in the mid-80's, I was rather shocked to learn this. Thought one ought to be a bit more proud of one's work than that. I 'get it' a bit more now, but will probably never fake an antique. Closest I get is blending new repair wood and varnish into old wood in cases where damage has extensive enough to require it. And yes, I know that some makers have made names for themselves by copying... just don't have a taste for it personally.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by GerardSamija

Okay, if golden quotes are in the offing... I ran across one mentioned in an old Violin Society of America journal, circa 1984 or so. It was printed on a button which the author - sorry, can't remember who it was after a couple of decades - was handing out to anyone who would take them at a VSA convention and competition. It said: 'Stradivarius made new violins.' ...

Now if we only had recordings/analyses of how those instruments sounded when they were new!

[Martin Sheridan]

First of all maybe the premise is wrong?
Are they really saying that every golden age instrument is better than every new instrument?

Obviously over the years many of these instruments have proven themselves to the very best players to be exceptional instruments. But in every blindfold test I've ever heard of the golden age instruments don't do any better than modern ones.

Also, to test five old violins(one actually a viola) against 8 modern ones doesn't seem like much of a test anyway.

Where is the Silversorcerer when we need him?

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Martin Sheridan

First of all maybe the premise is wrong?
Are they really saying that every golden age instrument is better than every new instrument?

No, that was not the authors' premise.

Originally Posted by Martin Sheridan

Obviously over the years many of these instruments have proven themselves to the very best players to be exceptional instruments. But in every blindfold test I've ever heard of the golden age instruments don't do any better than modern ones.

That's a very interesting outcome. It doesn't, however, speak to validity of the observations the authors made with regard to physical characteristics. They were appropriately conservative in their interpretations. See this thread.

[Marc Piane]

I remember reading an article about the 'natural selection' process of older instruments. Basically old instruments that made it to today are the great ones and have been cared for over the years. The not so great ones (from the same makers) ended up as kindling or whatever.

I'll have to look for the article.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by fingers

I remember reading an article about the 'natural selection' process of older instruments. Basically old instruments that made it to today are the great ones and have been cared for over the years. The not so great ones (from the same makers) ended up as kindling or whatever.

I'll have to look for the article.

Yep-- I've often considered that as well. I seem to recall that notion being discussed here as well with regard to old basses.