stradivarius violins fail another blind test

[Brucebubs]

Funny, over on the `Violin Forum` they are having this exact same discussion about Martin authentics.

[Paikon]

Originally Posted by brucebubs

funny, over on the `violin forum` they are having this exact same discussion about martin authentics.

........lol

[CyberFerret]

Its the hands of the beholder. I could play the most expensive luthier crafter guitar and it would still sound like tin cans in a sack.

Now, if they got someone like Anne Akiko Meyers to do the test...

(Note: She is playing a Guernari here (valued at ~$16million), which are slated to be far superior to ones Stradivarius made).

Forward to 3:30 for the opening note that brought a tear to my eye. She *may* be able to do that with a modern violin, I don't know. But she says that this violin is a muse for her, and brings out the best in her playing, and I think that is what it is all about...

[Russ C]

I read someone saying that most Strads are not of the standard that has earned them their reputation - some are, most aren't. Some are poor.
We don't know if the test was conducted with great, not great or bad examples. The odds are they were not holy grails and the new ones really were better.
I don't know that, it's just what someone else put forward.

[Brudda Dakine]

Originally Posted by 00-28

The new violins must be Stradivarius Authentics. ....Mike

Funny!!!!!!!!

[Brudda Dakine]

Originally Posted by CyberFerret

Its the hands of the beholder. I could play the most expensive luthier crafter guitar and it would still sound like tin cans in a sack.

Now, if they got someone like Anne Akiko Meyers to do the test...

(Note: She is playing a Guernari here (valued at ~$16million), which are slated to be far superior to ones Stradivarius made).

Forward to 3:30 for the opening note that brought a tear to my eye. She *may* be able to do that with a modern violin, I don't know. But she says that this violin is a muse for her, and brings out the best in her playing, and I think that is what it is all about...

Thank you for posting this. Absolutely wonderful.

[lt20dbl]

Originally Posted by Paikon

I think that stands for every instrument...you 'll have to play it for a long time to evaluate it.

Very true.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by MrKellyGraham

There was a better link in the "Science says..." thread. But since no one replied to that one....

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-beh...modern-fiddles

Note: One of the testers played a Stradivarius for 6 years and still couldn't pick 'em out of the lineup....

thank you for posting this. that article also eventually linked to a pdf about the test here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...DCSupplemental

and also linked in this video:

[HHP]

I would say I could not pick a guitar using their method. Presented with 12 instruments and given 75 minutes to play them, I'm going to have 6 minutes per guitar. Evidently no time to go through any process of elimination to settle on one or two I find I like. I'm no "renowned" guitarist but I don't think I could explore what any guitar has to offer in six minutes.

This whole thing seems like the kind of "science" designed to achieve press results not necessarily knowledge. If they'd come to the conclusion Stradivarius is the finest, no one would have paid attention to their reaching that conclusion and they would have wondered why they even tested.

It also fits into the popular movement to elevate the mediocre to excellence. Achieving the best at anything is hard, staying the best is even harder. Lowering the bar is easy and makes everyone feel better about their own accomplishments without putting them through the rigors of trying to be the best. Some might even think its not "fair" that Stradivarius has been considered the best for 3 centuries.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by CyberFerret

Its the hands of the beholder. I could play the most expensive luthier crafter guitar and it would still sound like tin cans in a sack.

Now, if they got someone like Anne Akiko Meyers to do the test...

(Note: She is playing a Guernari here (valued at ~$16million), which are slated to be far superior to ones Stradivarius made).

Forward to 3:30 for the opening note that brought a tear to my eye. She *may* be able to do that with a modern violin, I don't know. But she says that this violin is a muse for her, and brings out the best in her playing, and I think that is what it is all about...

the players in the study appear to have been quite talented. i would also be interested to know if akiko meyers could pick out her guernari in a blind test. she seems most enchanted by it's remarkable history.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by HHP

I would say I could not pick a guitar using their method. Presented with 12 instruments and given 75 minutes to play them, I'm going to have 6 minutes per guitar. Evidently no time to go through any process of elimination to settle on one or two I find I like. I'm no "renowned" guitarist but I don't think I could explore what any guitar has to offer in six minutes.

This whole thing seems like the kind of "science" designed to achieve press results not necessarily knowledge. If they'd come to the conclusion Stradivarius is the finest, no one would have paid attention to their reaching that conclusion and they would have wondered why they even tested.

It also fits into the popular movement to elevate the mediocre to excellence. Achieving the best at anything is hard, staying the best is even harder. Lowering the bar is easy and makes everyone feel better about their own accomplishments without putting them through the rigors of trying to be the best. Some might even think its not "fair" that Stradivarius has been considered the best for 3 centuries.

i think the 75 minutes mentioned in the first article is misleading. look at the test method i linked to above, and also the article linked to by mykellygraham. the test seems to have been well designed.

and i don't think this is about lowering bar. rather it is abve evaluating the status of contemporary instruments, which appear to be at the highest level.

[Paikon]

Originally Posted by mc1

i think the 75 minutes mentioned in the first article is misleading. look at the test method i linked to above, and also the article linked to by mykellygraham. the test seems to have been well designed.

and i don't think this is about lowering bar. rather it is abve evaluating the status of contemporary instruments, which appear to be at the highest level.

Personally i dont see the reason of those tests. What do they prove?

[HHP]

Originally Posted by mc1

i think the 75 minutes mentioned in the first article is misleading. look at the test method i linked to above, and also the article linked to by mykellygraham. the test seems to have been well designed.

and i don't think this is about lowering bar. rather it is abve evaluating the status of contemporary instruments, which appear to be at the highest level.

If you look at the questionaire section, the average time for all the participants to choose an instrument for their own use was 2 months. They all had their primary instrument available during tests, not a leap to imagine they were comparing to their existing choice and not some absolute ideal of quality. Most seemed to express a desire to try instruments using a different bow that may be more optimized for that instrument.

The tests also seem to have only differentiated old and new, the new being top notch luthier builds. They did not introduce a modestly priced instrument into the comparison, Eastman for example.

I would think the results would have been more convincing had they restricted each test to two instruments, and then repeating enough combinations to validate the choices. For example, they try "A" and "B" and choose "B". You have them retry the same two instruments later and see if they consistently choose "B". If they chose "A" on the second trial, you'd have a null result.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by Paikon

Personally i dont see the reason of those tests. What do they prove?

I don't think it really "proves" anything. But it demonstrates quite a few things.

I think it demonstrates the roll that expectations play in how senses are perceived. If I know/see that someone is playing a Stradivari...it sounds better. If I don't know/see that someone is playing a Stradivari...it sounds no better than any other violin.

It also demonstrates that there are violin makers today that are creating violins of equal quality to the most famous in the world.

It also demonstrates that all the time/money spent trying to figure out Stradivari's wood, or lacquer, or mineral content of the river, or temperature of the winters, or humidity of his workshop, etc. are rather missing the point.

It also demonstrates how human beings are influenced by others. "Oh, that violin is a Stradivari and you say it sounds good. I think it sounds good too." Until the blindfold is applied..."I don't know if it sounds good/better or not".

It also demonstrates our inability to adequately perceive subtle nuance in a statistically significant way.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by ecguitar44

I don't think it really "proves" anything. But it demonstrates quite a few things.

I think it demonstrates the roll that expectations play in how senses are perceived. If I know/see that someone is playing a Stradivari...it sounds better. If I don't know/see that someone is playing a Stradivari...it sounds no better than any other violin.

It also demonstrates that there are violin makers today that are creating violins of equal quality to the most famous in the world.

It also demonstrates that all the time/money spent trying to figure out Stradivari's wood, or lacquer, or mineral content of the river, or temperature of the winters, or humidity of his workshop, etc. are rather missing the point.

It also demonstrates how human beings are influenced by others. "Oh, that violin is a Stradivari and you say it sounds good. I think it sounds good too." Until the blindfold is applied..."I don't know if it sounds good/better or not".

It also demonstrates our inability to adequately perceive subtle nuance in a statistically significant way.

I don't think so. The tests ultimately rely on human judgement which is almost certainly more flawed and inconsistent than the instruments themselves.