4 ms·

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 un

by 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.
- jm_l 10y ago
  > That's a wild assumption. FWIW A participant (of the 2010 study, not the follow-up you linked) did explain in a blog post that "[the Strads] were loaned with the stipulation that they remain in the condition in which we received them -- precluding any tonal adjustments or even changing the strings" http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/ http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/
  - dahart 10y ago
    Yeah, I would expect that (and thanks for the link!) - I'm loaning you something super expensive, please don't mess it up. But the comment above suggested the research could be biased and compromised by the owners not doing maintenance. Much lower probability of that.
    - elihu 10y ago
      Perhaps I wasn't clear in my wording. The modern violins are probably all in top-notch condition -- if a violin wasn't in great condition, it probably wouldn't have been included in the study. The Strads, though, are in whatever condition they happen to be in at the time, which could be good or not so good, depending on whether the years and previous owners have been kind to the instrument. And if there's anything that ought to be fixed for maximum playability, it might not be possible to get permission to have it fixed. Not because the owners don't care about maintenance, but because the owners are more concerned about keeping it in as close to original condition than how good it plays right now. For instance, let's say there's a divot worn in the fingerboard from years of string friction. With a modern instrument, you'd just take it to a luthier and have him/her plane it down. With a Strad, you might consider how many times you can plane the fingerboard down before you have to replace it entirely, and whether or not the violin would lose value with a new fingerboard. And you might also say to yourself that that divot was worn into the fingerboard by <some famous 18th or 19th century musician> and who am I to erase that little bit of history? People can be sentimental about old instruments, and doing too many repairs may also be more harmful in the long run than only fixing what needs to be fixed and nothing more.
- 10y ago

by elihu 10y ago

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.

jm_l 10y ago
> That's a wild assumption. FWIW A participant (of the 2010 study, not the follow-up you linked) did explain in a blog post that "[the Strads] were loaned with the stipulation that they remain in the condition in which we received them -- precluding any tonal adjustments or even changing the strings" http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/ http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/
- dahart 10y ago
  Yeah, I would expect that (and thanks for the link!) - I'm loaning you something super expensive, please don't mess it up. But the comment above suggested the research could be biased and compromised by the owners not doing maintenance. Much lower probability of that.
  - elihu 10y ago
    Perhaps I wasn't clear in my wording. The modern violins are probably all in top-notch condition -- if a violin wasn't in great condition, it probably wouldn't have been included in the study. The Strads, though, are in whatever condition they happen to be in at the time, which could be good or not so good, depending on whether the years and previous owners have been kind to the instrument. And if there's anything that ought to be fixed for maximum playability, it might not be possible to get permission to have it fixed. Not because the owners don't care about maintenance, but because the owners are more concerned about keeping it in as close to original condition than how good it plays right now. For instance, let's say there's a divot worn in the fingerboard from years of string friction. With a modern instrument, you'd just take it to a luthier and have him/her plane it down. With a Strad, you might consider how many times you can plane the fingerboard down before you have to replace it entirely, and whether or not the violin would lose value with a new fingerboard. And you might also say to yourself that that divot was worn into the fingerboard by <some famous 18th or 19th century musician> and who am I to erase that little bit of history? People can be sentimental about old instruments, and doing too many repairs may also be more harmful in the long run than only fixing what needs to be fixed and nothing more.
10y ago