13 ms·

Million-dollar Strads fall to modern violins in blind ‘sound check’

127 points by bhasi 9y ago

ukulele 9y ago
I always find it odd that people are surprised when modern manufacturing can yield better results on a given metric (e.g. sound quality). Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?
- glenra 9y ago
  I suspect there was a period when the older ones were better, even if this was mostly a matter of taste and survivorship bias. Bad violins and bad violin makers are forgotten to history while the very best ones (as judged by the very best players and orchestras) gradually gained stature and people exposed to those instruments decided the way they happened to sound was how fine violins are supposed to sound. The trouble is, new violins kept getting better. A more interesting question might be when the quality of the new ones surpassed that of the older ones. I'd like to see a blind test rating that included new violins from 1990, 2000, 2010... Was there one particular step-change in quality that made a big difference, or was it just lots of mundane little changes?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. This stuff is right up there with wine tasting.
    - Libturd 9y ago
      holy shit you're dumb, kid.
    - rabbadabba_00 9y ago
      This isn't meant to be elitist or condescending in any way, but whenever I hear this comment it makes me sad. It makes me sad because it means the commenter has never had a truly good bottle of wine. Most wine isn't that good actually. There is wide range of price / marketing / effort where the chances of getting a really enjoyable bottle of wine is more luck than anything. But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. If you ever want to know the truth, go buy a bottle of JL Chave Hermitage (the Syrah). There are some truly legendary vintages of this wine but in my experience you can pick any vintage and be blown away. You can probably find it for as low as $2XX. I don't want to dox myself here, otherwise I'd offer to pick up the bill if the experience didn't change your mind. Taste that wine and you'll know. It's an expensive habit and I rarely indulge myself, but "fine wine" is a real, if very rare, thing.
      - bsder 9y ago
        > But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. Define "quality". Wine taste, like most food, is both very subjective and very personalized. I dislike most wines. Price doesn't matter. However, there are specific wines that I like very very much--if you put a right-bank wine in front of me, I'm probably going to like it--price also doesn't seem to matter unless it's very cheap. What I would suggest to the original poster is that if you don't like a lot of wines, find a high-end wine tasting and go--the goal is simply to try to decrease your probability of encountering an actually bad wine. Try the different wines, and try to isolate which ones you like more and which ones you like less even if you dislike them all. Then you can go talk to the sommelier/buyer and give him some parameters in which to help you search. Otherwise, "Find me a wine I like" is much like "My computer is broken. Fix it."--if you don't give someone any information to work with, they can't do anything to help you.
        TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Here’s a nice summary of some studies: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-ta...
        bsder 9y ago
        There is a big difference between being consistent with "This wine has a 92 rating and notes of <foo>, <bar>, <baz>" and "I don't like wines from syrah grapes." What's a "92 rating" even supposed mean? From food: What good is a "92 rating" on a Peking Duck dish, for example, if you don't like duck? The big problem is that "wine rating" has no relevance to me, the buyer, as to whether or not I'm going to like a wine. It took me years to figure out what the commonality was between wines I liked. If the wine industry figure out how to fix that, they'd probably sell a lot more wine. Or, maybe they wouldn't, lots of areas already seem to produce wines that lots of people like for very reasonable prices.
        kmonsen 9y ago
        Wine, at least to me and more with some grapes then others, tastes much better if stored for a few years in barrels. This is expensive and drives up the price a bit. But it is not the only thing that fine up the price so just because the price is higher doesn't mean it will be better.
    - kurthr 9y ago
      Well, if it's at all like wine tasting then I have to suspect a significant group of people can tell the difference. It's just not me. With wine tasting I agree that 90%+ can't detect most differences, but there are plenty of people who could accurately guess varietals, often regions (because they grow their grapes and make their wine differently), and certainly age (because oak and oxidation have very obvious effects). Whenever I hear that someone couldn't tell the difference between red wine and died white wine I have to laugh... it's not that I could really tell you what exact type of white some thing was, but that the wine making styles (even fermentation yeast) are so different along with the use of oak and lack of tannins that it's hilarious to make the mistake. On the other hand, cheap bad wine could taste like any damn thing other than (probably) good wine. Have I blind tasted? Yes, and I couldn't tell you the dollar value of wine between $10-100 because people will charge what the market will bear. However, if you can't taste the difference between a decent Red Burgundy, California Zinfandel, and a Merlot-Cab or between a decent Chablis and a Sav Blanc then you probably just don't care. They smell very different, have different acidity and sugar levels, bitterness, oak vanillins... In a blind test I've seen 8/10 amateurs get every one of 4 wine varietals correct (the others were 2/4) based on a short description, which is well beyond chance.
      - jonnybgood 9y ago
        The differences to kinds of wines is not what’s being referred to. As you’ve also stated, the claim is that there’s no difference in the dollar value. A $10 Pinot is no different than a $100 Pinot. So, it’s just like the Strads.
        kmonsen 9y ago
        This is not true, at least a$10 and $50 Chianti is very easy to taste the difference since the more expensive is stored longer and much 'easier' to drink. I'm not sure about a $50 and a $150.
        lazerpants 9y ago
        Usually the difference from $50 to $150+ has a lot to do with aging too. You're essentially paying someone to store a high priced item for you for [x] years in appropriate conditions. Depending on your tastes and the wine it can be a huge difference whether or not its worth it. There are also some pretty big differences in agricultural techniques applied to different wineries. The first growth Bordeaux guys are employing experienced growers at the top of their fields to consider things like harvest time, planting conditions, soil maintenance, etc., these costs do get passed along.
    - autokad 9y ago
      one key thing to keep in mind is that blind tests aren't the end all and be all. remember coke kept finding that people who drank coke preferred pepsi in a blind taste test. It turned out because Pepsi was sweater, but people's enjoyment of a beverage goes further than just sitting down taking a few sips of a drink. Relying on data like that lead to one of the greatest follys in business history: New Coke. Many people when put on the spot get it wrong what they like, as they often focus on something very trivial. In coke, it was sweetness, and in these violins, loudness. To me, its evidence the new ones sound better, but its not definitive.
    - glenra 9y ago
      > I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. If you read the study which OP summarizes, it claims to show that blind testers NOW definitely CAN tell the difference. The best "new" violins of today are better than old strads, where "better" is defined as any of: (1) objectively produces more sound volume for a given level of bow pressure as measured via a db meter at a specific location (2) subjectively "projects better" (either alone or against an orchestra) as judged by listeners (3) "is preferred" as judged by listeners. The people judging in the tests for (2) and (3) have included the performers themselves, skilled listeners, and unskilled interested observers. The results seem to be really consistent - most listeners unambiguously judge the newer instruments better. So no, it's not like wine tasting. At least, not anymore.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    You can see the same sort of thing with other instruments of creative professions, too. Like, look at machine tools. Modern lathes are made tough, well, and often with features like CNC attachments. But the 'old iron' behemoths produced by South Bend in the 1920s are also still running and performing precise work day-in, day-out. They'll probably continue to do so for a very long time, and they'll still blow a modern introductory benchtop model out of the water. Is it really that the old models were in some way 'perfect', or is it just that we tend to be impressed by bespoke works which continue to perform outstandingly over the ravages of time? Maybe it appeals to a sense that we could someday overcome the transience of our possessions. I guess that's sort of an existentially futile goal to chase, but it would be nice in the context of things like batteries and plastic junk.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    > new violins keep getting better Indeed -- https://luisandclark.com/ https://luisandclark.com/ I was wondering if anyone was making them out of carbon-fiber these days, and yes they are!
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Every other version of Windows? Pretty much any technology with planned obsolescence has older generations with better build quality including flip phones, household appliances, etc. That doesn't mean we're incapable of building to a better spec, we just choose not to for economic reasons.
- legohead 9y ago
  Sort of related.. but I'd say classical composing. Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, etc. Where are the modern classical powerhouses? Contemporary classical is a scary, awful thing for my ears. The best I have found is actually in the movies - Danny Elfman and Hanz Zimmer, for instance. I sort of attribute them to modern Opera writers, though - they don't write full on symphonies. I don't believe myself a snob, I listen to and enjoy modern metal, pop, techno. But I love the old classical as well. While techno and metal continue to progress and get better, classical has grown...weird
  - 870ce17ce51644a 9y ago
    I think that's more of a cultural issue. Current "classical music" culture generates what I agree is pretty awful music. A lot of art forms end up like that: you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. Techno, and really most other modern genres have a lot more creative space left unexplored. It's just like how it's hard to get too excited about modern art. It can either be derivative and boring or it can be outlandish trash, and nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of.
    - themarkn 9y ago
      > you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. > nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of. I get what you are saying about incentives here (I think). But this may be too cynical and simplistic a way to look at pressures in art creation. There are lots of artists simply trying to find their way and make new work that contributes to the ongoing development of their medium. At one point harmony itself was frowned upon in Western music. Many of the great classical composers wrote music that was controversial at the time because of how they extended the use of harmony beyond the comfort level of the previous generation. I'm not saying you have to like all the modern stuff, but it's possible to approach it with much less cynicism. Many of our favorite historical composers were pushing the medium in their day. We might have a bit of selection bias too in that it is mostly the music that became culturally accepted that we still have access to. Lots of modern art and music doesn't land for me, but sometimes it really does and I'm grateful for it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pmorici 9y ago
  Construction of the pyaramids?
  - IshKebab 9y ago
    We could easily build a pyramid now though.
    - zrobotics 9y ago
      Easily? Sure, we have the equipment, but the hurdle is cost. It may be easier as far as human labor goes, but comparing the different social systems, it could be argued that it was easier for the Egyptians to build a pyramid. After all, who was going to argue with the Pharoh?
- dizzystar 9y ago
  I'm not sure about musical instruments, but apparently Damascus steel and Roman concrete are superior technologies.
  - jankotek 9y ago
    Not really. Modern spring steel is far better and Roman concrete is unique because of materials, we know its composition.
    - regularfry 9y ago
      With Roman concrete, you're talking about very recent discoveries in the grand scheme of things. Some of the important research is less than a year old.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > Damascus steel Damascus steel was good for its time, but there are quite a few modern steels that are better suited for producing bladed weapons.
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    Only to confirm and to raise some doubts in the skeptics, the good thing about Roman concrete is that is 2 thousands (or more) years old and still going strong and Damascus steel as well is 1 thousand (or more) years old and still fine. What will become of modern concrete (if reinforced, I can tell you for sure it is going to rot) and what will happen with modern steel we will see in a few hundred years. For the record, most of the structures built in the "gold age of steel", the second part of the 19th century, like railways bridges that were once considered to be "immortal" have been largely been demolished (and replaced with new structures) because the steel became too brittle and started cracking and the same, amplified or infuced by fatigue, affects a large number of modern steel bridges as well [1]. [1] http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf
- savanaly 9y ago
  I remember a history teacher claiming that in the area of sculpture, the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) haven't been surpassed. He could easily have been full of it, though.
- moomin 9y ago
  My dad swears by his viola which was made by an Italian shop that has spent a long time studying the techniques used by the old masters. For a long time Strads had an “indefinable quality”. Turns out research and experimentation is actually quite good at defining those qualities.
- autokad 9y ago
  Roman concrete?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Why do you think it hasn't been surpassed?
    - autokad 9y ago
      keep in mind, 'they think they figured out why roman concrete was so good' many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also "The strength and longevity of Roman marine concrete is understood to benefit from a reaction of seawater with a mixture of volcanic ash ... The result is a candidate for "the most durable building material in human history." In contrast, modern concrete exposed to saltwater deteriorates within decades"
- toolslive 9y ago
  "Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?" Damascus Steel comes to mind, and maybe Starlite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite There are objects of which we currently don't know how they were made, so the technique was lost. However, this also can be attributed to archeologists not being engineers.
  - skj 9y ago
    Damascus steel hasn't been rediscovered, but that wiki article indicates that it has been surpassed.
  - ravitation 9y ago
    Well, modern steel outperforms Damascus Steel (so it's been surpassed) and Starlite is probably a myth...
- klodolph 9y ago
  I can think of examples along the lines of dead media formats. Floppy disks and instant film, for two examples. Floppy disks declined in quality and were extremely unreliable in the early 2000s. Floppy disks from the 90s and 80s were more reliable. Instant film has also declined in quality, with film from the Impossible Project (or Polaroid Originals) being inferior to Polaroid film from previous decades, despite being made with the same production equipment.
  - dlevine 9y ago
    Much of that has to do with cost. By the early 2000s, floppy disks were much cheaper than they were in the 80s and 90s, and I'm guessing that was because manufacturers were optimizing for cost. Those AOL disks that you could get for free and then reformat were clearly pretty cheap, and had a high failure rate. The same thing is true with TVs made today - TVs are generally lower quality than ones made 20 years ago (in terms of reliability and durability), but are a lot cheaper. If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost)
    - klodolph 9y ago
      > If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost) Neither floppy disks nor instant film exist at the higher end of the quality/cost curve, that's the problem. There's also the issue of Baumol's cost disease. For labor intensive work, the cost will increase due to the increased productivity of completely different workers.
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  It's not always about the manufacturing. Sometimes it's about the materials used. Brazilian rosewood is supposedly the best tonewood for the sides and backs of acoustic guitars but because the tree's are endangered you pretty much can't make a modern guitar out of it.
- gringoDan 9y ago
  Relevant article on reverse-engineering these old instruments: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/0610190014_1_violin-stradivarius-george-bissinger http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/06101...
- RickJWag 9y ago
  We have yet to return to the excellent pop music of the 80s.
  - xamuel 9y ago
    And the 80s failed to achieve the pop heights of the 60s...
- iammyIP 9y ago
  This is a nonsensical experiment: The role of the old 'genius-stradivari' violin is there to impress by its own history - not by it's sound. Of course can the Stradivari be 3d scanned and analysed to death and be rebuit as an even better sounding facsimile, but that totally misses the point:
- xamuel 9y ago
  Don't know how historically accurate it is, but this entertaining video argues that archery might be an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
  - Baeocystin 9y ago
    If this response is to be believed, the video is complete bunk with regards to its historical claims: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the... It still is a fun trick-shot video, though. :)
    - xamuel 9y ago
      Lars responds to critics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA I guess we'll just have to get these folks in a big ring and have 'em duel to the death :)
- on_and_off 9y ago
  Denim lovers often prefer fabric created by an old weaving machine. Entire brands like Momotaro are known because they have been able to find and use these machines (that's even an issue for them since it is very hard to maintain these machines and it takes a while to train people). Ironically, what is preferred are the irregularities created by the old process. I think that someday it will be surpassed though. Right now, a huge part of the process is still manual. With more and more sensors in our smartphones, we already have more than enough to get a 3d scan of a body. 'All' we need is to automate tailoring and reproduce irregularities with modern machines.
akamaka 9y ago
It seems a bit pointless to run these tests, since it’s up to each violinist to choose his or her own favourite instrument. Their own studies show that top violinists can easily detect the differences between individual violins.
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  I'd like to see those studies, if you have links to them. I've never heard of a study confirming any noticeable difference between Stradivarius violins and modern ones of the same quality.
  - akamaka 9y ago
    The posted article has a link to the earlier study from the same researchers: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/elite-violinists-fail-distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/elite-violinists-fail... “The consistency of results from session to session showed that soloists could definitely distinguish one violin from another. However, the soloists seemed to prefer the new violins.”
    - wilsonnb 9y ago
      "The consistency of results from session to session showed that soloists could definitely distinguish one violin from another. However, the soloists seemed to prefer the new violins, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In their lists of favorites, new violins outnumber old ones roughly 3-to-2, and the most popular violin by far was a new one, denoted N5. Musicians rated qualities of new instruments higher, too. And when it came to telling old violins from new, the soloists did no better than if they had simply guessed." Extended your quote from the article.
- bllguo 9y ago
  This is unfairly downvoted.. top violinists have their favorite instruments for real reasons. This comment never mentioned anything about Stradivarius violins being better than modern ones.
dizzystar 9y ago
These studies have been going on since the creation of these violins. I read one where the violinists themselves couldn't tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a new high end model. I do wonder, pushing aside the fakes, how much of the original wood is in each Strad. After a few centuries, there had to be repairs, hardware updates, new coatings, and so on.
- rovr138 9y ago
  Reminds me of a video about this video, Repairing Willie Nelson's Trigger[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhQuJTc5yFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhQuJTc5yFY
pazimzadeh 9y ago
Modern listeners might also be used to modern instruments. Americans actually like Hershey's chocolate. Doesn't make it better than Swiss chocolate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rovr138 9y ago
  Better in regards to taste? I'm sure people that like it better are going to say that it's better.
  - pazimzadeh 9y ago
    I'm trying to say you can't make a judgement unless you've had the chance to immerse yourself in both. Taste can be acquired pretty easily.
    - zrobotics 9y ago
      I would beg to differ, it can actually be hard to impossible to acquire a taste. For instance, I much prefer exceedingly dark (>75%) chocolate. Whereas my partner cannot stand it, and forcing herself to eat it to acquire a taste would be a painful experience. It's possible that I could acquire a taste for Swiss chocolate, but I doubt it. From what I have sampled, it is far too sweet for my taste (although nowhere near the American chocolate)
tomcam 9y ago
No blind or double-blind test has ever shown the Strads to be superior, although the tests can be hard on the violinist. The gold standard test had violinists wearing blindfolds and welding masks to be absolute certain they couldn’t see the instruments. Edit: when tested against modern instruments in the $30,000 range, which sounds like a lot but which is .1% the cost of a Strad.
tomcooks 9y ago
> folklore and b.s. Sigh. Maybe using whole words instead of abbreviations will keep up literacy and respect for centuries of artisanal masterpieces, `strads` my arse.
trophycase 9y ago
"The New York City study also showed that listeners' preferences correlated with their assessment of projection, suggesting the loudness of an instrument may be a primary factor in the quality of its sound." Do the timbres of these instruments vary? It may be that "manufactured" instruments sound plain, boring, or untextured. Basically the same reason that modern production techniques make songs sound "better" but also worse in the sense that it sounds artificial.
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  I don't think it's accurate to call the modern violins they used "manufactured". I'm 99% sure all of the modern violins they used are handmade in a way that's not too different from the way violins were made by Stradivari.
kerng 9y ago
I like how articles like this sometimes make it in the front page. Once I watched a documentary and for most old violins there is hardly anything original besides the main body (which projects the sound), pretty much everything else is renewed or modernized. The neck, pegs, bridge, etc.. for instance might have been entirely replaced on an old instrument. I found it interesting that that doesn't change the sound much.
- RegBarclay 9y ago
  Grandfather's axe.
leonroy 9y ago
Reminds me of this blind listening test of audiophile interconnects: http://www.audio-forums.com/articles/interconnect-cable-blind-listening-test.15/ http://www.audio-forums.com/articles/interconnect-cable-blin...
oftenwrong 9y ago
I believe this is not the first time I have read about higher volume sound being perceived as higher quality.
kleiba 9y ago
It's another one of those cases where the monetary value associated with a piece of art is determined emotionally, not rationally.
- zrobotics 9y ago
  Is there any way to rationally determine the value though? If we want to argue that the price should be determined rationally, then I suppose we could argue that all paintings are worthless. After all, why not just download a high resolution scan or a good print?
  - kleiba 9y ago
    Yes, in my world, it would be pretty close to that. Maybe not completely worthless - but when you consider how much you pay for, say, an episode of your favorite show on netflix (which involved many writers, actors, directors, decorators, etc -- all of which may rightfully be considered "artists") you get closer to a more realistic perspective. Btw, in that same world of mine, no actor would receive gazillion dollar compensation for a single movie, either, no matter how famous they were.
anotheryou 9y ago
The end of the article makes a very good point: > The New York City study also showed that listeners' preferences correlated with their assessment of projection, suggesting the loudness of an instrument may be a primary factor in the quality of its sound. It is well known that equal loudness is crucial for nuanced A-B testing with sound and often a PITA to get right. (and vice versa, PR A-B tests of some audio "enhancers" or simply toggling the ones of your soundcard often use this trick and nodge up volume a bit with effects on)
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
  For anyone unfamiliar, human frequency response changes with volume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
- _greim_ 9y ago
  Agreed. It's further complicated by subjective loudness not being a simple function of sound pressure level. So, if you adjust two signals to equal subjective loudness in an AB test, is it really a fair test?
- jackhack 9y ago
  I make acoustic guitars from scratch. There's an old joke in the luthier community about customer preference : "give 'em a choice between volume and tone, and they'll pick volume every time." It's funny because it's often true. The loud guitars sell first. Then again, it may depend on your market. A solo performer can sacrifice a lot of volume for a tone that matches their expectations. A performer who plays in a bluegrass band with a fiddle and a banjo needs every db they can get. But this is the acoustic instrument market. Electric is a different world altogether.
  - psychometry 9y ago
    Your typical bluegrass guitarist probably cares more about volume than most others because bluegrass bands still insist on crowding around a single mic for some reason.
SCdF 9y ago
Next week's headline: priceless 200yr old coat is no more water resistant than $70 coat. Strads aren't expensive because they are good instruments[1], they are expensive because they are old and rare and symbolic to people who care. [1] Not saying they are bad, I'm saying the sound quality is not the reason for their price
parrellel 9y ago
So they didn't control for volume, and they didn't mention that the instruments are all well past peak sound now. They're only going to sound worse as time passes, they've been getting worse for literally a century. We know that, and still we get, these articles, acting surprised.
squozzer 9y ago
I wouldn't mind trying the same test on guitars -- especially a '59 Les Paul v. 2018 Les Paul. That said, a fancier instrument might help a person play better, because of the confidence it brings to the player's psyche.
iammyIP 9y ago
This is a nonsensical experiment. The role of the old 'genius-stradivari' violin is to impress by its own history - not by its sound. Of course can the Stradivari be 3d scanned and be analysed to death and be rebuit as an 'even better sounding' facsimile, but that totally misses the point: When someone plays an 300 Year old instrument, the ooze of connotation to that history alone is enough to elevate the performance.
- Retric 9y ago
  I can't tell if your serious or not. These instruments don't sound the way they did 300 years ago. It's reasonable to suspect the fetish surrounding older instruments results in far worse music while also preventing people from hearing what music actually sounded like 300 years ago.
  - bllguo 9y ago
    I can't tell if you're serious or not. How is that a reasonable suspicion? You think that no professional violinist has ever played a modern instrument? Has never made a comparison to a Stradivarius? The idea that music is "far worse" than it would have been if people were using modern violins is just laughable.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Ahh, but fashion is pervasive. When people assume something should be better they perceive it as better. Further modern instrument design is designed to appeal to people that are so influenced. Thus, modern instruments also suffer from the same effect and we need blind evaluation to create more objective assessments across generations of musicians and instruments. Much like how hiding the musicians physical apreace changes how people rate them.
  - iammyIP 9y ago
    It's not a 'fetish' - it's 'History'. An old Stradivari Violin, 300 Years old, built by a near-genius-enginner, being played _Now_ is a much better experience than if they would use a 3d printed clone of it. It's the original that contributes not only to sound but to the perception of the performance, because of the years that have gone by since the instruments first incarnation. Of course, if you do it in a blind test, you aswell could simulate all the previously scanned stradivari properties, but that doesn't keep the original from being superior in idea - because it's the _original_. YES, we can build quasi-stradivaris en masse now, but that doesn't keep the originals from being superior. Therefore one of the main purposes of the Stradivari Violin is to show it, and announce it as such in a performance. It's a historic thing with these instruments, not an engineering minmaxing thing.
zsz 9y ago
When technical jargon consistently employs the term "somehow," cost (implicitly tied to value) itself becomes the arbiter of worth.
jackhack 9y ago
This talks quite a lot about the perception of the listener, but what about the player? The responsiveness of an instrument is one of those remarkable attributes that isn't often perceptible or appreciated by the audience -- the willingness of the instrument to respond to player input, which is part of the expressiveness. A performer can compensate for a "dull" instrument to a degree by anticipating a note and/or playing with greater force, but this has its limits. It is very subjective, and I would think difficult to measure, but some instruments are truly magical and feel eager to perform. It can whisper or shout, or ring on certain phrases, or more easily leap wide note intervals without unattractive overtones. Others, ostensibly identical (even made with wood from the same tree), are lacking something and aren't as responsive.
- sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago
  They said in the article that a previous study had shown that players also prefer newer violins.

127 points by bhasi 9y ago

I always find it odd that people are surprised when modern manufacturing can yield better results on a given metric (e.g. sound quality). Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?

glenra 9y ago
I suspect there was a period when the older ones were better, even if this was mostly a matter of taste and survivorship bias. Bad violins and bad violin makers are forgotten to history while the very best ones (as judged by the very best players and orchestras) gradually gained stature and people exposed to those instruments decided the way they happened to sound was how fine violins are supposed to sound. The trouble is, new violins kept getting better. A more interesting question might be when the quality of the new ones surpassed that of the older ones. I'd like to see a blind test rating that included new violins from 1990, 2000, 2010... Was there one particular step-change in quality that made a big difference, or was it just lots of mundane little changes?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. This stuff is right up there with wine tasting.
  - Libturd 9y ago
    holy shit you're dumb, kid.
  - rabbadabba_00 9y ago
    This isn't meant to be elitist or condescending in any way, but whenever I hear this comment it makes me sad. It makes me sad because it means the commenter has never had a truly good bottle of wine. Most wine isn't that good actually. There is wide range of price / marketing / effort where the chances of getting a really enjoyable bottle of wine is more luck than anything. But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. If you ever want to know the truth, go buy a bottle of JL Chave Hermitage (the Syrah). There are some truly legendary vintages of this wine but in my experience you can pick any vintage and be blown away. You can probably find it for as low as $2XX. I don't want to dox myself here, otherwise I'd offer to pick up the bill if the experience didn't change your mind. Taste that wine and you'll know. It's an expensive habit and I rarely indulge myself, but "fine wine" is a real, if very rare, thing.
    - bsder 9y ago
      > But if you go towards the top of the market, there is a profound difference in quality. Define "quality". Wine taste, like most food, is both very subjective and very personalized. I dislike most wines. Price doesn't matter. However, there are specific wines that I like very very much--if you put a right-bank wine in front of me, I'm probably going to like it--price also doesn't seem to matter unless it's very cheap. What I would suggest to the original poster is that if you don't like a lot of wines, find a high-end wine tasting and go--the goal is simply to try to decrease your probability of encountering an actually bad wine. Try the different wines, and try to isolate which ones you like more and which ones you like less even if you dislike them all. Then you can go talk to the sommelier/buyer and give him some parameters in which to help you search. Otherwise, "Find me a wine I like" is much like "My computer is broken. Fix it."--if you don't give someone any information to work with, they can't do anything to help you.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Here’s a nice summary of some studies: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-ta...
        bsder 9y ago
        There is a big difference between being consistent with "This wine has a 92 rating and notes of <foo>, <bar>, <baz>" and "I don't like wines from syrah grapes." What's a "92 rating" even supposed mean? From food: What good is a "92 rating" on a Peking Duck dish, for example, if you don't like duck? The big problem is that "wine rating" has no relevance to me, the buyer, as to whether or not I'm going to like a wine. It took me years to figure out what the commonality was between wines I liked. If the wine industry figure out how to fix that, they'd probably sell a lot more wine. Or, maybe they wouldn't, lots of areas already seem to produce wines that lots of people like for very reasonable prices.
      - kmonsen 9y ago
        Wine, at least to me and more with some grapes then others, tastes much better if stored for a few years in barrels. This is expensive and drives up the price a bit. But it is not the only thing that fine up the price so just because the price is higher doesn't mean it will be better.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    Well, if it's at all like wine tasting then I have to suspect a significant group of people can tell the difference. It's just not me. With wine tasting I agree that 90%+ can't detect most differences, but there are plenty of people who could accurately guess varietals, often regions (because they grow their grapes and make their wine differently), and certainly age (because oak and oxidation have very obvious effects). Whenever I hear that someone couldn't tell the difference between red wine and died white wine I have to laugh... it's not that I could really tell you what exact type of white some thing was, but that the wine making styles (even fermentation yeast) are so different along with the use of oak and lack of tannins that it's hilarious to make the mistake. On the other hand, cheap bad wine could taste like any damn thing other than (probably) good wine. Have I blind tasted? Yes, and I couldn't tell you the dollar value of wine between $10-100 because people will charge what the market will bear. However, if you can't taste the difference between a decent Red Burgundy, California Zinfandel, and a Merlot-Cab or between a decent Chablis and a Sav Blanc then you probably just don't care. They smell very different, have different acidity and sugar levels, bitterness, oak vanillins... In a blind test I've seen 8/10 amateurs get every one of 4 wine varietals correct (the others were 2/4) based on a short description, which is well beyond chance.
    - jonnybgood 9y ago
      The differences to kinds of wines is not what’s being referred to. As you’ve also stated, the claim is that there’s no difference in the dollar value. A $10 Pinot is no different than a $100 Pinot. So, it’s just like the Strads.
      - kmonsen 9y ago
        This is not true, at least a$10 and $50 Chianti is very easy to taste the difference since the more expensive is stored longer and much 'easier' to drink. I'm not sure about a $50 and a $150.
        lazerpants 9y ago
        Usually the difference from $50 to $150+ has a lot to do with aging too. You're essentially paying someone to store a high priced item for you for [x] years in appropriate conditions. Depending on your tastes and the wine it can be a huge difference whether or not its worth it. There are also some pretty big differences in agricultural techniques applied to different wineries. The first growth Bordeaux guys are employing experienced growers at the top of their fields to consider things like harvest time, planting conditions, soil maintenance, etc., these costs do get passed along.
  - autokad 9y ago
    one key thing to keep in mind is that blind tests aren't the end all and be all. remember coke kept finding that people who drank coke preferred pepsi in a blind taste test. It turned out because Pepsi was sweater, but people's enjoyment of a beverage goes further than just sitting down taking a few sips of a drink. Relying on data like that lead to one of the greatest follys in business history: New Coke. Many people when put on the spot get it wrong what they like, as they often focus on something very trivial. In coke, it was sweetness, and in these violins, loudness. To me, its evidence the new ones sound better, but its not definitive.
  - glenra 9y ago
    > I'd be surprised if there was ever a period where blind testers could tell the difference. If you read the study which OP summarizes, it claims to show that blind testers NOW definitely CAN tell the difference. The best "new" violins of today are better than old strads, where "better" is defined as any of: (1) objectively produces more sound volume for a given level of bow pressure as measured via a db meter at a specific location (2) subjectively "projects better" (either alone or against an orchestra) as judged by listeners (3) "is preferred" as judged by listeners. The people judging in the tests for (2) and (3) have included the performers themselves, skilled listeners, and unskilled interested observers. The results seem to be really consistent - most listeners unambiguously judge the newer instruments better. So no, it's not like wine tasting. At least, not anymore.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  You can see the same sort of thing with other instruments of creative professions, too. Like, look at machine tools. Modern lathes are made tough, well, and often with features like CNC attachments. But the 'old iron' behemoths produced by South Bend in the 1920s are also still running and performing precise work day-in, day-out. They'll probably continue to do so for a very long time, and they'll still blow a modern introductory benchtop model out of the water. Is it really that the old models were in some way 'perfect', or is it just that we tend to be impressed by bespoke works which continue to perform outstandingly over the ravages of time? Maybe it appeals to a sense that we could someday overcome the transience of our possessions. I guess that's sort of an existentially futile goal to chase, but it would be nice in the context of things like batteries and plastic junk.
- ams6110 9y ago
  > new violins keep getting better Indeed -- https://luisandclark.com/ https://luisandclark.com/ I was wondering if anyone was making them out of carbon-fiber these days, and yes they are!
Consultant32452 9y ago
Every other version of Windows? Pretty much any technology with planned obsolescence has older generations with better build quality including flip phones, household appliances, etc. That doesn't mean we're incapable of building to a better spec, we just choose not to for economic reasons.
legohead 9y ago
Sort of related.. but I'd say classical composing. Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, etc. Where are the modern classical powerhouses? Contemporary classical is a scary, awful thing for my ears. The best I have found is actually in the movies - Danny Elfman and Hanz Zimmer, for instance. I sort of attribute them to modern Opera writers, though - they don't write full on symphonies. I don't believe myself a snob, I listen to and enjoy modern metal, pop, techno. But I love the old classical as well. While techno and metal continue to progress and get better, classical has grown...weird
- 870ce17ce51644a 9y ago
  I think that's more of a cultural issue. Current "classical music" culture generates what I agree is pretty awful music. A lot of art forms end up like that: you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. Techno, and really most other modern genres have a lot more creative space left unexplored. It's just like how it's hard to get too excited about modern art. It can either be derivative and boring or it can be outlandish trash, and nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of.
  - themarkn 9y ago
    > you have to digress from the norm to be relevant while staying within the lines to be part of the genre, and eventually you end up with garbage. > nobody's giving awards to derivative and boring, so guess what you're going to see lots of. I get what you are saying about incentives here (I think). But this may be too cynical and simplistic a way to look at pressures in art creation. There are lots of artists simply trying to find their way and make new work that contributes to the ongoing development of their medium. At one point harmony itself was frowned upon in Western music. Many of the great classical composers wrote music that was controversial at the time because of how they extended the use of harmony beyond the comfort level of the previous generation. I'm not saying you have to like all the modern stuff, but it's possible to approach it with much less cynicism. Many of our favorite historical composers were pushing the medium in their day. We might have a bit of selection bias too in that it is mostly the music that became culturally accepted that we still have access to. Lots of modern art and music doesn't land for me, but sometimes it really does and I'm grateful for it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pmorici 9y ago
Construction of the pyaramids?
- IshKebab 9y ago
  We could easily build a pyramid now though.
  - zrobotics 9y ago
    Easily? Sure, we have the equipment, but the hurdle is cost. It may be easier as far as human labor goes, but comparing the different social systems, it could be argued that it was easier for the Egyptians to build a pyramid. After all, who was going to argue with the Pharoh?
dizzystar 9y ago
I'm not sure about musical instruments, but apparently Damascus steel and Roman concrete are superior technologies.
- jankotek 9y ago
  Not really. Modern spring steel is far better and Roman concrete is unique because of materials, we know its composition.
  - regularfry 9y ago
    With Roman concrete, you're talking about very recent discoveries in the grand scheme of things. Some of the important research is less than a year old.
- bsder 9y ago
  > Damascus steel Damascus steel was good for its time, but there are quite a few modern steels that are better suited for producing bladed weapons.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  Only to confirm and to raise some doubts in the skeptics, the good thing about Roman concrete is that is 2 thousands (or more) years old and still going strong and Damascus steel as well is 1 thousand (or more) years old and still fine. What will become of modern concrete (if reinforced, I can tell you for sure it is going to rot) and what will happen with modern steel we will see in a few hundred years. For the record, most of the structures built in the "gold age of steel", the second part of the 19th century, like railways bridges that were once considered to be "immortal" have been largely been demolished (and replaced with new structures) because the steel became too brittle and started cracking and the same, amplified or infuced by fatigue, affects a large number of modern steel bridges as well [1]. [1] http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/2/4/456/pdf
savanaly 9y ago
I remember a history teacher claiming that in the area of sculpture, the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) haven't been surpassed. He could easily have been full of it, though.
moomin 9y ago
My dad swears by his viola which was made by an Italian shop that has spent a long time studying the techniques used by the old masters. For a long time Strads had an “indefinable quality”. Turns out research and experimentation is actually quite good at defining those qualities.
autokad 9y ago
Roman concrete?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Why do you think it hasn't been surpassed?
  - autokad 9y ago
    keep in mind, 'they think they figured out why roman concrete was so good' many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete#See_also "The strength and longevity of Roman marine concrete is understood to benefit from a reaction of seawater with a mixture of volcanic ash ... The result is a candidate for "the most durable building material in human history." In contrast, modern concrete exposed to saltwater deteriorates within decades"
toolslive 9y ago
"Are there any real counter examples, where old techniques haven't been met or surpassed?" Damascus Steel comes to mind, and maybe Starlite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite There are objects of which we currently don't know how they were made, so the technique was lost. However, this also can be attributed to archeologists not being engineers.
- skj 9y ago
  Damascus steel hasn't been rediscovered, but that wiki article indicates that it has been surpassed.
- ravitation 9y ago
  Well, modern steel outperforms Damascus Steel (so it's been surpassed) and Starlite is probably a myth...
klodolph 9y ago
I can think of examples along the lines of dead media formats. Floppy disks and instant film, for two examples. Floppy disks declined in quality and were extremely unreliable in the early 2000s. Floppy disks from the 90s and 80s were more reliable. Instant film has also declined in quality, with film from the Impossible Project (or Polaroid Originals) being inferior to Polaroid film from previous decades, despite being made with the same production equipment.
- dlevine 9y ago
  Much of that has to do with cost. By the early 2000s, floppy disks were much cheaper than they were in the 80s and 90s, and I'm guessing that was because manufacturers were optimizing for cost. Those AOL disks that you could get for free and then reformat were clearly pretty cheap, and had a high failure rate. The same thing is true with TVs made today - TVs are generally lower quality than ones made 20 years ago (in terms of reliability and durability), but are a lot cheaper. If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost)
  - klodolph 9y ago
    > If you target the higher end of the quality/cost curve, you will see an improvement in quality at the same cost (or even at a lower cost) Neither floppy disks nor instant film exist at the higher end of the quality/cost curve, that's the problem. There's also the issue of Baumol's cost disease. For labor intensive work, the cost will increase due to the increased productivity of completely different workers.
wilsonnb 9y ago
It's not always about the manufacturing. Sometimes it's about the materials used. Brazilian rosewood is supposedly the best tonewood for the sides and backs of acoustic guitars but because the tree's are endangered you pretty much can't make a modern guitar out of it.
gringoDan 9y ago
Relevant article on reverse-engineering these old instruments: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/0610190014_1_violin-stradivarius-george-bissinger http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-10-19/features/06101...
RickJWag 9y ago
We have yet to return to the excellent pop music of the 80s.
- xamuel 9y ago
  And the 80s failed to achieve the pop heights of the 60s...
iammyIP 9y ago
This is a nonsensical experiment: The role of the old 'genius-stradivari' violin is there to impress by its own history - not by it's sound. Of course can the Stradivari be 3d scanned and analysed to death and be rebuit as an even better sounding facsimile, but that totally misses the point:
xamuel 9y ago
Don't know how historically accurate it is, but this entertaining video argues that archery might be an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
- Baeocystin 9y ago
  If this response is to be believed, the video is complete bunk with regards to its historical claims: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the... It still is a fun trick-shot video, though. :)
  - xamuel 9y ago
    Lars responds to critics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA I guess we'll just have to get these folks in a big ring and have 'em duel to the death :)
on_and_off 9y ago
Denim lovers often prefer fabric created by an old weaving machine. Entire brands like Momotaro are known because they have been able to find and use these machines (that's even an issue for them since it is very hard to maintain these machines and it takes a while to train people). Ironically, what is preferred are the irregularities created by the old process. I think that someday it will be surpassed though. Right now, a huge part of the process is still manual. With more and more sensors in our smartphones, we already have more than enough to get a 3d scan of a body. 'All' we need is to automate tailoring and reproduce irregularities with modern machines.

akamaka 9y ago

It seems a bit pointless to run these tests, since it’s up to each violinist to choose his or her own favourite instrument. Their own studies show that top violinists can easily detect the differences between individual violins.

wilsonnb 9y ago
I'd like to see those studies, if you have links to them. I've never heard of a study confirming any noticeable difference between Stradivarius violins and modern ones of the same quality.
- akamaka 9y ago
  The posted article has a link to the earlier study from the same researchers: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/elite-violinists-fail-distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/elite-violinists-fail... “The consistency of results from session to session showed that soloists could definitely distinguish one violin from another. However, the soloists seemed to prefer the new violins.”
  - wilsonnb 9y ago
    "The consistency of results from session to session showed that soloists could definitely distinguish one violin from another. However, the soloists seemed to prefer the new violins, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In their lists of favorites, new violins outnumber old ones roughly 3-to-2, and the most popular violin by far was a new one, denoted N5. Musicians rated qualities of new instruments higher, too. And when it came to telling old violins from new, the soloists did no better than if they had simply guessed." Extended your quote from the article.
bllguo 9y ago
This is unfairly downvoted.. top violinists have their favorite instruments for real reasons. This comment never mentioned anything about Stradivarius violins being better than modern ones.

dizzystar 9y ago

These studies have been going on since the creation of these violins. I read one where the violinists themselves couldn't tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a new high end model. I do wonder, pushing aside the fakes, how much of the original wood is in each Strad. After a few centuries, there had to be repairs, hardware updates, new coatings, and so on.

rovr138 9y ago
Reminds me of a video about this video, Repairing Willie Nelson's Trigger[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhQuJTc5yFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhQuJTc5yFY

pazimzadeh 9y ago

Modern listeners might also be used to modern instruments. Americans actually like Hershey's chocolate. Doesn't make it better than Swiss chocolate.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rovr138 9y ago
Better in regards to taste? I'm sure people that like it better are going to say that it's better.
- pazimzadeh 9y ago
  I'm trying to say you can't make a judgement unless you've had the chance to immerse yourself in both. Taste can be acquired pretty easily.
  - zrobotics 9y ago
    I would beg to differ, it can actually be hard to impossible to acquire a taste. For instance, I much prefer exceedingly dark (>75%) chocolate. Whereas my partner cannot stand it, and forcing herself to eat it to acquire a taste would be a painful experience. It's possible that I could acquire a taste for Swiss chocolate, but I doubt it. From what I have sampled, it is far too sweet for my taste (although nowhere near the American chocolate)

tomcam 9y ago

No blind or double-blind test has ever shown the Strads to be superior, although the tests can be hard on the violinist. The gold standard test had violinists wearing blindfolds and welding masks to be absolute certain they couldn’t see the instruments. Edit: when tested against modern instruments in the $30,000 range, which sounds like a lot but which is .1% the cost of a Strad.

tomcooks 9y ago

> folklore and b.s. Sigh. Maybe using whole words instead of abbreviations will keep up literacy and respect for centuries of artisanal masterpieces, `strads` my arse.

trophycase 9y ago

"The New York City study also showed that listeners' preferences correlated with their assessment of projection, suggesting the loudness of an instrument may be a primary factor in the quality of its sound." Do the timbres of these instruments vary? It may be that "manufactured" instruments sound plain, boring, or untextured. Basically the same reason that modern production techniques make songs sound "better" but also worse in the sense that it sounds artificial.

wilsonnb 9y ago
I don't think it's accurate to call the modern violins they used "manufactured". I'm 99% sure all of the modern violins they used are handmade in a way that's not too different from the way violins were made by Stradivari.

kerng 9y ago

I like how articles like this sometimes make it in the front page. Once I watched a documentary and for most old violins there is hardly anything original besides the main body (which projects the sound), pretty much everything else is renewed or modernized. The neck, pegs, bridge, etc.. for instance might have been entirely replaced on an old instrument. I found it interesting that that doesn't change the sound much.

RegBarclay 9y ago
Grandfather's axe.

leonroy 9y ago

Reminds me of this blind listening test of audiophile interconnects: http://www.audio-forums.com/articles/interconnect-cable-blind-listening-test.15/ http://www.audio-forums.com/articles/interconnect-cable-blin...

oftenwrong 9y ago

I believe this is not the first time I have read about higher volume sound being perceived as higher quality.

kleiba 9y ago

It's another one of those cases where the monetary value associated with a piece of art is determined emotionally, not rationally.

zrobotics 9y ago
Is there any way to rationally determine the value though? If we want to argue that the price should be determined rationally, then I suppose we could argue that all paintings are worthless. After all, why not just download a high resolution scan or a good print?
- kleiba 9y ago
  Yes, in my world, it would be pretty close to that. Maybe not completely worthless - but when you consider how much you pay for, say, an episode of your favorite show on netflix (which involved many writers, actors, directors, decorators, etc -- all of which may rightfully be considered "artists") you get closer to a more realistic perspective. Btw, in that same world of mine, no actor would receive gazillion dollar compensation for a single movie, either, no matter how famous they were.

anotheryou 9y ago

The end of the article makes a very good point: > The New York City study also showed that listeners' preferences correlated with their assessment of projection, suggesting the loudness of an instrument may be a primary factor in the quality of its sound. It is well known that equal loudness is crucial for nuanced A-B testing with sound and often a PITA to get right. (and vice versa, PR A-B tests of some audio "enhancers" or simply toggling the ones of your soundcard often use this trick and nodge up volume a bit with effects on)

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
For anyone unfamiliar, human frequency response changes with volume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
_greim_ 9y ago
Agreed. It's further complicated by subjective loudness not being a simple function of sound pressure level. So, if you adjust two signals to equal subjective loudness in an AB test, is it really a fair test?
jackhack 9y ago
I make acoustic guitars from scratch. There's an old joke in the luthier community about customer preference : "give 'em a choice between volume and tone, and they'll pick volume every time." It's funny because it's often true. The loud guitars sell first. Then again, it may depend on your market. A solo performer can sacrifice a lot of volume for a tone that matches their expectations. A performer who plays in a bluegrass band with a fiddle and a banjo needs every db they can get. But this is the acoustic instrument market. Electric is a different world altogether.
- psychometry 9y ago
  Your typical bluegrass guitarist probably cares more about volume than most others because bluegrass bands still insist on crowding around a single mic for some reason.

SCdF 9y ago

Next week's headline: priceless 200yr old coat is no more water resistant than $70 coat. Strads aren't expensive because they are good instruments[1], they are expensive because they are old and rare and symbolic to people who care. [1] Not saying they are bad, I'm saying the sound quality is not the reason for their price

parrellel 9y ago

So they didn't control for volume, and they didn't mention that the instruments are all well past peak sound now. They're only going to sound worse as time passes, they've been getting worse for literally a century. We know that, and still we get, these articles, acting surprised.

squozzer 9y ago

I wouldn't mind trying the same test on guitars -- especially a '59 Les Paul v. 2018 Les Paul. That said, a fancier instrument might help a person play better, because of the confidence it brings to the player's psyche.

iammyIP 9y ago

This is a nonsensical experiment. The role of the old 'genius-stradivari' violin is to impress by its own history - not by its sound. Of course can the Stradivari be 3d scanned and be analysed to death and be rebuit as an 'even better sounding' facsimile, but that totally misses the point: When someone plays an 300 Year old instrument, the ooze of connotation to that history alone is enough to elevate the performance.

Retric 9y ago
I can't tell if your serious or not. These instruments don't sound the way they did 300 years ago. It's reasonable to suspect the fetish surrounding older instruments results in far worse music while also preventing people from hearing what music actually sounded like 300 years ago.
- bllguo 9y ago
  I can't tell if you're serious or not. How is that a reasonable suspicion? You think that no professional violinist has ever played a modern instrument? Has never made a comparison to a Stradivarius? The idea that music is "far worse" than it would have been if people were using modern violins is just laughable.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Ahh, but fashion is pervasive. When people assume something should be better they perceive it as better. Further modern instrument design is designed to appeal to people that are so influenced. Thus, modern instruments also suffer from the same effect and we need blind evaluation to create more objective assessments across generations of musicians and instruments. Much like how hiding the musicians physical apreace changes how people rate them.
- iammyIP 9y ago
  It's not a 'fetish' - it's 'History'. An old Stradivari Violin, 300 Years old, built by a near-genius-enginner, being played _Now_ is a much better experience than if they would use a 3d printed clone of it. It's the original that contributes not only to sound but to the perception of the performance, because of the years that have gone by since the instruments first incarnation. Of course, if you do it in a blind test, you aswell could simulate all the previously scanned stradivari properties, but that doesn't keep the original from being superior in idea - because it's the _original_. YES, we can build quasi-stradivaris en masse now, but that doesn't keep the originals from being superior. Therefore one of the main purposes of the Stradivari Violin is to show it, and announce it as such in a performance. It's a historic thing with these instruments, not an engineering minmaxing thing.

zsz 9y ago

When technical jargon consistently employs the term "somehow," cost (implicitly tied to value) itself becomes the arbiter of worth.

jackhack 9y ago

This talks quite a lot about the perception of the listener, but what about the player? The responsiveness of an instrument is one of those remarkable attributes that isn't often perceptible or appreciated by the audience -- the willingness of the instrument to respond to player input, which is part of the expressiveness. A performer can compensate for a "dull" instrument to a degree by anticipating a note and/or playing with greater force, but this has its limits. It is very subjective, and I would think difficult to measure, but some instruments are truly magical and feel eager to perform. It can whisper or shout, or ring on certain phrases, or more easily leap wide note intervals without unattractive overtones. Others, ostensibly identical (even made with wood from the same tree), are lacking something and aren't as responsive.

sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago
They said in the article that a previous study had shown that players also prefer newer violins.