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:doi/10.1371/journal.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.
