6 ms·

Blind tests suggest that most of the brilliance today comes from the brain knowing it's a Strad, because great modern violins sound just as good or better. (Th

by jwatte 10y ago

Blind tests suggest that most of the brilliance today comes from the brain knowing it's a Strad, because great modern violins sound just as good or better. (The other brilliance was being 200 years or more ahead of everyone else at the time!)

astrodust 10y ago
These blind tests, again and again, conclusively prove that those listening to the music cannot tell a Yamaha from a Strad. They'll describe the Yamaha in glowing terms until they realize it's a violin made last year, then immediately shit all over it. It's like wine people who are easily duped by a fancy looking bottle. A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized. The other troubling thing is the gender of performers is very hard to discern from a blind performance, but when the performer is visible the judges skew very heavily towards men. It's absurd. https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...
- ENTP 10y ago
  "A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized." Funnily enough, these are my exact thoughts on the state of the software industry and trying to hire good people.
- beat 10y ago
  Listening is different from playing. Or perhaps more precisely, the experience of passively listening is different from the experience of actively listening to the instrument you're creating music on. As a guitarist, I do a lot of experimentation with picks. I can easily tell the difference between different kinds of picks by sound when I'm playing. But I can listen to old recordings of myself where I couldn't even tell you which guitar I played! Interestingly, a drummer I play with regularly can usually tell when I've switched picks, and has opinions about what picks I should be using. Such is the closeness of musicians working together. Any of these A/B blind test experiments strongly need to be live. A recording isn't a measure of a violin... it's a measure of the violin, the microphone, the mixing board, the mastering process, the amplifier, and the speaker.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    The tests are live. The researchers have really bent over backwards to create fair tests, I think. Someone else in this thread linked to a good summary: http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/ http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell...
    - edbaskerville 10y ago
      In case you read this thread without clicking the link: astrodust's comment might lead you to believe that professional violinists can't tell the difference between factory-made Yamaha instruments and a Strad. The instruments in this test are not factory-made Yamahas. They're hand-crafted instruments made by top masters. In other words, the best instruments now are finally catching up to the best instruments of a few hundred years ago. As for casual listeners, I'd believe that some of them can't tell the difference between a Yamaha and a Strad. But professional violinists absolutely can--both when playing and listening.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        Blind tests seem to disagree. New but very high quality instruments vs. those considered exceptional and unmatched.
  - yoodenvranx 10y ago
    > I can easily tell the difference between different kinds of picks by sound when I'm playing Are you sure? Since you always k ow which pick you are using it's easy for your brain to fool yourself.
    - beat 10y ago
      Oh, I'm quite sure. There are limits to the human ability to discern and judge - see the discussion of blind violin comparison. But they didn't sound the same... they just didn't always have the expected results for "best". You might have difficulty discerning between, say, Hawaiian and Columbian coffee, but you can easily discern the difference between coffee and lemonade. Except under the influence of certain medications... The point I'm making, though, is that discernment is situational. It depends on experience with the subject matter, and whether it's direct or indirect. I can easily hear the difference between two guitar picks and make value judgments - IF I'm the one playing. My drummer can tell if I switch picks, because he knows my sound so well, but he couldn't tell you which one is which. Most people could never hear the difference. When I'm playing a guitar, I can discern tiny things like moving the volume knob 10%. But two years later, listening to a recording, I couldn't even tell you which of my guitars I was playing. It's very situational.
- koolba 10y ago
  > It's like wine people who are easily duped by a fancy looking bottle. A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized. I think you're off by at least one, possibly two, orders of magnitude on the relative number of fraudsters.
- jwatte 10y ago
  Yes! I used "the brain" as a kinder synonym for "placebo effect."
- graycat 10y ago
  Warning: Joke intended! > A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone Well, for Chardonnay, if (1) it is dry (low sugar) and crisp (high acid) with delicate flavors, then it's from near Macon, France and maybe Pouilly Fuisse or even Montrachet. If (2) it is sweet (high sugar), flat (low acid), with the many flavors of, say, canned fruit cocktail, then it's from California! Really, this was my summary opinion from wine investigations some years ago, but I haven't had any Chardonnay in years; maybe California does better now!
dahart 10y ago
Yep -- players cannot identify Strads by sound, and in fact prefer newer instruments. http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/ http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell...
- elihu 10y ago
  The test wasn't to see if the violinists could identify the Strads, it was to pick which violin they preferred to play. The Strads might or might not have a unique tone that's difficult for modern luthiers to replicate, but that's irrelevant if it doesn't match the violinist's preference. It's also worth noting that it's hard to do a fair comparison because the owners of the Strads might not permit the kind of setup/maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with a modern instrument. Even getting permission to change the strings might be hard. I think it's pretty impressive that a Strad placed in 3rd place against what I presume were some very well made modern instruments. One would expect something that old to either be significantly surpassed by modern construction techniques or to succumb to structural problems.
  - dahart 10y ago
    > The test wasn't to see if the violinists could identify the Strads Right from the article: "In the second test all the violins were tested again in the concert hall. At the end of the test the players were given a series of violins and 30 seconds to guess whether it was old or new." > It's also worth noting that it's hard to do a fair comparison because the owners of the Strads might not permit the kind of setup/maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with a modern instrument. Even getting permission to change the strings might be hard. That's a wild assumption. If I was also speculating, I'd guess that people buying Strads do proper maintenance in order to protect their investment. Since I happen to know that buyers hire both professional players and professional luthiers to keep the instruments in shape, I don't have to speculate. Strads deteriorate when they aren't played often enough, and most people who spend millions on them know that. > I think it's pretty impressive that a Strad placed in 3rd place. ... One would expect something that old to either be significantly surpassed by modern construction techniques or to succumb to structural problems. One of them did, another Strad placed last. It's not just unimpressive, but damning to the narrative, considering the myth and folklore that Strads and Guraneris are unsurpassed and that modern techniques have never achieved the same greatness and perfection that the old masters did. Your guess may be right, but it is opposite of what the violin world mythology claims, and the entire reason it's a "surprise" that the best players can't identify Strads. Even the OP's article starts on the unquestioned premise that Strads are superior to today's instruments.
andrewbinstock 10y ago
Precisely, which lays waste to this cast-off comment, which sounds right, but is completely wrong: " Stradivari’s and Guarneri’s craftsmanship, copying their wood choice, geometry and construction methods. But their efforts have met with little success." In fact, their efforts have met with great success and by all accounts within the field, we're presently living in the second "Golden Age" of violin making.
owenversteeg 10y ago
Ugh, I hate this type of comment (nothing personal against you), and it appears every single time - without fail - whenever the word "strad" comes up. I'm a violinist, played for 15 years - not professional, but I do know one thing about violins. And that's that they are an art form. End of story. There is no "best violin" in the same way that there is no "best artwork". Saying that "tests prove that Strads do not sound as good as modern violins" is like saying "tests prove that Mona Lisa is not as good as newer artwork". It's patently ridiculous. Mostly, I hate the trope because it's like clickbait for "smart" people. You'll see someone scrolling through Facebook. They see "15 gifs that prove Kourtney is the best person ever" and laugh. "How could anyone decide the best person ever based on gifs? That's so ridiculous!" But then they see "Study finds that Strads are no better than modern violins" and they share it. "Tests" that "show" that Strads aren't as "good" are one thing, and one thing only: polls. They say that "of the people we polled, x people preferred y violin to a Strad." Whether or not the poll is blind only determines one thing, and that's how smug you can be when you share the article on Facebook. Note that the majority of these "tests" are simply asking random prominent violinists their opinion between two unlabeled choices. Sure, it's interesting that the most valuable instrument in the world might only be favored by, say, 40% of the population. But at the end of the day, you can't pick a "best violin" no matter how many polls you run. My favorite violin is this creaky old 100-year-old violin with holes in it. When I've blindly tested people if they prefer it, or my modern (2008) violin, the modern violin always wins - usually by big margins, up to 80% or so. But the 80% that prefer the modern violin give it plain praise like "nice sound" or "solid tone". The 20% that prefer my older violin say things like "damn, that [violin] sounds so nice", or "wow, it really sings". I don't know about you personally prefer, but I'd rather have 20% that love it than 80% that simply prefer it. (sidenote, on the topic of art: I, personally, am a big fan of Céleste Boursier-Mougenot. I've seen his works a few times and I'm always blown away.)
- vacri 10y ago
  Why doesn't the initial claim that strads have some mythically fantastic sound that can't be beaten also raise your hackles?
  - 10y ago

by jwatte 10y ago

astrodust 10y ago

These blind tests, again and again, conclusively prove that those listening to the music cannot tell a Yamaha from a Strad. They'll describe the Yamaha in glowing terms until they realize it's a violin made last year, then immediately shit all over it. It's like wine people who are easily duped by a fancy looking bottle. A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized. The other troubling thing is the gender of performers is very hard to discern from a blind performance, but when the performer is visible the judges skew very heavily towards men. It's absurd. https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...

ENTP 10y ago
"A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized." Funnily enough, these are my exact thoughts on the state of the software industry and trying to hire good people.
beat 10y ago
Listening is different from playing. Or perhaps more precisely, the experience of passively listening is different from the experience of actively listening to the instrument you're creating music on. As a guitarist, I do a lot of experimentation with picks. I can easily tell the difference between different kinds of picks by sound when I'm playing. But I can listen to old recordings of myself where I couldn't even tell you which guitar I played! Interestingly, a drummer I play with regularly can usually tell when I've switched picks, and has opinions about what picks I should be using. Such is the closeness of musicians working together. Any of these A/B blind test experiments strongly need to be live. A recording isn't a measure of a violin... it's a measure of the violin, the microphone, the mixing board, the mastering process, the amplifier, and the speaker.
- scott_s 10y ago
  The tests are live. The researchers have really bent over backwards to create fair tests, I think. Someone else in this thread linked to a good summary: http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/ http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell...
  - edbaskerville 10y ago
    In case you read this thread without clicking the link: astrodust's comment might lead you to believe that professional violinists can't tell the difference between factory-made Yamaha instruments and a Strad. The instruments in this test are not factory-made Yamahas. They're hand-crafted instruments made by top masters. In other words, the best instruments now are finally catching up to the best instruments of a few hundred years ago. As for casual listeners, I'd believe that some of them can't tell the difference between a Yamaha and a Strad. But professional violinists absolutely can--both when playing and listening.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Blind tests seem to disagree. New but very high quality instruments vs. those considered exceptional and unmatched.
- yoodenvranx 10y ago
  > I can easily tell the difference between different kinds of picks by sound when I'm playing Are you sure? Since you always k ow which pick you are using it's easy for your brain to fool yourself.
  - beat 10y ago
    Oh, I'm quite sure. There are limits to the human ability to discern and judge - see the discussion of blind violin comparison. But they didn't sound the same... they just didn't always have the expected results for "best". You might have difficulty discerning between, say, Hawaiian and Columbian coffee, but you can easily discern the difference between coffee and lemonade. Except under the influence of certain medications... The point I'm making, though, is that discernment is situational. It depends on experience with the subject matter, and whether it's direct or indirect. I can easily hear the difference between two guitar picks and make value judgments - IF I'm the one playing. My drummer can tell if I switch picks, because he knows my sound so well, but he couldn't tell you which one is which. Most people could never hear the difference. When I'm playing a guitar, I can discern tiny things like moving the volume knob 10%. But two years later, listening to a recording, I couldn't even tell you which of my guitars I was playing. It's very situational.
koolba 10y ago
> It's like wine people who are easily duped by a fancy looking bottle. A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized. I think you're off by at least one, possibly two, orders of magnitude on the relative number of fraudsters.
jwatte 10y ago
Yes! I used "the brain" as a kinder synonym for "placebo effect."
graycat 10y ago
Warning: Joke intended! > A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone Well, for Chardonnay, if (1) it is dry (low sugar) and crisp (high acid) with delicate flavors, then it's from near Macon, France and maybe Pouilly Fuisse or even Montrachet. If (2) it is sweet (high sugar), flat (low acid), with the many flavors of, say, canned fruit cocktail, then it's from California! Really, this was my summary opinion from wine investigations some years ago, but I haven't had any Chardonnay in years; maybe California does better now!

dahart 10y ago

Yep -- players cannot identify Strads by sound, and in fact prefer newer instruments. http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/ http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell...

elihu 10y ago
The test wasn't to see if the violinists could identify the Strads, it was to pick which violin they preferred to play. The Strads might or might not have a unique tone that's difficult for modern luthiers to replicate, but that's irrelevant if it doesn't match the violinist's preference. It's also worth noting that it's hard to do a fair comparison because the owners of the Strads might not permit the kind of setup/maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with a modern instrument. Even getting permission to change the strings might be hard. I think it's pretty impressive that a Strad placed in 3rd place against what I presume were some very well made modern instruments. One would expect something that old to either be significantly surpassed by modern construction techniques or to succumb to structural problems.
- dahart 10y ago
  > The test wasn't to see if the violinists could identify the Strads Right from the article: "In the second test all the violins were tested again in the concert hall. At the end of the test the players were given a series of violins and 30 seconds to guess whether it was old or new." > It's also worth noting that it's hard to do a fair comparison because the owners of the Strads might not permit the kind of setup/maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with a modern instrument. Even getting permission to change the strings might be hard. That's a wild assumption. If I was also speculating, I'd guess that people buying Strads do proper maintenance in order to protect their investment. Since I happen to know that buyers hire both professional players and professional luthiers to keep the instruments in shape, I don't have to speculate. Strads deteriorate when they aren't played often enough, and most people who spend millions on them know that. > I think it's pretty impressive that a Strad placed in 3rd place. ... One would expect something that old to either be significantly surpassed by modern construction techniques or to succumb to structural problems. One of them did, another Strad placed last. It's not just unimpressive, but damning to the narrative, considering the myth and folklore that Strads and Guraneris are unsurpassed and that modern techniques have never achieved the same greatness and perfection that the old masters did. Your guess may be right, but it is opposite of what the violin world mythology claims, and the entire reason it's a "surprise" that the best players can't identify Strads. Even the OP's article starts on the unquestioned premise that Strads are superior to today's instruments.

andrewbinstock 10y ago

Precisely, which lays waste to this cast-off comment, which sounds right, but is completely wrong: " Stradivari’s and Guarneri’s craftsmanship, copying their wood choice, geometry and construction methods. But their efforts have met with little success." In fact, their efforts have met with great success and by all accounts within the field, we're presently living in the second "Golden Age" of violin making.

owenversteeg 10y ago

Ugh, I hate this type of comment (nothing personal against you), and it appears every single time - without fail - whenever the word "strad" comes up. I'm a violinist, played for 15 years - not professional, but I do know one thing about violins. And that's that they are an art form. End of story. There is no "best violin" in the same way that there is no "best artwork". Saying that "tests prove that Strads do not sound as good as modern violins" is like saying "tests prove that Mona Lisa is not as good as newer artwork". It's patently ridiculous. Mostly, I hate the trope because it's like clickbait for "smart" people. You'll see someone scrolling through Facebook. They see "15 gifs that prove Kourtney is the best person ever" and laugh. "How could anyone decide the best person ever based on gifs? That's so ridiculous!" But then they see "Study finds that Strads are no better than modern violins" and they share it. "Tests" that "show" that Strads aren't as "good" are one thing, and one thing only: polls. They say that "of the people we polled, x people preferred y violin to a Strad." Whether or not the poll is blind only determines one thing, and that's how smug you can be when you share the article on Facebook. Note that the majority of these "tests" are simply asking random prominent violinists their opinion between two unlabeled choices. Sure, it's interesting that the most valuable instrument in the world might only be favored by, say, 40% of the population. But at the end of the day, you can't pick a "best violin" no matter how many polls you run. My favorite violin is this creaky old 100-year-old violin with holes in it. When I've blindly tested people if they prefer it, or my modern (2008) violin, the modern violin always wins - usually by big margins, up to 80% or so. But the 80% that prefer the modern violin give it plain praise like "nice sound" or "solid tone". The 20% that prefer my older violin say things like "damn, that [violin] sounds so nice", or "wow, it really sings". I don't know about you personally prefer, but I'd rather have 20% that love it than 80% that simply prefer it. (sidenote, on the topic of art: I, personally, am a big fan of Céleste Boursier-Mougenot. I've seen his works a few times and I'm always blown away.)

vacri 10y ago
Why doesn't the initial claim that strads have some mythically fantastic sound that can't be beaten also raise your hackles?
- 10y ago