SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Stradivarius violins are renowned for their supposedly superior sound when compared to other instruments. This has resulted in numerous studies hunting for a scientific reason for why Strads sound so good. A number of these studies have focused on the chemical composition of the wood in violins made in Cremona by Antonio Stradivari in the 17th and 18th centuries. Others have considered the violins made by Stradivari's contemporary, Joseph Guarneri del Gesu, whose violins are widely considered to be just as good.
Research often looks at how the materials used in the construction of the instrument define its superior quality. For example, one study argued that a "little ice age" which affected Europe from 1645 to 1715, was responsible for the slow-growth wood used in the construction of the violins that gives them a particular quality. This type of wood would have been available to all violin makers in Europe so other work has looked at the particular varnish applied to Strads. But the most recent study on this showed that Stradivari finishes were also commonly used by other craftsmen and artists and were not particularly special.
Now a team of scientists from National Taiwan University have tried to uncover the secret of Stradivarius violins by analysing the chemistry of the wood they're made from. The researchers found that the aged and treated maple wood had very different properties from that used to make modern instruments. But is there really a secret to be found in the Stradivarius?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @07:55PM
Coke v Pepsi.
In taste tests Pepsi usually beats Coke for taste. Yet coke outsells Pepsi by a wide margin. Why? Coke is a brand. Branding sells. Branding alone is not the whole thing though. As 'new coke' showed. It is a particular branding with a particular item. The same is probably true of the stradivarius.
My bet is the history of the Stradivarius is more important here than the actual physical composition. Why do people consider them better when under blind testing no one can really tell? I would probably say there was a bit of marketing going on by Stradivarius. He probably got someone famous to spout off some junk. Then on top of that he probably was competing against someone who was not as good? That would be a more likely explanation. Marketing can echo on long after the marketing campaign is well and over with. For example I know about burma shave. Yet have never used their products.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 21 2016, @08:05PM
Sure, there's a lot of things that can attract people to them, and it is more multifaceted than the simplification I gave.
But the purpose of my post wasn't to accurately identify why people like them, but to suggest that studying the details of why it sounds different is kinda irrelevant if you can't do a meaningful study that shows that it sounds different.
It's like putting a ton of effort into trying to determine the culture of Tau Ceti aliens when the question of whether there are Tau Ceti aliens is inconclusive at best.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @02:01AM
So what you're saying is that only Tau Ceti aliens can identify a Stradivarius by its sound? Is that why they came here? To help us with our Stradivarius testing?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 21 2016, @08:46PM
Coke is a brand.
So is Pepsi.
I don't know where you were going with that train of thought, but you derailed it right there.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @09:19PM
My point was the pepsi brand is not as strong as coke. Sorry if that was not clear. Pepsi has had a long history of not sticking the brand persuasion. They have a 'young hip' sort-o-ish kinda marketing going. It works to a point. Coke on the other hand has a better branding. With stronger colors. Its persuasion is better all around. They sell 2 cans of coke for every one can of pepsi. That is my point. They have a worse product that actually sells better.
My supposition was Stradivarius is better could be a marketing persuasion thing. When they are in reality no better than others out there.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @10:31PM
They have a product some people feel is worse, not a worse product. I can't stand the taste of pepsi, but coke is acceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @03:55AM
Coke = conservative (It's the Real Thing)
Pepsi = liberal (The choice of a New Generation)
Of course, that's all marketing. It's sugared water either way, but backed by the marketing, distribution, and financial might of two of the biggest corporations in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @11:58PM
I'll tell you why. Pepsi ads suck big time. They've had "pepsi generation" bullshit from the sixties. They have all these stupid ass slogans about how their drink is larger than life. It's just a drink. Coke has been more down to earth, although now they have the "taste the feeling"bullshit too.
I have a Pepsi vendolator, but i'm thinking of turning it into a coke machine, cause Pepsi ads are so retarted. I found some Pepsi ads from the 50's and 60's that are nice, but 99,9999% of ads after that are pure wastebin material.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday December 22 2016, @03:31AM
Coke had Max Headroom.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday December 22 2016, @04:23PM
Coke sells more soda because there are more people selling it; fast food joints are almost all coca cola, seldom pepsi. I prefer RC, but I haven't seen a bottle in years.
If you're talking fountain soda, they're all different even when they're all coke, and brand doesn;t matter.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org