Blind Testing of Stradivarius Violins-Reason and Emotion

[Bongolation]

Originally Posted by coyote1

So with music. Different instruments evoke different things within different people. And rationality has almost place in the creative endeavors. But good luck with your evangelism.

I'm not talking about music, but gear, which is mere light industrial product, about which objective standards should apply. What a real musician feels about an instrument is usually much more clearly and objectively expressed than what you get from gear forum bozos in any case.

And I tend to disagree with the premise, the more I see of truly successful creative people. They tend to be pretty focused and surprisingly objective. As far as musicians go, the more successful they are, the less they tend to be like stereotype "crazy" musicians when you actually talk to them about their work. It's very interesting. If you're going anywhere with anything, you have to get serious, period. Even when they're not verbally articulate, they usually exercise a surprising degree of analytical and critical faculties.

[People always rag on me, "You're always so down on people for not being serious musicians," to which I reply, "No, I'm down on them for not being serious people."]

The eternal attraction of the arts is that these dubious stereotypes allow useless neurotics and random manqués of no artistic merit to work a long con justifying their human inadequacies to themselves and gullible others.

[scubaduba]

I have a Francesco Ruggeri. Well, an original copy made in Italy somewhere around 1810. Ruggeri has long thought to be a pupil of Amati, another sought after luthier from Cremona along with Guarneri and Stradivarius. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Ruggieri

Though my violin is a copy of an original (valued around $5K) it's a far cry from the price of what an original Ruggeri would run.

Yet many very talented violinists have commented how good my instrument sounds. In fact one violinist asked me if she could use my violin for a solo concert instead of her own violin valued at far more than my original copy of a master Italian builder. Of course I let her.

Sound is subjective.

[IronLung1986]

regarding the original post, both my non-musician girlfriend and i picked the first clip as warmer and better sounding, which ended up being the modern violin. funny!

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by atomicdog

The market for Strads and other rare Cremonese instruments is driven, in part, by the expectation that concert soloists will use them (the culture of the orchestra as guided by the conductor). And of course, there's the collector's market; these are good investments. While many of these are tonally superior instruments, capable of tremendous projection and rich, complex sound, few in the string world contest that contemporary violins, violas, cellos, and double basses, made by master builders, are capable of brilliant sound. But do they have the mojo of a 400-year-old violin played by the giants of the genre?

... mojo ....

[Bongolation]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

... mojo ....

Especially considering that these typically are only fractionally the original instruments, and not even normally the sound-critical pieces at that. Everything of any importance has been replaced a few times in most cases -- but people still pay big bucks for them as if they were original.

[MostlyBass]

This is often discussed in the journal, The Strad. In their "From the Archive" column they had a similar review from 100 years ago with similar results! You can check it out on one of my blogs here.

[jsbarber]

This is an interesting topic. I've read a couple of interesting books regarding Stradivari's violins. One traced the history of 5 of his instruments over the years. The other "The Violin Maker" discusses a commission to make a violin for an elite player who already owned a Strad - to see if he could displace the Strad.

In the first book they explain that during the 19th century the size of performance venues increased and louder instruments were sought after. Many instruments, and most Strad's these days, have had the original bridges replaced with taller ones resulting in more downward force on the top. The neck is also reset to match the bridge height. As it turns out, Strad's accept this modification very well and are lauded for having amazing dynamics. Prior to these modifications Strad's were not considered to be the "worlds best" but among the worlds best. So it is perhaps an unintended design feature that has enabled Stradivari's violins to gain the acclaim they receive today.

I won't divulge the outcome of the second book, but the modern instrument and the Strad are extremely close. The modern one cost about $50k I believe and the Strad was worth about $2M.

[nshuman]

For what it's worth, Stradivarius and his contemporaries had access to woods that had been uniquely shaped by climate. So, a lot of it comes down to craftsmanship AND chance.

Here is some info: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...crets-of-stra/

[zon6c-f]

I was in a jazz combo in the mid 1970's. Great guys and superb musicians..I was not worthy.

I owned 2 string basses and Rickenbacker 4001. I practiced with both String and Electric bass. Some "Fundamentalist" fanatical friends of the band disdained any use of my Rick as 'unauthentic for jazz'.

When it came to recording, I would have prefered electric fretless if I owned one. Due to plug-n-play ease of electric as well as I was better/ more articulate with electric, I recorded with my Rick. Most tunes went well, Colors of Chloe would have been better on String Bass..I digress...

Rick was strung with rounds. I rolled off both tones and adjusted EQ on my Acoustic 370 head to craft my best
' upright tone'.

We recorded with just band present; no onlookers. Must have worked, because those who were so adamant about my using string bass complimented my tone..until I revealed it was electric and a Rick at that..they went off spitting and wiping the dirt from their shoes as they left....Kind of weird to me.

We were generally pleased with the recording..other than my intro to Colors..

Just goes to show what your ears and eyes tell you. EYES CAN LIE more easily.

[Sonicfrog]

I remember hearing about this study last year. Keep in mind the new violins were not cheap models in this test. They were expensive models also.

Still, I'm very happy with my $125.00 Cort Action bass.Dumb name. Good bass.

[dabbler]

Originally Posted by Bongolation

I'm not talking about music, but gear, which is mere light industrial product, about which objective standards should apply. What a real musician feels about an instrument is usually much more clearly and objectively expressed than what you get from gear forum bozos in any case.
...

Objective standards? Why? different strokes for different folks. For electirc guitars (lead and bass), how your technique meshes with the guitar's neck profile and weight are unique to you. That's no standard. Same for the kind of tones you like and the music you are trying to make.

Instruments are tools for making music, but even music has no objective standards, unless you limit yourself to a specific genre. I LOVE diversity in music AND instruments, I get a kick out of playing the same things on my different basses (and guitars, I started as a guitarist... don't hate me for it). People have "preferences" and they are not the same, and music is the better for it.

Lo-fi, hi-fi, boomy, scratchy, shrill, buttery they all have a place, IMO.

Now to be sure, I DO agree with a LOT of what you say (especially the fact that musicians should be able to clearly and objectively express their feelings about an instument), I just don't accept that music OR musical instruments have or SHOULD have objective (which I take to be "absolute", like miles per gallon) standards. Different strokes for different folks. And no, I hardly consider myself any kind of expert (I'm no pro, and my most expensive bass cost me $280 prior to mods), but I love music, I love gear, and modding it, and playing it, and collecting it. But music is communication, expression, I'm sooooo glad somebody didn't decide that the only voices that could be heard in music are the smooth melodious ones, otherwise we wouldn't have had James Brown OR Chuck Brown, and maybe you consider their music low class, but for boogying on down and partying I'll take them over the Beatles (or a lot of other artists) any day. Doesn't make James and Chuck "better"... unless all you want to do is boogie.

I LOVE discussing instruments their history, quirks, features capabilities, shortcomings, tones whatEVER. But, IMO, there is no "best" bass... or violin either.

[mjac28]

I used to blind test my friends all the time with my MIM Jazz but I would always use the exact same bass and just crack up as they looked for words to describe what they thought were two different basses.

[Jim C]

I wonder what it sounds like to a violinist with the instrument right next to his ear as opposed to 10' away.

Has there been a serious test amongst players wher they evaluated the tone of two or more instrumnets while played by others in a double blind test?

[preside]

At core this is the wood argument again and it gets tiresome. If you don't like that people pay high prices for "special" instruments, tough. Why then force them to defend their choice. Usually , feeling a bit defensive, they will resort to arguments that in truth do not have a large bearing on the quality of tone they produce. Things like fancy wood tops or rosewood vs. Maple boards may not change the tone but if the buyer likes them WHO CARES. My response is always if I like the way an expensive bass looks and sounds and I can afford it why not buy it. They make me that much happier when I play them. Expensive instruments like anything that are a consumer item respond to market forces. Ya wanna own a piece of history be it a Strad or an early 60's Fender, so do lots of other folks and its gonna cost ya

[Bongolation]

Originally Posted by dabbler

Objective standards? Why? different strokes for different folks.

I'm talking about production problems, dead spots, bad resonances, etc. -- stuff for which there's no upside.

There are very few really good instruments, in my experience. When I encounter one, I'm always shocked.

And, yes, I definitely can demonstrate to anyone why they are good or bad -- it's not at all subtle.

[inthevelvet]

the sound part doesn't surprise me at all. I am a little surprised that they couldn't tell the difference in feel. For basses, esp. in a band setting, the audience could likely not tell the difference between a squier and a sadowsky. Even though I like squiers just fine, there are basses that play better in my hands, even if the sound to others is not discernable. Interesting article for sure.

[Bongolation]

Originally Posted by nshuman

For what it's worth, Stradivarius and his contemporaries had access to woods that had been uniquely shaped by climate. So, a lot of it comes down to craftsmanship AND chance.

But whether or not that's significant -- as I already pointed out -- there's not that much of the original Stradivarius left by 2013.

That's the real hoot.

[thiocyclist]

Originally Posted by bassbully

Everytime I get another bass I am all jazzed up up to play it with the band at a gig without them knowing its a new bass. Everytime I do and ask..What do you think? They all have said...sounds good..... like a bass

To date the only bass people ever come up to me and talk about the tone is a Ric. I get "That looks great" for just about any bass... but with the Ric they come up and say, "Holy crap the tone!" Rics truly sound different and maybe that's why.

[preside]

Originally Posted by thiocyclist

To date the only bass people ever come up to me and talk about the tone is a Ric. I get "That looks great" for just about any bass... but with the Ric they come up and say, "Holy crap the tone!" Rics truly sound different and maybe that's why.

Same reaction when I play my 65 Guild starfire. Everything else, yea ya sound fine , like a bass.

[Bassmunnky]

Emotion seems to be winning in this thread. Interesting