Oh, but the stradivarius sounds so very -

[EBK]

Subjective value is still value.  If someone willingly pays several million dollars for an instrument, then that instrument is worth several million dollars. 

My ears and hands appreciate Squier guitars just fine (after I've had a bunch of fun modding them  ).  I feel blessed.

[amptramp]

I think about this a lot.

Most good music was made with "whatever instrument was available". It sounded good because of how they were used, not because of what they were. 50 years later these instruments became holy relics. It is amusing there is a boutique industry based on copying old standard line items.

That said, wood is not uniform. There are no two blocks of wood that are equal. Instrument n and instrument n+1 may sound very different.

One day someone will develop a material that will sound as good as wood and can be tuned to your preference. Consistently.

This sounds like tests done a few decades ago where A/B testing was done with flutes made in the normal fashion and flutes made out of garden hose.  A lot of people couldn't tell the difference.

Another concern about wood is with the increasing world temperatures, wood is changing characteristics.  The larger amount of CO₂ in the air means leaves do not have as many stomata (breathing holes) and the wood is different.  Add to that the laws about using endangered wood and there are some instruments that can never be made again.

[GFR]

There can be a gap between the "headlines" in "Science magazines" and the actual results of a research.

Back in 2012, I had the opportunity to read the original paper from the researchers. The "specialized press" was boasting that "players found modern violins better than Stradivarius" or "couldn't tell the difference", but that was not the conclusions of the research.

I'm quoting from memory and it's been some time, but what I remember from the paper was: all players could notice a difference between the Strads and the modern violins (not as the article in the magazine makes you think); they had a mix of more experienced and younger (all high level professionals) players to test the instruments; the older ones tended to prefer the Strads, the younger ones tended to prefer the modern ones (somewhat expected - most of the younger ones had never played an old instrument and prefered the sound they were most used to). The "modern" instrument was not an "average" modern instrument - it was an extremely high quality instrument from a very skilled luthier with lots of knowledge on the Strads characteriscs.

Again: there was a noticeable difference between the instruments - What people couldn't guess was which one was the Strad, because they just expected the "better" would be the Strad and some preferred the newer ones.

The conclusion was that there was a noticeable difference, but not everybody would think the older was better, and that modern instruments could be considered as high quality as the older ones. And then, that's enough for the "specialized press" to say that people can't tell the difference or generalize that the modern ones were better, period.

And something more to think about: there is no such thing as an "original" Strad in playing conditions (I think there are some originals in museums, but not in playing conditions). The Strads were baroque violins, that have huge differences to the "modern" (romantic) violin, and all Strads that are in use have been heavily and severely modded. It's like if you're judging a 59 LP based on modded guitars with a floyd rose, a bolted neck with a 25" maple scale and active pickups (all that is left is the body). 

[mac]

One day someone will develop a material that will sound as good as wood and can be tuned to your preference. Consistently

.

Carbon fiber is used to make violins, cellos, etc.
Makers claim they are as good as Strads and Gs.

mac

[mac]

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Stern

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Zygmuntowicz

mac

[Electron Tornado]

One day someone will develop a material that will sound as good as wood and can be tuned to your preference. Consistently

.

Carbon fiber is used to make violins, cellos, etc.
Makers claim they are as good as Strads and Gs.

mac

One example is Ovation guitars, which are made of both wood and a trademarked composite. Charlie Kaman, who was also a guitar player, seemed to think they got the sound he was looking for.

[Mark Hammer]

Again, the perception of an instrument's quality is a function of what one is attempting to make it do. To a learner, trying to play "Michael rowed the boat ashore" for a campfire sing-along, as long as the action is suitable, there is no difference between a pre-war Martin and whatever guitar accompanies lessons-with-Esteban.  Similarly, for some kid paining staff with his rendition of "Smoke on the water" in the music store later this morning, there is no difference between the cheapest Affinity Strat, and a 1957 Strat.  It's always a matter of what the instrument allows one to "unleash".

As for "garden hose" flutes, many years ago I read the biography of flute inventor Theobald Bohm and history of the modern day flute.  Were claims of no audible difference to be uttered anywhere within shouting distance of his grave, I think he would unearth himself, emerge from the crypt, and kick whomever said it squarely in their reproductive organs.  Bohm spent the better part of a decade studying acoustic physics in order to derive the optimum fingering and aperture properties, and then almost another decade studying metallurgy in order to come up with the optimum alloy and wall-thickness.  Although, in fairness, he did not have the benefit of plastic garden hoses in the mid-to-late 1800s.  Perhaps, if they were available, he might have saved himself some effort.

[digi2t]

I'm not so sure about this.

First off, I'm no violin expert by any stretch of the imagination, but much like my appreciation for art, I tend to "like what I hear" regardless of my lack of knowledge. This subject brings me to mention a great documentary that I watched recently "The Secrets of the Violin". The doc is hosted by Daniel Hope, who himself is an extraordinary violinist, and a Del Gesu owner. Now, besides the fact that he is blatantly biased towards the Del Gesu (and make no apologies about it), I must say that I found the documentary fascinating. I think anyone that is interested in stringed instruments at all would find it quite enlightening as well. Not only does it focus on some of the finest violins ever made, their manufacture, history, and nuances, but also into the seedier side of the business. And believe you me, and can be very shady indeed.

Anyway, the "A HA!" moment for me was towards the end of the documentary, where we the viewers are brought into an annual competition. The competition consists of real Del Gesu's, Stradivarius', and exquisitely made copies. Each violin is played behind a screen, by the same violinist, playing the same piece of music. Meanwhile, after some deliberation the audience must decide of the five violins presented, which is which. There is a vote, where the audience then associates each number to a violin, and then the reveal. Now, like I said before, I'm no expert or critic, but one thing for sure; having never seen this documentary before, and being totally ignorant of the results, after carefully listening to each violin, there was one that just moved me. There was something about the tone and dynamics that just wowed me. I told myself at that moment "That has got to be a Strad!. For all the hype there is around these instruments, that must be it!". In the end, sure enough, the one I had put my finger (ear?) on as a Strad, was indeed a real Stradivarius.

Like I said, i don't know shit about violins, but i know what I like, and that Strad didn't disappoint my ears. Not one bit.

[Mark Hammer]

There's blind, and there's double-blind.  Certainly the folks listening on one side of the screen are blind, but the player also needs to be unaware of what they are playing.  True, the violinist is held constant - more or less - as is the piece of music.  But how do they play it?  And would their awareness of the violin being played alter how they attempt to play? 

When I did my M.Sc. research, I was studying the effects of a hormone on rats' memory and learning.  Now, certainly the rats had no awareness of what they were being injected with, and it had no different subjective effects (e.g., any stinging sensation), relative to the saline control injection.  But, as the person who would be doing the injection, as well as scoring their behaviour post-injection, I wasn't allowed to know which animal, was receiving which injection, so a buddy in the next office over randomized all the hypodermics in the rack, and kept a record of who got what.  You don't necessarily have to be consciously aware of bias in how one carries out something that is ostensibly "equal" in order for it to actually be a little different.  I might have handled one group of rats a little differently than the other, and the player might have played just a smidgen differently if they knew it was a Strad.

I'm not saying I dismiss what you saw/heard with a wave of the hand.  Just noting that I hope the folks behind the comparison took steps to rule that sort of thing out, because it can colour outcomes.

[bartimaeus]

You also have to consider the player's muscle memory. There can be a surprising amount of variation between violins, even between different Strads as the design changed over the decades, so some of the violins will be closer to what the violinist is comfortable playing. The violinist might know how to get the best sound from a Strad but not from a Del Gesu.

Speaking of Strads changing over the years, it's worth noting that his early instruments had rounder bodies with a warmer sound. The golden period Strads have flatter bodies with a sound that cuts more, and I think those are more desirable for soloists who like to stand out. So chronologically, early G&L guitars might be closer to the golden period Strads than early Fender guitars.

[digi2t]

There's blind, and there's double-blind.  Certainly the folks listening on one side of the screen are blind, but the player also needs to be unaware of what they are playing.  True, the violinist is held constant - more or less - as is the piece of music.  But how do they play it?  And would their awareness of the violin being played alter how they attempt to play? 

When I did my M.Sc. research, I was studying the effects of a hormone on rats' memory and learning.  Now, certainly the rats had no awareness of what they were being injected with, and it had no different subjective effects (e.g., any stinging sensation), relative to the saline control injection.  But, as the person who would be doing the injection, as well as scoring their behaviour post-injection, I wasn't allowed to know which animal, was receiving which injection, so a buddy in the next office over randomized all the hypodermics in the rack, and kept a record of who got what.  You don't necessarily have to be consciously aware of bias in how one carries out something that is ostensibly "equal" in order for it to actually be a little different.  I might have handled one group of rats a little differently than the other, and the player might have played just a smidgen differently if they knew it was a Strad.

I'm not saying I dismiss what you saw/heard with a wave of the hand.  Just noting that I hope the folks behind the comparison took steps to rule that sort of thing out, because it can colour outcomes.

Well, you bring up a valid point, no doubt. I found the documentary on Youtube, and had another look at the contest portion. Indeed, the violinist herself had no idea which instrument was which. She herself had an opportunity to input her own impressions of each instrument during the discussions, and as bartimaeus accurately states, she does mention being more comfortable with one in particular. In the end, the one she was most comfortable with happened to be the Strad, which actually came in second in the contest, behind a real Del Gesu.

So, without a doubt, regardless of her ignorance, could just the "comfort factor" have played a role in the added dynamics that influenced me? Perhaps. Probably. But isn't that part of the magic? Isn't the most magical music made when players are playing what they would consider to be their holiest of grails?

[Rob Strand]

I'm not saying I dismiss what you saw/heard with a wave of the hand.  Just noting that I hope the folks behind the comparison took steps to rule that sort of thing out, because it can colour outcomes.

Well, you bring up a valid point, no doubt. I found the documentary on Youtube, and had another look at the contest portion. Indeed, the violinist herself had no idea which instrument was which. She herself had an opportunity to input her own impressions of each instrument during the discussions, and as bartimaeus accurately states, she does mention being more comfortable with one in particular. In the end, the one she was most comfortable with happened to be the Strad, which actually came in second in the contest, behind a real Del Gesu.

So, without a doubt, regardless of her ignorance, could just the "comfort factor" have played a role in the added dynamics that influenced me? Perhaps. Probably. But isn't that part of the magic? Isn't the most magical music made when players are playing what they would consider to be their holiest of grails?

I also watched that video some years back.   It's very hard to do true double blind experiments like this.   When you pick-up old instruments some feel old due to the texture.  Even the smell of instrument could introduce a  sub-conscious bias.

A savy player might know a Strad from just picking it up as they could (accidentally) touch some key feature in the design (eg. tuning peg or head-stock shape).  Imagine trying to do a double-blind test of a strat vs gibson LP vs ES335 or a deeper body semi-acoustic.  You would have to build a common facade body around the existing body and even then the neck or action would be a give-away in some cases.  Now the strat would no longer feel like a strat.  So that  limits true double blindness tests to one-to-one copies.

[Mark Hammer]

So, without a doubt, regardless of her ignorance, could just the "comfort factor" have played a role in the added dynamics that influenced me? Perhaps. Probably. But isn't that part of the magic? Isn't the most magical music made when players are playing what they would consider to be their holiest of grails?

Well that, and the fact that the violin was very heavily relic'd.  Cuz, you know....relic-ing.... 

[digi2t]

So, without a doubt, regardless of her ignorance, could just the "comfort factor" have played a role in the added dynamics that influenced me? Perhaps. Probably. But isn't that part of the magic? Isn't the most magical music made when players are playing what they would consider to be their holiest of grails?

Well that, and the fact that the violin was very heavily relic'd.  Cuz, you know....relic-ing.... 

[marcelomd]

Aristides Instruments developed a material for its guitars.

https://aristidesinstruments.com/story/history

They do sound really good.

[PRR]

> there are some instruments that can never be made again.

If you have ever "tinkled the ivories", played a piano keyed with elephant tooth, no polystyrene-capped keyboard is the same.

This goes both ways. Old much-played ivory gets gross. Scrubbing with bleach makes it look better but not feel better. Sanding and polishing makes it "new", which is not great; and you can only do this once or twice. Plastic cleans with 409-spray, stays nice forever, and then you can re-cap it with the same too-slick too-smooth plastic.

[GFR]

There's blind, and there's double-blind.  Certainly the folks listening on one side of the screen are blind, but the player also needs to be unaware of what they are playing.  True, the violinist is held constant - more or less - as is the piece of music.  But how do they play it?  And would their awareness of the violin being played alter how they attempt to play? 

Even if the player is not aware of which instrument is A or which is B, he will certainly notice when the instruments are switched. And he wil most likely not play the instruments the same way - if one responds better to dynamics, he will adapt and explore it. If the other one has wider tone range, he will adapt and explore this. The player will naturally seek to extract the best of each instrument. That's how the instruments would be used in real life, so shouldn't a comparison take this in account?

And then when someone is subjectively judging A x B, if this listener values tonal variation over dynamics, or vice-versa, he will find A or B better, while both instruments can be great, and both with their own strengths.

[GFR]

> there are some instruments that can never be made again.

If you have ever "tinkled the ivories", played a piano keyed with elephant tooth, no polystyrene-capped keyboard is the same.

This goes both ways. Old much-played ivory gets gross. Scrubbing with bleach makes it look better but not feel better. Sanding and polishing makes it "new", which is not great; and you can only do this once or twice. Plastic cleans with 409-spray, stays nice forever, and then you can re-cap it with the same too-slick too-smooth plastic.

Imagine a vegan trying to be a musician in the XIX century   

Gut strings, fish glue, egg whites as wood sealer, shellac, ivory, tortoise shells, horse hair for bows, ... Well, some of these are still used today.

[Ben N]

Imagine a vegan trying to survive in bygone centuries--not so easy.

[amptramp]

> there are some instruments that can never be made again.

If you have ever "tinkled the ivories", played a piano keyed with elephant tooth, no polystyrene-capped keyboard is the same.

This goes both ways. Old much-played ivory gets gross. Scrubbing with bleach makes it look better but not feel better. Sanding and polishing makes it "new", which is not great; and you can only do this once or twice. Plastic cleans with 409-spray, stays nice forever, and then you can re-cap it with the same too-slick too-smooth plastic.

There are a whole lot of things that can never be built again:



The Sparton Bluebird holds the record for the highest price for a radio on ebay at $85,000.  The indigo glass can never be made again because glass is coloured by metal dopants and the one used to get this colour is mercury.  Imagine the amount of mercury vapour that would come off a glass melt doped with mercury.  This is the Canadian version of the Bluebird that had a power transformer.  The American version was an AC-DC set with no power transformer, so the one in the picture is more valuable.  This is from Henk Nordermeer's collection at his palatial country estate south of London, Ontario.