Behold the answer of teh Ages!

[hdiddy]

or not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080702/...QrWkk20hwDW7oF

[Matt R.]

What is teh?

[hdiddy]

I titled the thread to be a bit tongue-in-cheek knowing that y'all would be a bunch of naysayers.

Originally Posted by Matt R.

What is teh?

Teh

[nicfargo]

awesome definition for teh...didn't realize it was more then just a typo for the that caught on.

I'd have to say it has to be more then the wood used...obviously that doesn't hurt though.

[drurb]

Take a look at the original article and you will see that the lay press has, once again, gone well beyond what the authors of the study concluded. Also see this thread and my post #3 within it. The authors merely noted that the differences exist.

Ken Smith makes a very good point. If other makers used the same wood and the characteristics of their instruments did not match those of the "classical Cremonese" makers (which they did not), then the differences in sound between those coveted instruments and modern ones certainly cannot be attributed solely or perhaps even in large measure to differences in differential wood densities between the older Cremonese and modern instruments. Still, the wood densities may account for some of the differences. Gee, it seems that all one would have to do is make a modern violin with wood matching the differential wood densities of the earlier makers. Then, when the sound does not match, the search can continue for the myriad other factors that are responsible for the differences.

It may be the case that the type of differential densities the authors report that are characteristic of the classic violins may be a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in reproducing their sound. In any case, the authors were actually quite conservative in terms of what they concluded.

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by KSB - Ken Smith

How can they test Violins like Strads that have been altered a dozen ways from Sunday and say they have discovered something? BOGUS!

You know what they really discovered??

>>How to get your name in print!!

C'Mon, that's not fair at all to the researchers. All they did was observe density differences. Their quotes were peppered with uncertainty

"Since differentials in wood density affect vibration and therefore sound quality, the discovery may well explain the superiority of the Cremonese violins, they reported in the online journal PLoS ONE on Wednesday. So why is the maple and spruce wood in a Stradivarius so different?
Part of the reason may be that trees grow slightly differently today than in the past.


"Climate difference could explain part of it but treatment of the wood could be another explanation. A third answer could simply be the ageing of the wood over the past 300 years," Dr Berend Stoel of the Leiden University Medical Center told Reuters.
"There is no way of knowing from this data; we've just shown there are density differences."
Still, Stoel and U.S. violin maker Terry Borman think the research may help modern instrument makers seeking to replicate the work of the Italian masters."

That's what the researchers said, and its no more or less a conjecture than anything you have written about Strad, either.

But the SUB EDITORS took what they said could be true, and headlined it as FACT. The subbies are the ones to go after.

So ... cut those researchers a bit of slack, eh?

[forester]

my .02, smithsonian institute once published some findings in that with the results of some cellular probing on Strads (the spruce)..it was found that the individual cells contained a systemic bacteria,..of what origin i have forgotten...but it goes something like this:normal cell ( ), Strad. cell (*) the bacteria was most likely soil born, so, many trees in the area played host to the infection...Antonio unknowingly cut and obsconded with said timber and the rest is history...it apparently had an effect on it's woody characteristics.anybody?.... Need to add a quote..Twain, "The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that if they continue we shall soon know nothing at all about it."

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

C'Mon, that's not fair at all to the researchers. All they did was observe density differences. Their quotes were peppered with uncertainty...

So ... cut those researchers a bit of slack, eh?

Thank you, Matthew! Ken seems to have missed my point and that of the researchers that they simply found a reliable difference across violins in one physical factor. As I said, what they found could be a necessary, but certainly not sufficient, ingredient of the coveted violins. They made no claims with regard to the influence or meaningfulness of that factor vis a vis the sound of those violins. What is also true is that physical factors that are observed to differ reliably may not be important at all!

Ken is quite correct in noting that there are many factors. We still do not have sufficient information to state the physical parameters and their values that are responsible for the sound of those violins. We may not ever have that information, at least in our lifetimes. That does not diminish the value of investigating what are the differences. Thank you also for amplifying the point that it is the lay press who overstepped here.