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: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 21 2016, @08:13PM
Agree completely. Just because the study you reference may be paywalled, here's a link [nationalgeographic.com] to a detailed account of the study that pretty much definitively debunked the Stradivarius myth. It took into account all sorts of criticisms of previous studies (non professionals, too little time for evaluation, not blind, tested in small room rather than concert hall, etc.).
This study had 12 violins (6 old, 6 new) and 10 internationally renowned violin soloists. They were each given an hour with the violins to choose their favorites. They did it in a (dim) concert hall with good acoustics -- I believe in addition to the darkened hall, the soloists wore dark glasses (effectively a double-blind test), they could do things like ask for piano accompaniment, or even have the instrument played by someone else to hear its sound from the back of the hall. The results?
Basically, the top two violins were new violins, with a Stradivarius in third place. And overall the newer violins as a group did much better than the old ones. Subsequent studies played instruments for educated audiences in concert halls, and they couldn't hear a major difference either.
(Note that this doesn't mean "any violin" is just as good, obviously. But there's nothing particularly special about the "old masters" and their violins compared to today's good violins.)
From my perspective, the sad thing is that most of these "Stradivarius violins" are far from the original instruments -- they're essentially odd "Frankenstein" creations that have mostly been rebuilt significantly to take the tension of modern strings, hold modern pitch, etc. If they tried to play an unmodified one like a normal "modern" instrument in a modern orchestra, they'd probably snap the thing to pieces. (In the process, they often get "amped up" a bit; concerts in the 18th century were generally small private affairs, but a modern violin needs to be able sound in a huge concert hall.) So, we've not only created this bizarre fetish around a "distinctive sound" that doesn't really exist, but in the process, we've distorted these cool historical artifacts by trying to keep them playable to modern standards.
It's all just weird. And I agree that ongoing research to try to identify their "uniqueness" is nonsense. If people want to continue to study them for general historical interest, sure. My guess is that some of this research comes out of prodding from folks who still want to believe the old myths -- and perhaps keep their investments alive. (Many of these violins are worth millions of dollars, and some owners charge fees for their use in concerts. Most actual violinists -- even internationally renowned soloists -- aren't rich enough to actually own one of these old instruments; they are generally just loaned one by a benefactor.)
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 21 2016, @11:09PM
My take on them is that they're effectively the same as guitars like the '57 Les Paul. It's an excellent sounding guitar and a serious collector's item ... but sound-wise you'd be just as well off with a brand new one. People want them because of the history, the status, and the 'mojo'.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 22 2016, @01:58PM
I would rather keep the small room test and ditch the concert hall test. Reflections and harmonics = interference. It is like judging two cameras taking photos and looking them at a distance through a dirty mirror. RLY?
If you want a real test get rid of humans and analyze the sound in audible and some ultrasound range, anechoic chamber, good mics. That data would also help physical modelling plugin for violin sound.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday December 22 2016, @06:16PM
If you want a real test get rid of humans and analyze the sound in audible and some ultrasound range, anechoic chamber, good mics.
Actually, plenty of those studies have already been done over the years -- the acousticians were always struggling to figure out what made the "Stradivarius sound" unique, because they couldn't identify a single objective set of measurements that seemed to determine it.
But afficionados still kept claiming there was something special -- so the only way to disprove something that subjective was to do a test with those afficionados as "subjects."