I have a big problem with this assumption that Amati, Stradivarius, Guarneri all have better sounds than modern instruments. All these makers come from the Baroque period where the violin was played quite differently. All baroque violins today are already modified. Here is the list. 1. Held differently 2. Tuned differently 3. Different length of neck with different angle. 5. We use far greater string pressure. 5. Different Bass bar. (This is usually due to all the above factors), (Changing the Bass bar sometimes means retuning the plates, which means there has been modifications to the thickness of them). 6. We use different Bows, (and better). Tourte invented these in about 1785. This means that the instruments featured in this documentary were designed for an entirely different use and sound and any credit to their tone etc is purely random. They never made the sounds required for todays admiration and therefore looking for a designed sound by a maker who never heard or experienced what we expect from a violinist today, is purely a wild goose chase in my opinion. Below are some references which may be of interest. At the beginning of the 18th century, at the very height of the Baroque period, the demands on musicians began to change. As music became more of a public event, the performance spaces grew larger, along with the size of the orchestra. The repertory, too, began to include concertos. And then, as the Classical style began to emerge, the balance of the orchestra began to change, with an increased emphasis on brass. (stringsmagazine.com/the-role-and-romance-of-the-bass-bar/) Baroque 415 Hz 1600 - 1750 17th and 18th centuries. They favored a standard pitch of about 422-423 Hz. Current 440 Jambe de Fer (Lyons, 1556) “ ...it is supported by the arm” Praetorius (Wolfenbüttel, 1614/20) “...it is held on the arm” Prinner (Salzburg, 1677) “... the violin must be held firmly with the chin” Falck (Nürnberg, 1688) “Place the violin below the left breast, the instrument should lean a little downward towards the right.” Merck (Augsburg, 1695) “One should hold the violin nicely straight under the left breast, leaving the arm free, not resting against the body/belly” Speer (Ulm, 1697) “The remainder, how one holds the violin correctly in the hand, rests it on the breast, leads the bow ... that a trusted teacher must show his student” Playford (London, 1667)“... the lower part of the violin must be rested on the left breast a little below the shoulder” Matteis, according to Roger North 1670's “... rested his instrument against his short ribbs” Lenton (London,1693) “... as I would have none get the habit of holding an Instrument under the Chin, so I would have them avoid placing it as low as the Girdle” Monteclair (Paris, 1711/12) “To hold the violin securely, the tail-piece is placed against the neck just under the left cheek.” Corette (Paris, 1738) “... he must place his chin on the violin” Crome (London, 1740) “let the back part rest on your left Breast. The best way is to stay it with your Chin” Francesco Geminiani (London, 1751) “The violin must be rested just below the Collar-bone, turning the right-hand Side of the Violin a little downwards” Leopold Mozart (Augsburg, 1756) “The violin is placed against the neck so that it lies somewhat in front of the shoulder and the side on which the e-string lies comes under the chin, whereby the violin remains unmoved in its place even during the strongest movements of the ascending and descending hand.” Herrando (Paris 1756) “The tailpiece must come under the chin, being held by it there, turning the head slightly to the right.” L'Abbé le fils (Paris, 1761) “The violin should be placed on the collar-bone in such a way that the chin rests on the side of the fourth string” (www.baroque-violin.info/vhold1.html) It's hard to imagine an instrument as staid as the violin going through any evolutionary changes. Most of our modern violins are so standardized that if the string length is off by just a couple of millimeters, an experienced player will notice it. But early violins were not made to such standardized measurements. And one huge change that happened in the early 1800s is that the length of neck (and thus the string length) became longer! Almost no violins made before about 1830 retain their original necks. That includes Stradivaris, Guarneris, and Amatis. (blog.feinviolins.com/2015/06/your-violin-neck-used-to-be-shorter.html) The original violins built by Stradivari and Amati lacked the kind of string pressure that is standard in violins today. This is due to the lengthening and deepening of the bass bar, its design evolving in the 18th Century. At that time, the tension of the violin’s strings was about equal to a weight of 63 pounds, while nowadays the tension is equivalent to more than 80 pounds. Consequently, bass bars on older instruments have been replaced, as modern violinmakers can now construct bass bars at the same quality as the original masters. (go2article.com/article/violin-bass-bar/) The procedure outlined here is the same as that to which most classic period instruments were subjected in the 19th century when the broad, low angled baroque necks were replaced with modern necks. The scroll, which must be preserved as part of the original instrument, is grafted onto a block of wood which will be used to form the new neck. (www.andrewcarruthers.com/replacing-a-violin-neck/) We use Toute Bows nowadays which requires a different technique, gives a better sound and enables more string pressure if needed. The virtuoso Viotti made a sensation playing his Stradivari violin and turned to Tourte to design a bow which could bring out all the violin's interpretive powers as well as its sheer projection in large halls. (ervinviolins.com/tourte_bows.shtml)
i would have appreciated that this video could have been more fast paced, and with a better and clear presentation on what the results were, and the process to be told more clearly.
The outcome is rather logic. A good violin is good, irrespective of its age. Age does not make a violin good by itself. Craftsmanship and the right material is what makes a violin good. The art of violinbuilding did not go lost with the death of Stradivari and Guarneri. But as to the test: Every violin needs its own set up. Were the violins all individually prepared to get their best sound out or did they all get the same Dominants and the same brand of rosin and the same bow? I was just wondering about that variable.
Fascinating experiment! Thank you for making this available to us all. Also, can anyone tell me the name of the piece being performed at 25:30? It's beautiful!
Before I saw the whole video, I liked the #5, which I assume is N5, of which Elmar said "feels a little bit like a Guadagnini." Of course, I don't know how it feels but I liked how it sounded. Then the woman wanted to buy that one. I feel a little bad for the makers, that one of them doesn't know their violin was the favorite of the bunch, although maybe they know the sound of it well enough to know. I read the paper online. Someone below gave the link. Thanks. It seems like a great test, except for one thing. It seems like a lot would hinge on the quality of the Strad selected. I assume the modern makers are submitting their very best work, whereas would this Strad -- the highest ranking old violin -- rank in the top 100 Strads in the world or lower. I'm sure they went out of their way to get the best they could find, but what did they end up with. It would be nice to know it was considered to be one of the great ones. Like Elmar said, there's plenty of old instruments that are not that great. Now, if I could just find one that sounds like N5, is made in China, and costs less than $1000.
Thanks for publishing this and I can't wait to see the full documentary. I would someday like to see blind tests w/ cheaper end models against the so called elite models as well. The rest of us Joe schmoes will never be able to afford any of the violins tested so the relevance here only applies to a few. The reality is that a cheap violin can sound just as good as a million dollar violin. It may hurt the pride of those that dream of having a strad or equivalent but unfortunately it's the truth. I've seen it in guitars as well. I've heard $5K acoustic guitars that don't sound nearly as well as $299 ones.
There is one final layer of testing that should have been done here... The Strad-Placebo: Tell the audience that they're listening to a Strad, and then see how it impacts their rating. I expect that the violinist could play a $60 Amazon Prime special, and it would unanimously get rated over an actual Strad that the audience was told was a 1980 violin. I suggest Round 3 to let "experts" know exactly how pretentious they have been for all these decades. For this 2012 test, my own analysis takes all of 30 seconds: The very fact that no one was sure which was which, or if they thought they were sure, they weren't right says that there is absolutely no way to justify the cost of a Strad based on sound quality. If you shell out 1000 times more money with the intent of buying an instrument that sounds better, it should be absolutely obvious that it is better. No one gets behind the wheel of a Honda Accord and thinks that they're driving a Lambo. This is clearly _not_ the situation when it comes to violins.
The value of a "rare" object cannot be broken down into a tangible measure, like the material cost or the man hours to produce it. The value is what ever someone is willing to pay to own it. There are few other objects in the world which are 300 years old and still being used as originally intended.
top notch violinists are like top notch racing drivers. They race what they brung. In other words it is the mechanic or luthier who determines which machine performs better...
+Katherine Yu That is indeed an amazing violin. It was not actually a part of the official "blind test" but used as an example for the movie. It is Hugues Borsarello's personal violin and is a Vincenzo Ruggieri violin from circa 1695.
The eq is extremely even and balanced sounding. It doesn't sound like its peaky in bass or treble, just strong and balanced bass, midrange and treble eq.
they all say i dont know and im not sure. how can this be really accurate on the time that its your turn to choose. they all sound close to each other. note projection from these violins varies in each stroke.
The guy at the end of the video is right. How would those new violins sound when they reach their 300th year or less? Is it something that has to be re-researched for another 300 years?
The one variable that of course that we will never be able to test is whether or not a "New" violin made by long gone master maker would sound in relationship to other new violins. Treated delicately or not, a 300 year old instrument is going to face some factors that any new instrument is not. A 300 year old instrument may react very differently to vibration than it did when it was 20 years old. We'll never be able to compare a new Strad to other new Violins and because of that, we'll never know if there is perhaps an aging factor that has led to some of these results. One could assert that a a Strad made today might sound way better than other contemporary instruments; that the reason these test results are ambiguous is that time has resulted in some degradation of performance whether that be slight or more significant. And lastly, there is truth to the notion that no two instruments are created equal. Wood from a different tree, construction done at different times of the year with different weather factors, the age and health of the maker at the time of construction and a myriad of other factors can all result in instruments from the same maker being vastly different in terms of performance. I am glad that in fact the results suggest that new instruments can hold their own with these other pieces of living history. If it were not so, we would be condemmed to an ever decreasing pool of superior instruments because no matter how well treated an object is, one can't assume that it will last forever. Will these older instruments still be playable when they are 1000 years old? I don't know. The suggestion that newer instruments can compete well against them means that we will continue to enjoy wonderful sounding instruments as long as we are able to make and play them.
MUST BE NOTED: These are not regular new violins. These are truly masterfully built violins, by builders who study the classic violins and make copies of them by hand, just like Stradivari and Guarneri. They are like apprentices who have learned from these older builders and recreating them to the level that the finest of violinist have a hard time distinguishing. This test doesn't show how wrong the violinist is, but how incredible "some" modern builders are. VALUE: The old ones are the originals and the modern ones are "replicas". There are only 500 Stradivari and 150 Guarneri violins left and an ocean of replicas. Which Mona Lisa would you rather own, indistinguishable copy? If someone finds a copy of a Da Vinci that's more valuable, it won't hurt the value or attraction of the original.
The guy got it right when he stated the bleeding obvious, "it's either a terrific sounding fiddle or it's not a terrific sounding fiddle!" As a guitarist I've played the 'great names' - most of which were ok - but have picked up a couple of unknown instruments which are, to my feel and ear, near perfect. Instruments are in a way like actors - the big names are not necessarily the best actors - just the luckiest in terms of celebrity. The truly great actor might belong to some amateur outfit at the back of beyond and live and die unknown to all but a few other Thespians. Fiddles are screechy instruments just as trombones are farty instruments - I think both are an acquired taste - played badly or well.
I have always favored modern instruments over old. Old violins are way over-valued, as far as practicality goes. Old fiddles are antiques and collectibles. Modern violins SOUND as good as (if not better than) any Strad or Guarneri or Guadagnini, etc. Check out the stories on the fakes sold by Dietmar Machold - he fooled the experts. So did Vuillaume and many others.
I feel that this double blind experiment had a few major limitations -- with very good violins, there is a learning curve involved and players would need time to adapt their technique to a different instrument. The type of strings used and the amount of wear on them, the bow, player comfort, the acoustics of the hall, all these become huge variables - what if one violin was set up for gut and another with a synthetic? Strads and Guarnerius handle very differently and moderns are comparatively easy to play on and bring out the sound. The best moderns may in fact be better than several of the Strads or Guarneris and over time, with more and more players playing on them, may be right up there with the best of 'em -- in general a violin sound gets better and better the more it's played on. The sound under the ear is also very different from the sound heard by the audience. Even for violins with very a individual sound, it still depends much more on the player and their idea of the sound. But I think this is the best that anyone can do to test so many violins.
1. Did all the violins had the same kind of strings? 2. Were the forms - soundboxes of newly made violins a replica of Strad or were new designs? If new made violins soundboxes are replica of Strad proportions then we are all used to hearing a Strad sound out of a violin and this is the sound we expect to hear from a violin. 3. I would love to see a test comparing the same soundboxes design of old and new violins made by top luthier. Get 2 Strad violins that have superb sound and replicate them with the use of acoustics metrics equipment. Draw the equal frequencies curves in the boards. Get the acoustic finger print of the original model then try to replicate that in the new designs. Then do the blind test again.
So they decide "hey, let's not be efficient and go through the hassle of choosing and buying different strings with varying circumstances and conditions with its deal!" ?
Fiddlershop/Fiddlerman shared a link regarding this study. And yes, for how many years it not impossible for improvement, the only problem is luthiers keep it secret.
Problem is - not *all* Strads sound great. Some better than others. So of course the question "which is old and which not" makes no sense, is impossible with all the variables involved. But what the players did do, as a group, is discern which fiddles were good, and which were not so good. Also, it's important not to overstate a test like this ability to actual find a correct result. Without even going into the hundreds of variables, we can't be sure this experiment is a sure way to know the answer to such subjective questions.
True. Elmar Olveira talks about that. But that doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the question. I can say the Strads were golden period Strads - which are considered his best and two violins were Guarneri Del Gesus. Also - very important note that gets lost in lots of news stories... ALL the violins sounded absolutely amazing. Just because one got picked over another didn't mean that the others weren't good. These are ALL amongst the top sounding violins that exist.
Actually, in my opinion, that is flatly incorrect. A double blind test is the ONLY way to eliminate the subjectivity. This rigorously conducted test proves that deprived of the sense of sight even the best violinist or critic cannot tell a sound of a Stradivarius or Guarani from a fine modern violin. A Strad sounds best to players or listeners because they know it is a Strad and their opinion is biased by what they know SHOULD be true. Take away sight and they are lost and guessing -- thus are unable to pick out the Italian masters from good modern instruments.
What you feel(like) is more prevalent to what is "best". I know musicians who are attached to their instruments because of the flaw they have and time they spend to learn it. On the other hand you like some Queen tune, next day Sonic youth sounds great. Giving random people random instruments proves nothing or very little.
What they didn't realize is that violin is valued by the story behind it. The beauty of the music that violin can create underpins more the value of the violin & the story. It's not merely the sound it produce but it's the story behind. This is from psychology point of view
"What they didn't realize is that violin is valued by the story behind it." Pardon? Please tell me - what is a violin for? What was the purpose for which its creator made it? To tell stories - or to make sound? If you bought a violin, would it be to play it, or to go around telling people its story?
There is another variable when you test a violin. THE STICK ! (If you have a $20.00 bow hit a Stradivarius.. the result will be.. LESS THAN WORLD CLASS. If you have a fine 19th Century $15000+ bow .. The performance of the violin has only one other variable... THE SKILL OF THE PLAYER. If you are going to make a study of; ANY GIVEN OBJECT, anything that is in contact MUST be the same. ( Sick & Fiddler MUST be the same. Same tune as well.)
I think the violinist uses the same bow that they preferred for all the instruments they've tried on. so that is one of the other control variables. I'm not very sure about the skill of every player but to my knowledge one violinist tries out all the violins?
I have a big problem with this assumption that Amati, Stradivarius, Guarneri all have better sounds than modern instruments.
All these makers come from the Baroque period where the violin was played quite differently. All baroque violins today are already modified. Here is the list.
1. Held differently
2. Tuned differently
3. Different length of neck with different angle.
5. We use far greater string pressure.
5. Different Bass bar. (This is usually due to all the above factors), (Changing the Bass bar sometimes means retuning the plates, which means there has been modifications to the thickness of them).
6. We use different Bows, (and better). Tourte invented these in about 1785.
This means that the instruments featured in this documentary were designed for an entirely different use and sound and any credit to their tone etc is purely random. They never made the sounds required for todays admiration and therefore looking for a designed sound by a maker who never heard or experienced what we expect from a violinist today, is purely a wild goose chase in my opinion.
Below are some references which may be of interest.
At the beginning of the 18th century, at the very height of the Baroque period, the demands on musicians began to change. As music became more of a public event, the performance spaces grew larger, along with the size of the orchestra. The repertory, too, began to include concertos. And then, as the Classical style began to emerge, the balance of the orchestra began to change, with an increased emphasis on brass.
(stringsmagazine.com/the-role-and-romance-of-the-bass-bar/)
Baroque 415 Hz 1600 - 1750
17th and 18th centuries. They favored a standard pitch of about 422-423 Hz. Current 440
Jambe de Fer (Lyons, 1556) “ ...it is supported by the arm”
Praetorius (Wolfenbüttel, 1614/20) “...it is held on the arm”
Prinner (Salzburg, 1677) “... the violin must be held firmly with the chin”
Falck (Nürnberg, 1688) “Place the violin below the left breast, the instrument should lean a little downward towards the right.”
Merck (Augsburg, 1695) “One should hold the violin nicely straight under the left breast, leaving the arm free, not resting against the body/belly”
Speer (Ulm, 1697) “The remainder, how one holds the violin correctly in the hand, rests it on the breast, leads the bow ... that a trusted teacher must show his student”
Playford (London, 1667)“... the lower part of the violin must be rested on the left breast a little below the shoulder”
Matteis, according to Roger North 1670's “... rested his instrument against his short ribbs”
Lenton (London,1693) “... as I would have none get the habit of holding an Instrument under the Chin, so I would have them avoid placing it as low as the Girdle”
Monteclair (Paris, 1711/12) “To hold the violin securely, the tail-piece is placed against the neck just under the left cheek.”
Corette (Paris, 1738) “... he must place his chin on the violin”
Crome (London, 1740) “let the back part rest on your left Breast. The best way is to stay it with your Chin”
Francesco Geminiani (London, 1751) “The violin must be rested just below the Collar-bone, turning the right-hand Side of the Violin a little downwards”
Leopold Mozart (Augsburg, 1756) “The violin is placed against the neck so that it lies somewhat in front of the shoulder and the side on which the e-string lies comes under the chin, whereby the violin remains unmoved in its place even during the strongest movements of the ascending and descending hand.”
Herrando (Paris 1756) “The tailpiece must come under the chin, being held by it there, turning the head slightly to the right.”
L'Abbé le fils (Paris, 1761) “The violin should be placed on the collar-bone in such a way that the chin rests on the side of the fourth string”
(www.baroque-violin.info/vhold1.html)
It's hard to imagine an instrument as staid as the violin going through any evolutionary changes. Most of our modern violins are so standardized that if the string length is off by just a couple of millimeters, an experienced player will notice it. But early violins were not made to such standardized measurements. And one huge change that happened in the early 1800s is that the length of neck (and thus the string length) became longer! Almost no violins made before about 1830 retain their original necks. That includes Stradivaris, Guarneris, and Amatis.
(blog.feinviolins.com/2015/06/your-violin-neck-used-to-be-shorter.html)
The original violins built by Stradivari and Amati lacked the kind of string pressure that is standard in violins today. This is due to the lengthening and deepening of the bass bar, its design evolving in the 18th Century. At that time, the tension of the violin’s strings was about equal to a weight of 63 pounds, while nowadays the tension is equivalent to more than 80 pounds. Consequently, bass bars on older instruments have been replaced, as modern violinmakers can now construct bass bars at the same quality as the original masters.
(go2article.com/article/violin-bass-bar/)
The procedure outlined here is the same as that to which most classic period instruments were subjected in the 19th century when the broad, low angled baroque necks were replaced with modern necks. The scroll, which must be preserved as part of the original instrument, is grafted onto a block of wood which will be used to form the new neck.
(www.andrewcarruthers.com/replacing-a-violin-neck/)
We use Toute Bows nowadays which requires a different technique, gives a better sound and enables more string pressure if needed.
The virtuoso Viotti made a sensation playing his Stradivari violin and turned to Tourte to design a bow which could bring out all the violin's interpretive powers as well as its sheer projection in large halls.
(ervinviolins.com/tourte_bows.shtml)
What was the end result? What conclusion did they come up with?
After this documentery I am asking myself why I was not given the possibility to judge myself and why I was not given the result.
26:33 Pretty much sums it all up.
Here are the results :
www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Vincennes/FritzEtAl_PNAS_public.pdf
+CyphR Thank you for sharing. Quite interesting and mind-boggling results!
Who made the Violin no. 5?
i would have appreciated that this video could have been more fast paced, and with a better and clear presentation on what the results were, and the process to be told more clearly.
Absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for doing such rigorous research in the name of music! Looking forward to reading your findings.
I wish I knew those new violin names especially the N5.
This proves that the violins produced by the old masters ARE different -- they're old.
Anyone know the song at 4:24? I have been searching for that for a long time.
+James Pham Beginning of Tchaikovsky violin concerto, first movement.
Chaikovskiy concert for violin 1part
just a warning but say piece, not song next time, some musicians might get ticked off by it! 👍
How are they going to see the fingerboard tape with those glasses on?
The outcome is rather logic. A good violin is good, irrespective of its age. Age does not make a violin good by itself. Craftsmanship and the right material is what makes a violin good. The art of violinbuilding did not go lost with the death of Stradivari and Guarneri.
But as to the test: Every violin needs its own set up. Were the violins all individually prepared to get their best sound out or did they all get the same Dominants and the same brand of rosin and the same bow? I was just wondering about that variable.
Fascinating experiment! Thank you for making this available to us all. Also, can anyone tell me the name of the piece being performed at 25:30? It's beautiful!
That's the Sibelius Violin Concerto, 1st Movement by Jean Sibelius. One of my most favorite pieces.
Trips and falls and destroys all the violins while blind.
Great movie, very interesting! Is the paper published already? If not, when will we know the outcome of this study??
The first paper comes out this week -- on April 7th! Sure to be interesting and big news. :)
what is the piece at 25:30? thanks
Hi Kevin, in case you're still unsure, it's the opening of the Sibelius Violin Concerto.
Before I saw the whole video, I liked the #5, which I assume is N5, of which Elmar said "feels a little bit like a Guadagnini." Of course, I don't know how it feels but I liked how it sounded. Then the woman wanted to buy that one. I feel a little bad for the makers, that one of them doesn't know their violin was the favorite of the bunch, although maybe they know the sound of it well enough to know.
I read the paper online. Someone below gave the link. Thanks. It seems like a great test, except for one thing. It seems like a lot would hinge on the quality of the Strad selected. I assume the modern makers are submitting their very best work, whereas would this Strad -- the highest ranking old violin -- rank in the top 100 Strads in the world or lower. I'm sure they went out of their way to get the best they could find, but what did they end up with. It would be nice to know it was considered to be one of the great ones. Like Elmar said, there's plenty of old instruments that are not that great.
Now, if I could just find one that sounds like N5, is made in China, and costs less than $1000.
+Timzart7 N5 was a mass produced Stensor. Jk. Have no idea.
+Timzart7 N5 was a mass produced Stensor. Jk. Have no idea.
Susanne Hou
www.susannehou.com
Did anyone ever figure out what violin N5 was?
Does anyone know what the name of the solo is starting at 25:30 is?
4thefray 1st movement of the Sibelius Violin Concerto.
What's the difference? Probably the tone of the wood. It's possible to make the same instruments from the same wood and still have variations.
Anyone know the name of the piece played at 25:30?
Sibelius Violin Concerto in D minor op. 47 part 1
Sibelius Violin Concerto in D Minor, Op. 47 - 1st Movement
Sibelius Violin Concerto in D Minor, Op. 47 - 1. Allegro moderato
Thanks for publishing this and I can't wait to see the full documentary. I would someday like to see blind tests w/ cheaper end models against the so called elite models as well. The rest of us Joe schmoes will never be able to afford any of the violins tested so the relevance here only applies to a few. The reality is that a cheap violin can sound just as good as a million dollar violin. It may hurt the pride of those that dream of having a strad or equivalent but unfortunately it's the truth. I've seen it in guitars as well. I've heard $5K acoustic guitars that don't sound nearly as well as $299 ones.
The odds for the NEW violin makers who made these to have their own secrets and for those secrets to be lost due to business/greed is >0.
so where are the results?
I liked N5.
There is one final layer of testing that should have been done here... The Strad-Placebo:
Tell the audience that they're listening to a Strad, and then see how it impacts their rating.
I expect that the violinist could play a $60 Amazon Prime special, and it would unanimously get rated over an actual Strad that the audience was told was a 1980 violin.
I suggest Round 3 to let "experts" know exactly how pretentious they have been for all these decades.
For this 2012 test, my own analysis takes all of 30 seconds: The very fact that no one was sure which was which, or if they thought they were sure, they weren't right says that there is absolutely no way to justify the cost of a Strad based on sound quality. If you shell out 1000 times more money with the intent of buying an instrument that sounds better, it should be absolutely obvious that it is better. No one gets behind the wheel of a Honda Accord and thinks that they're driving a Lambo. This is clearly _not_ the situation when it comes to violins.
Ewafa brilliant idea!
The value of a "rare" object cannot be broken down into a tangible measure, like the material cost or the man hours to produce it. The value is what ever someone is willing to pay to own it. There are few other objects in the world which are 300 years old and still being used as originally intended.
Very interesting
top notch violinists are like top notch racing drivers. They race what they brung. In other words it is the mechanic or luthier who determines which machine performs better...
Where are the results?
A summary of the results were given at the very beginning. The details will be given in the research paper soon to follow.
Oh, I actually did find it: www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7224.short
Thanks!
The violin at 5:15 is incredible? Is that strad/guarneri or modern?
+Katherine Yu That is indeed an amazing violin. It was not actually a part of the official "blind test" but used as an example for the movie. It is Hugues Borsarello's personal violin and is a Vincenzo Ruggieri violin from circa 1695.
you realize the camera is right next to it?
The eq is extremely even and balanced sounding. It doesn't sound like its peaky in bass or treble, just strong and balanced bass, midrange and treble eq.
they all say i dont know and im not sure. how can this be really accurate on the time that its your turn to choose. they all sound close to each other. note projection from these violins varies in each stroke.
so can we hear the test?
The guy at the end of the video is right. How would those new violins sound when they reach their 300th year or less? Is it something that has to be re-researched for another 300 years?
Can any of the producers please give the name of the soloist playing the Sibelius at the end of the video?
tomatojuice12 Giora Schmidt
The one variable that of course that we will never be able to test is whether or not a "New" violin made by long gone master maker would sound in relationship to other new violins. Treated delicately or not, a 300 year old instrument is going to face some factors that any new instrument is not. A 300 year old instrument may react very differently to vibration than it did when it was 20 years old. We'll never be able to compare a new Strad to other new Violins and because of that, we'll never know if there is perhaps an aging factor that has led to some of these results. One could assert that a a Strad made today might sound way better than other contemporary instruments; that the reason these test results are ambiguous is that time has resulted in some degradation of performance whether that be slight or more significant.
And lastly, there is truth to the notion that no two instruments are created equal. Wood from a different tree, construction done at different times of the year with different weather factors, the age and health of the maker at the time of construction and a myriad of other factors can all result in instruments from the same maker being vastly different in terms of performance.
I am glad that in fact the results suggest that new instruments can hold their own with these other pieces of living history. If it were not so, we would be condemmed to an ever decreasing pool of superior instruments because no matter how well treated an object is, one can't assume that it will last forever. Will these older instruments still be playable when they are 1000 years old? I don't know. The suggestion that newer instruments can compete well against them means that we will continue to enjoy wonderful sounding instruments as long as we are able to make and play them.
The general theory is that as wood ages it sounds better.
MUST BE NOTED: These are not regular new violins. These are truly masterfully built violins, by builders who study the classic violins and make copies of them by hand, just like Stradivari and Guarneri. They are like apprentices who have learned from these older builders and recreating them to the level that the finest of violinist have a hard time distinguishing. This test doesn't show how wrong the violinist is, but how incredible "some" modern builders are.
VALUE: The old ones are the originals and the modern ones are "replicas". There are only 500 Stradivari and 150 Guarneri violins left and an ocean of replicas. Which Mona Lisa would you rather own, indistinguishable copy? If someone finds a copy of a Da Vinci that's more valuable, it won't hurt the value or attraction of the original.
It look like one of the people running test at one point moved a bridge after one test.
where can i find the full documentary???
It's just being completed now. Look for it in 2017
Stefan Avalos almost 2018. Found it already?
The guy got it right when he stated the bleeding obvious, "it's either a terrific sounding fiddle or it's not a terrific sounding fiddle!" As a guitarist I've played the 'great names' - most of which were ok - but have picked up a couple of unknown instruments which are, to my feel and ear, near perfect.
Instruments are in a way like actors - the big names are not necessarily the best actors - just the luckiest in terms of celebrity. The truly great actor might belong to some amateur outfit at the back of beyond and live and die unknown to all but a few other Thespians.
Fiddles are screechy instruments just as trombones are farty instruments - I think both are an acquired taste - played badly or well.
Just as in wine tasting and in many other aspects of human selection.
I have always favored modern instruments over old. Old violins are way over-valued, as far as practicality goes. Old fiddles are antiques and collectibles. Modern violins SOUND as good as (if not better than) any Strad or Guarneri or Guadagnini, etc. Check out the stories on the fakes sold by Dietmar Machold - he fooled the experts. So did Vuillaume and many others.
I feel that this double blind experiment had a few major limitations -- with very good violins, there is a learning curve involved and players would need time to adapt their technique to a different instrument. The type of strings used and the amount of wear on them, the bow, player comfort, the acoustics of the hall, all these become huge variables - what if one violin was set up for gut and another with a synthetic? Strads and Guarnerius handle very differently and moderns are comparatively easy to play on and bring out the sound. The best moderns may in fact be better than several of the Strads or Guarneris and over time, with more and more players playing on them, may be right up there with the best of 'em -- in general a violin sound gets better and better the more it's played on. The sound under the ear is also very different from the sound heard by the audience.
Even for violins with very a individual sound, it still depends much more on the player and their idea of the sound. But I think this is the best that anyone can do to test so many violins.
I would love to hear ANY of these instruments compared against the Recamier once played by Mischa Elman and now played by Shoji Sayaka.
That's the beauty and mystery of it... Perhaps that instrument WAS part of the test. ;-)
Stefan Avalos So maybe what I'm hearing is just Shoji?
What violins were used in this test? Anyone know?
I knew it!
Great video ! A brain game !
I heard that there was one violinist that spotted 100 percent right if it was old or new. Interested to know about that fact
1. Did all the violins had the same kind of strings?
2. Were the forms - soundboxes of newly made violins a replica of Strad or were new designs? If new made violins soundboxes are replica of Strad proportions then we are all used to hearing a Strad sound out of a violin and this is the sound we expect to hear from a violin.
3. I would love to see a test comparing the same soundboxes design of old and new violins made by top luthier. Get 2 Strad violins that have superb sound and replicate them with the use of acoustics metrics equipment. Draw the equal frequencies curves in the boards. Get the acoustic finger print of the original model then try to replicate that in the new designs. Then do the blind test again.
So they decide "hey, let's not be efficient and go through the hassle of choosing and buying different strings with varying circumstances and conditions with its deal!" ?
Fiddlershop/Fiddlerman shared a link regarding this study. And yes, for how many years it not impossible for improvement, the only problem is luthiers keep it secret.
and...
Problem is - not *all* Strads sound great. Some better than others. So of course the question "which is old and which not" makes no sense, is impossible with all the variables involved. But what the players did do, as a group, is discern which fiddles were good, and which were not so good.
Also, it's important not to overstate a test like this ability to actual find a correct result. Without even going into the hundreds of variables, we can't be sure this experiment is a sure way to know the answer to such subjective questions.
True. Elmar Olveira talks about that. But that doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the question.
I can say the Strads were golden period Strads - which are considered his best and two violins were Guarneri Del Gesus.
Also - very important note that gets lost in lots of news stories... ALL the violins sounded absolutely amazing. Just because one got picked over another didn't mean that the others weren't good. These are ALL amongst the top sounding violins that exist.
Actually, in my opinion, that is flatly incorrect. A double blind test is the ONLY way to eliminate the subjectivity. This rigorously conducted test proves that deprived of the sense of sight even the best violinist or critic cannot tell a sound of a Stradivarius or Guarani from a fine modern violin. A Strad sounds best to players or listeners because they know it is a Strad and their opinion is biased by what they know SHOULD be true. Take away sight and they are lost and guessing -- thus are unable to pick out the Italian masters from good modern instruments.
Stefan Avalos "All violins sound amazing" means that modern violins can also sound as great as Strad or Guar. Thank you for your implied meaning!
Oh -- not even implied. :)
What you feel(like) is more prevalent to what is "best". I know musicians who are attached to their instruments because of the flaw they have and time they spend to learn it. On the other hand you like some Queen tune, next day Sonic youth sounds great. Giving random people random instruments proves nothing or very little.
What they didn't realize is that violin is valued by the story behind it. The beauty of the music that violin can create underpins more the value of the violin & the story. It's not merely the sound it produce but it's the story behind. This is from psychology point of view
"What they didn't realize is that violin is valued by the story behind it."
Pardon? Please tell me - what is a violin for? What was the purpose for which its creator made it? To tell stories - or to make sound? If you bought a violin, would it be to play it, or to go around telling people its story?
See Strad Style today!!!
www.stradstyle.com
LOL
Old violins smell old...just saying.
Bathos
There is another variable when you test a violin.
THE STICK ! (If you have a $20.00 bow hit a Stradivarius.. the result will be.. LESS THAN WORLD CLASS. If you have a fine 19th Century $15000+ bow .. The performance of the violin has only one other variable... THE SKILL OF THE PLAYER.
If you are going to make a study of; ANY GIVEN OBJECT, anything that is in contact MUST be the same. ( Sick & Fiddler MUST be the same. Same tune as well.)
I think the violinist uses the same bow that they preferred for all the instruments they've tried on. so that is one of the other control variables. I'm not very sure about the skill of every player but to my knowledge one violinist tries out all the violins?
Definitely correct, in fact this study has convinced me that new violins have the potential to be as great or greater than the old treasures.