4 ms·

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 vi

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?
- owenversteeg 10y ago
  Oh, it does quite a bit actually! I just don't talk about it here because I've personally never seen it on HN despite being here (in various incarnations) for the better part of a decade. Since I find the topic so interesting (and because my previous comments seem to be getting votes), I'll ramble for a bit more here on a few other questions I've asked myself, if you don't mind :) Are Strads a good investment: In my opinion, yes in some cases. If I was ultra-rich (defined as worth over $100MM) I'd buy one. It's a great hedge against a lot of catastrophic events. Asteroid mining makes your stockpile of gold worthless? Violin still has historic and quality value. We can engineer a copy of a strad that sounds near-identical? Ok, well this specific Strad still has historic value. AI is able to create new instruments, or makes human achievements seem lame: Strad still has historic value. Are Strads my favorite violins: I haven't heard enough of them in person to tell. Do Strads have something special in their chemistry: Nothing downright magical, and I don't think there's any one specific magic ingredient. It's probably a combination of things, combined with Stradivari's skill.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Another thing you can add to your pros-of-strads list is that it's not just a historical artifact, but it's a historical artifact that's meant to be used (not just put on display). That, in particular, is unusual.
dfabulich 10y ago
I think it's more useful to look at those polls of professionals who are unable to distinguish a Stradivarius from modern instruments. It's not that modern instruments are "better" or "worse," but if they're indistinguishable, the question is irrelevant.
- owenversteeg 10y ago
  Every professional is able to distinguish a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. Even a non-professional violinist could tell the difference between a Strad and a Strad copy. The best Strad copy [0] is a recently made violin in Canada for about $27k. That may sound expensive, but I personally know several people with instruments more expensive than that. You may be referring to the question "which is the older instrument". (Which was asked in exactly one reputable study.) To which I say: why does it matter? Again, that's like asking "what is the older piece of art" when showing people the Mona Lisa. Is it interesting that, according to that one study, professional musicians are bad at guessing the age of their instruments? Kinda, I guess. If you do want to trumpet that poll though, go ahead - be my guest. But you should know that a big reason why Strads are so valuable is (drum roll)... that they don't show their age. [0] The instrument in question is a 1993 copy of the Booth Strad.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    > Every professional is able to distinguish a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. The available evidence does not support your assertion, in fact it refutes it. I mean, you can assert however much you like, but anyone who suscribes to the scientific method would disagree based on the studies. (EDIT: That's not say that I don't "get" why people would want a Stradivarius -- its historicity, its rarity, etc. etc. Sound, however, cannot be the distinguishing feature.)
    - owenversteeg 10y ago
      [edit] hm, +2 to -4 in quick succession on a dead post. That's interesting. TL;DR The published research is absolute worthless garbage, with trash statistics, re-used participants, and downright inflammatory and confusing quotes such as the following: "Some musicians espouse decidedly nonscientific views, such as the existence of spirit guides". Say what you will about Stradivarius violins - I myself prefer Il Cannone to any Strad - but please do not try to prop up an argument with these worthless studies. Your note of "Anyone who suscribes [sic] to the scientific method would disagree based on the studies" irritates me. "subscribing to the scientific method" is related to accepting published results in the same way that iPhone sales are related to the number of people who died falling down stairs [1]. Even more irritating, if you actually took two minutes to look for real, published studies you'd notice that the literature is surprisingly lacking for such a blogged-about topic. The entirety of published, close-to-legitimate research consists of two studies. Upon a closer look, one may notice that both studies were published in PNAS through the "Contributed" process, allowing them to bypass most parts of peer review - and critically, select their reviewers. After scanning the headline, you may notice that four of the five authors on the original paper are present on the second. Simply Googling the name of the first paper indicates strong concerns that have been voiced about the experimental design of the first paper, which made even the newspapers that published the second paper call the first paper "controversial". Then, when you look at the second paper, you'll find a number of concerning things. I'm not sure how many papers you write, but even if the number is small I'm sure you'll agree that "The Team" is not something you'll find often in published literature. I assume one of their cherry-picked reviewers realized this, and thus they added the sentence "Although it is unusual to describe the team..." right after starting their "The Team" section, which made me chuckle. Once you start actually reading the beef of the paper, things start to look much more concerning. 40% of the violinists voiced deep concerns with the study. What really makes me laugh was the supposed selection process. They claim to have selected a good sample of violinists (and make the, er, interesting claim that their sample is equivalent - yes, equivalent - to the entire population.) Then, only in the Supporting Information - accessible only by a link at the end of the paper in small text, by the way - they disclose that some of the violinists that were used in this particular study were exactly the same violinists used in the previous study. This becomes even more concerning when you realize the sample size is 10. A sample size of 10 is not bad by itself, and can often be justified, but in this case they reused study participants who had played the same violins before, and then in the same breath boasted about the quality of their study participants. I'm not sure how this paper got published a SECOND time. Oh wait, I forgot. PNAS Contributed Papers. Letting Bad Science Bypass Peer Review Since 1914!™ For a fun time (warning: your definition of fun may be different than mine) you should read the absolutely disgusting commentary article [2]. It's basically an essay by the author on "Why Science Trumps Silly Artists!". It includes things such as hilariously saying that irrational minds will see triangles in Kanizsa's triangles when (and I quote) "careful inspection" reveals none actually exist! Wow! Scientists™ realized Kanizsa's triangles don't actually have triangles?! I for one am glad that we have Scientists to tell us that! There's no way our feeble artist brains could figure that out ourselves! The author then continues to let free-form bullshit dribble onto the page. Pop quiz: Are these quotes from Deepak Chopra, or a scientist with a PhD published in PNAS? - "Expectations retune neural circuits" - "Our processing can change perception" If you answered Deepak Chopra, you're wrong! These are actually quotes from a PhD professor published in PNAS. He goes on to say some downright inflammatory and ridiculous things: - "The findings should put an end to the outrageously high prices charged for musical instruments" What? I really hope this guy doesn't actually believe what he writes. - "Because artists rely so heavily on their own experience, studies like this have historically fallen on deaf ears—“I know what I know because my senses tell me so” may be the refrain of those who are skeptical of scientific methods." Excuse me? The singular previous study was discredited by scientists first, then musicians second, because of sloppy science. - "Some musicians espouse decidedly nonscientific views, such as the existence of spirit guides" What? I'd like to hear this man try to justify the inclusion of this sentence. Exactly what was he trying to accomplish? I'm shocked and appalled at the current published "research", if it can even be called that. Say what you will about Stradivarius violins - I myself prefer others - but please do not defend the "research". [0] https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/ [1] http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=28669 http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=28669 [2] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7168.full http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7168.full [3] for more notes on violin stuff in general, see http://pastebin.com/GCuK322j http://pastebin.com/GCuK322j

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?

owenversteeg 10y ago
Oh, it does quite a bit actually! I just don't talk about it here because I've personally never seen it on HN despite being here (in various incarnations) for the better part of a decade. Since I find the topic so interesting (and because my previous comments seem to be getting votes), I'll ramble for a bit more here on a few other questions I've asked myself, if you don't mind :) Are Strads a good investment: In my opinion, yes in some cases. If I was ultra-rich (defined as worth over $100MM) I'd buy one. It's a great hedge against a lot of catastrophic events. Asteroid mining makes your stockpile of gold worthless? Violin still has historic and quality value. We can engineer a copy of a strad that sounds near-identical? Ok, well this specific Strad still has historic value. AI is able to create new instruments, or makes human achievements seem lame: Strad still has historic value. Are Strads my favorite violins: I haven't heard enough of them in person to tell. Do Strads have something special in their chemistry: Nothing downright magical, and I don't think there's any one specific magic ingredient. It's probably a combination of things, combined with Stradivari's skill.
- vacri 10y ago
  Another thing you can add to your pros-of-strads list is that it's not just a historical artifact, but it's a historical artifact that's meant to be used (not just put on display). That, in particular, is unusual.

dfabulich 10y ago

I think it's more useful to look at those polls of professionals who are unable to distinguish a Stradivarius from modern instruments. It's not that modern instruments are "better" or "worse," but if they're indistinguishable, the question is irrelevant.

owenversteeg 10y ago
Every professional is able to distinguish a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. Even a non-professional violinist could tell the difference between a Strad and a Strad copy. The best Strad copy [0] is a recently made violin in Canada for about $27k. That may sound expensive, but I personally know several people with instruments more expensive than that. You may be referring to the question "which is the older instrument". (Which was asked in exactly one reputable study.) To which I say: why does it matter? Again, that's like asking "what is the older piece of art" when showing people the Mona Lisa. Is it interesting that, according to that one study, professional musicians are bad at guessing the age of their instruments? Kinda, I guess. If you do want to trumpet that poll though, go ahead - be my guest. But you should know that a big reason why Strads are so valuable is (drum roll)... that they don't show their age. [0] The instrument in question is a 1993 copy of the Booth Strad.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  > Every professional is able to distinguish a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. The available evidence does not support your assertion, in fact it refutes it. I mean, you can assert however much you like, but anyone who suscribes to the scientific method would disagree based on the studies. (EDIT: That's not say that I don't "get" why people would want a Stradivarius -- its historicity, its rarity, etc. etc. Sound, however, cannot be the distinguishing feature.)
  - owenversteeg 10y ago
    [edit] hm, +2 to -4 in quick succession on a dead post. That's interesting. TL;DR The published research is absolute worthless garbage, with trash statistics, re-used participants, and downright inflammatory and confusing quotes such as the following: "Some musicians espouse decidedly nonscientific views, such as the existence of spirit guides". Say what you will about Stradivarius violins - I myself prefer Il Cannone to any Strad - but please do not try to prop up an argument with these worthless studies. Your note of "Anyone who suscribes [sic] to the scientific method would disagree based on the studies" irritates me. "subscribing to the scientific method" is related to accepting published results in the same way that iPhone sales are related to the number of people who died falling down stairs [1]. Even more irritating, if you actually took two minutes to look for real, published studies you'd notice that the literature is surprisingly lacking for such a blogged-about topic. The entirety of published, close-to-legitimate research consists of two studies. Upon a closer look, one may notice that both studies were published in PNAS through the "Contributed" process, allowing them to bypass most parts of peer review - and critically, select their reviewers. After scanning the headline, you may notice that four of the five authors on the original paper are present on the second. Simply Googling the name of the first paper indicates strong concerns that have been voiced about the experimental design of the first paper, which made even the newspapers that published the second paper call the first paper "controversial". Then, when you look at the second paper, you'll find a number of concerning things. I'm not sure how many papers you write, but even if the number is small I'm sure you'll agree that "The Team" is not something you'll find often in published literature. I assume one of their cherry-picked reviewers realized this, and thus they added the sentence "Although it is unusual to describe the team..." right after starting their "The Team" section, which made me chuckle. Once you start actually reading the beef of the paper, things start to look much more concerning. 40% of the violinists voiced deep concerns with the study. What really makes me laugh was the supposed selection process. They claim to have selected a good sample of violinists (and make the, er, interesting claim that their sample is equivalent - yes, equivalent - to the entire population.) Then, only in the Supporting Information - accessible only by a link at the end of the paper in small text, by the way - they disclose that some of the violinists that were used in this particular study were exactly the same violinists used in the previous study. This becomes even more concerning when you realize the sample size is 10. A sample size of 10 is not bad by itself, and can often be justified, but in this case they reused study participants who had played the same violins before, and then in the same breath boasted about the quality of their study participants. I'm not sure how this paper got published a SECOND time. Oh wait, I forgot. PNAS Contributed Papers. Letting Bad Science Bypass Peer Review Since 1914!™ For a fun time (warning: your definition of fun may be different than mine) you should read the absolutely disgusting commentary article [2]. It's basically an essay by the author on "Why Science Trumps Silly Artists!". It includes things such as hilariously saying that irrational minds will see triangles in Kanizsa's triangles when (and I quote) "careful inspection" reveals none actually exist! Wow! Scientists™ realized Kanizsa's triangles don't actually have triangles?! I for one am glad that we have Scientists to tell us that! There's no way our feeble artist brains could figure that out ourselves! The author then continues to let free-form bullshit dribble onto the page. Pop quiz: Are these quotes from Deepak Chopra, or a scientist with a PhD published in PNAS? - "Expectations retune neural circuits" - "Our processing can change perception" If you answered Deepak Chopra, you're wrong! These are actually quotes from a PhD professor published in PNAS. He goes on to say some downright inflammatory and ridiculous things: - "The findings should put an end to the outrageously high prices charged for musical instruments" What? I really hope this guy doesn't actually believe what he writes. - "Because artists rely so heavily on their own experience, studies like this have historically fallen on deaf ears—“I know what I know because my senses tell me so” may be the refrain of those who are skeptical of scientific methods." Excuse me? The singular previous study was discredited by scientists first, then musicians second, because of sloppy science. - "Some musicians espouse decidedly nonscientific views, such as the existence of spirit guides" What? I'd like to hear this man try to justify the inclusion of this sentence. Exactly what was he trying to accomplish? I'm shocked and appalled at the current published "research", if it can even be called that. Say what you will about Stradivarius violins - I myself prefer others - but please do not defend the "research". [0] https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/ [1] http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=28669 http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=28669 [2] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7168.full http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7168.full [3] for more notes on violin stuff in general, see http://pastebin.com/GCuK322j http://pastebin.com/GCuK322j