What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#2From the study's abstract: Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins.
Another case of science reporting failing miserably at understanding and conveying the results of studies. The three articles all come up short at even reading the abstract:
Daily Mail "Concert violinists can't identify the sound of a multi-million-pound Stradivarius"
Phys.org "Study shows even professional musicians can't tell old master violins from new"
Npr.org - Doesn't even come close to the same universe as the study in the submitted article to the point I wonder if the npr article covered something else entirely?
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#3From the study's abstract: Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins. Another case of science reporting failing miserably at understanding and conveying the results of studies. The three articles all come up short at even reading the abstract: Daily Mail "Concer…
It's the Daily Mail; we should be just happy they aren't claiming playing a Stradivarius causes cancer.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#4>This study certainly doesn't tell us what happens between a player and a fiddle over a long-term relationship, and this is an important factor.
No, it's not, because the same long-term relationship can happen between a player and a modern violin as well.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#5The objective of this tests seems to be more to prove a point than to be fair, I'm not surprised.
And the test looks like it's blind, but not double blind.
It seems all rigour goes out of the window in order for the researchers to prove their point
And of course taste is subjective, but a misadjusted violin will not sound great even if it's a good violin. (Same with a bad violin, modern or old)
> "professional violinists can't tell the difference between modern violinist and old Italians," then I think we need a
> different study in which violinists are actually asked to identify that
Of course.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#6> This study certainly doesn't tell us what happens between a player and a fiddle over a long-term relationship, and this is an important factor. No, it's not, because the same long-term relationship can happen between a player and a modern violin as well.
The article explained how the long-term relationship with an older violin, which is more 'broken in' but temperamental day-to-day, might be different than with a modern violin, which is more 'dependable' day-to-day but can experience significant shifts in tone as it ages.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#7The objective of this tests seems to be more to prove a point than to be fair, I'm not surprised. And the test looks like it's blind, but not double blind. It seems all rigour goes out of the window in order for the researchers to prove their point And of course taste is subjective, but a misadjusted violin will not sound great even if it's a good violin. (Same with a bad violin, modern or old) > "professional violin…
I'm not convinced there is much interference from the conductors to warrant a double-blind study. Either way, I believe the original paper never claimed that "professional violinists can't tell the difference", that's the media twist. It proved beyond reasonable doubt that professional musicians do not prefer the antique models based on any objective qualities.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#8From the study's abstract: Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins. Another case of science reporting failing miserably at understanding and conveying the results of studies. The three articles all come up short at even reading the abstract: Daily Mail "Concer…
It's the Daily Mail; we should be just happy they aren't claiming playing a Stradivarius causes cancer.
Have you seen http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ ?
I think you might get a kick out of it.
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#9TLDR:
"Im an audiophool. I know whats great by the price stick^^^I could totally pick Strad blindfolded, I just didnt feel like it that day."
Re: What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test
#10> This study certainly doesn't tell us what happens between a player and a fiddle over a long-term relationship, and this is an important factor. No, it's not, because the same long-term relationship can happen between a player and a modern violin as well.
The article explained how the long-term relationship with an older violin, which is more 'broken in' but temperamental day-to-day, might be different than with a modern violin, which is more 'dependable' day-to-day but can experience significant shifts in tone as it ages.
Wood also seems to change depending upon how it is used. Conventional wisdom is that a guitar gets "used to" how it is being played. I do like the comments about finding the unique characteristics because every instrument has a personality.
Conventional wisdom in classical guitars ALSO says the guitars have a lifetime. The wood is tight, then it opens up, and then it breaks down gradually over time--roughly 15-20 years for cedar tops and 40 years for spruce tops.
If that is actually true, I suspect that feeds into this study. The Stradivaris, while phenomenal, are long past their peak and are now at the point where they are breaking down from playing and are likely only being preserved by the rarity with which they are being played.
I wonder if the "moderns" used in the study actually had some mileage on them. It would be interesting to see if a 20 years old "modern" with heavy use actually scores better than a 5 year old "modern".
Overall, it's actually good news. I suspect that this is like modern classical musicians, the geniuses are as rare as ever, but the average level of achievement across all classical musicians is WAY higher now than it was even 100 years ago, and certainly moreso than 200-300 years ago.
It means that those of us who can't afford Stradvaris can still get excellent instruments.