This is a good example of how being scientific about music often makes you totally wrong.

LastMantra

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Cirrus

I was quite careful not to express an opinion as to whether Stradivarius violins might be better than a modern violin, so I think it's interesting that some are feeling the need to make the argument that this might not be the case. Nor did I say the conclusion was definitely wrong. Just that I think the lack of awareness about the impact of acoustics and psychoacoustics on the participants perception of what sounds good is enough to make the process of this study (IMO) wrong.

Have any of you heard a violin being practiced up close in a small room? There tends to be a major element of scratchy brightness which isn't much fun to listen to. But you put that same violin in a huge concert hall, sit a few rows back and even as a solo, unmiked performance the sound suddenly makes sense. The scratchy brightness fades with distance and becomes a major component in the expressiveness of the instrument, so in that setting it sounds good.

My contention, hypothesis if you will (so here's where my science comes in!) is that a violin which sounds good to the ear in a small, acoustically dead room may be too mellow in a concert hall to be effective. Whereas a violin that doesn't sound good in a small room may be just right Tonally in a concert hall and also to sit alongside other orchestral instruments better. And that the difference between the two environments might be so profound that even a trained ear wouldn't be able to account for it.

So if the linked experiment was done in a concert hall both with solo pieces and ensemble playing, whatever the conclusion I think it would be more valid.

goldtop

Now I'm confused: "may be more valid"; and not "totally wrong" then?

Suppose as a thread title it would have got fewer clicks.

Cirrus

Headlines and thread titles are important! "Would" be more valid, not "may". If you're going to mince words don't misquote me. :P

imalone

Cirrus said:

I was quite careful not to express an opinion as to whether Stradivarius violins might be better than a modern violin, so I think it's interesting that some are feeling the need to make the argument that this might not be the case. Nor did I say the conclusion was definitely wrong. Just that I think the lack of awareness about the impact of acoustics and psychoacoustics on the participants perception of what sounds good is enough to make the process of this study (IMO) wrong.

Have any of you heard a violin being practiced up close in a small room? There tends to be a major element of scratchy brightness which isn't much fun to listen to. But you put that same violin in a huge concert hall, sit a few rows back and even as a solo, unmiked performance the sound suddenly makes sense. The scratchy brightness fades with distance and becomes a major component in the expressiveness of the instrument, so in that setting it sounds good.

My contention, hypothesis if you will (so here's where my science comes in!) is that a violin which sounds good to the ear in a small, acoustically dead room may be too mellow in a concert hall to be effective. Whereas a violin that doesn't sound good in a small room may be just right Tonally in a concert hall and also to sit alongside other orchestral instruments better. And that the difference between the two environments might be so profound that even a trained ear wouldn't be able to account for it.

So if the linked experiment was done in a concert hall both with solo pieces and ensemble playing, whatever the conclusion I think it would be more valid.

It was a while ago, so can't find it, but radio 4 had an interview with a violinist who has charge of a stradivarius and this is pretty much what she said, she played it and another violin and the other one was less harsh, but in a concert hall she would prefer the stradivarius for its projection. I think there's value in doing things like this to find out why they sound like they do and how we can make better new instruments.

Tunez

Cirrus said:

I see this kind of thing all the time of forums.

Here we have a study in which it's concluded that a Stradivarius Violin sounds worse that 20 other good, modern violins. It's very well presented, great lengths went into ensuring the experiment was a true double blind test. On the surface it's pretty watertight - the 300 year old violin, worth $10m, was far and a way the least preferred by all the players involved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abstract

Except for one small detail that IMO renders the whole experiement void.

It was done in a small hotel room.

At the risk of 'flogging a dead horse' here, I would like to say that it is wrong of you to suggest that these researchers' scientific method is flawed and conclude that their experiment is "void", at least for the reasons you state. 

 As a '...fucking whitecoat' myself in a former life, I thought their method was wholly acceptable. Both the parameters and objectives of their study were well defined and clear. Their method was unprejudiced. No unfounded extrapolations of the data were made. The team set out to observe and record perceptions and that's exactly what they did. The researchers did nothing more than report their findings. Whilst they did publish their surprise that the results of their study did not appear to reinforce the popularly accepted hierarchy of instrument quality, they did not suggest that their results were conclusive and nowhere, as no scientist ever would, did they use the 'P' word. Proofs are the property of mathematicians and courts, not natural scientists. 

It was a scientifically sound (pardon the pun!) and interesting study. Inevitably in this, or any other field, there is always room for more research.

Cirrus

I honestly am shocked that the fucking white coat thing keeps coming back to haunt me. It's such a preposterously un targeted, meaningless and ridiculous insult I thought it would be a chuckle at best or ignored at worst. Next time I'm chatting to my friends who consider themselves scientists I'll avoid calling them fucking white coats, so thread has been informative to me!

Tunez

Lol, with the 'whitecoat' thing I was just continuing the 'leg-pulling'. I, for one, don't care about that. 

The only thing I think is unfair is the slating of a good and competent bit of research...

Cirrus

Well, I've given my reasoning so I think it's fair. And my reasoning is being pulled apart by peer review, which is kind of amusing >:D<

imalone

It's not peer review unless there's blood.

TheOtherDennis

Cirrus said:

Well, I've given my reasoning so I think it's fair. And my reasoning is being pulled apart by peer review, which is kind of amusing >:D<

Do I hear the sound of a petard being hoist? ;-) :-D

In other news...I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that violinists have to be seriously careful in picking a Strad because all the 'best' ones have already been taken. Some have, in fact, deteriorated with age and use, and are no longer the exceptional beasts they once were, and apparently Strad himself made a handful of duffers that have never sounded that good no matter how old they got. (Then again, a duff Strad...)

I think personally that the real answer lies somewhere in between - the original conclusions failed to take into account room acoustics and thus should have been tried under identical methodology in a range of rooms; having said that, the methodology and evaluation of the results were perfectly valid, so it's not flawed for the lack of different rooms, merely incomplete.

IMO, of course, folks.

mellowsun

I think the point about the room is important.

My Lowden sounds amazing in a spacious room. In a tiny boxroom, I prefer the sound of my cheap parlour.

Equally, some guitars that sound great solo don't record too well or are hard to fit into a mix.

So I can imagine that a resonant, 300 year old violin might not sound at its best in a hotel room, but a less resonant instrument might fit the acoustics better.

ToneControl

Cirrus said:

I see this kind of thing all the time of forums.

Here we have a study in which it's concluded that a Stradivarius Violin sounds worse that 20 other good, modern violins. It's very well presented, great lengths went into ensuring the experiment was a true double blind test. On the surface it's pretty watertight - the 300 year old violin, worth $10m, was far and a way the least preferred by all the players involved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abstract

Except for one small detail that IMO renders the whole experiement void.

It was done in a small hotel room.

I think it's you that are wrong I am afraid

This was a playing test, not a listening test.

These were experienced players, PLAYING the instruments in an intentionally dry room so that they could experience who they feel and sound to the player, not the audience. A violin player hears a violin from 2 inches away, not from 100 yards away, so a smaller room is OK if it has few reflections

This is how science is conducted, a controlled experiment, with an intended set of variables to be tested to validate or confirm a hypothesis

After typing that, I find within the article:

"Most violinists prefer to try out violins in a room with relatively dry acoustics, where the direct sound from the instrument is not so much colored by room reflections. Sessions were therefore conducted in a hotel room whose acoustics seemed well-suited to the task. We are aware that room acoustics may influence a player’s preference for one instrument or another. However, that is a separate question not covered in this study."

Why basically confirms my point: they have thought about this issue for the player, not the audience

ToneControl

btw, did you actually read this paper? Later it says:

"This double-blind experiment is unique in studying player (rather than listener) preferences using new violins alongside distinguished old Italians. In a room chosen for its relatively dry acoustics, a preference for new violins was seen under two distinctly different sets of conditions. Under both sets, one particular Stradivari was the least-preferred instrument; under the second, a single new violin emerged as most-preferred. Subjects seemed not to distinguish between new violins and old but rather to choose instruments whose playing qualities best fit their individual tastes.

It is worth noting that these preferences were based solely on the experience of playing the instruments, meaning subjects heard

them ”under the ear” only and not at a distance. Notwithstanding all of the above, the particular visual beauty and historical importance of old Italian violins will no doubt maintain their hold on the imagination of violinists and their audiences for a long time to come. This prospect comes through nicely in a comment by one of our subjects, an eventual competition laureate: When asked the making-school of the new instrument he had just chosen to take home, he smiled and said only, “I hope it’s an [old] Italian.”

ToneControl

So we have another instrument's world here: where a ground-breaking improvement in design & presumably quality meant that the instruments made by an historical manufacturer (and some lesser contemporaries) eventually became the sole yardstick against which other instruments would be measured. 

To me it seems ridiculous to think that because one genius improved the design & construction of an instrument - that no improvement could be possible.

AFAIK, In the classical world, these multi-million dollar instruments are typically owned by investors, who loan them to those who they judge to be the most outstanding players. So you get mojo, perceived endorsement of skill, and the actual player's own skill all mixed up - therefore to have a Strad implies you are top notch, it would appear in your bio & programme notes - it's a selling point.

Therefore there is little to encourage players to prefer a different instrument, since the status comes with playing one as your main instrument, and being able to identify one would be pleasing to a player. Really this is just a perfect storm that results in fossilizing violin design & sound.

We of course suffer from this in the guitar world too, where some will take a player more seriously if they own an older guitar. This is completely ridiculous.

In addition, many strive to simply reproduce the flaws of early guitar designs, as if this is some kind of advantage.

I am reminded of when I took an acoustic to have the action lowered, and apologised to the luthier, saying "I know it could affect the tone, but with a high action, it doesn't work for me as an instrument". He seemed very pleased, saying that people fail to realise they are instruments.

Reflecting on that, you are the player, the guitar is an instrument, which should be refined to better allow you to express your musical ideas, hence the constant refinement of guitar designs over the last 60-100 years.  I think many hold the view that it's up to you as a player to adapt your technique to handle the flaws of a 60 year old design. I oppose this view

Cirrus

Interesting this gets bumped today and I stumble across this; Turns out they re-did the experiment in a 300-seat hall, with similar results. I'm happy now.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/07/stradivarius-violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

ICBM

Cirrus said:

Interesting this gets bumped today and I stumble across this; Turns out they re-did the experiment in a 300-seat hall, with similar results. I'm happy now.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/07/stradivarius-violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

Very interesting. I'm willing to believe that result now as well. Context is very important, and the experiment does show that although the results were certainly similar, they weren't identical.

I wonder what 'O12' was - it's a clearly a total dog .

Drew_TNBD

Despite the last four posts or so... no one actually challenged the OP on why it would matter that they did the test in a small hotel room. He never backed up why it mattered either. Everyone went off down a rabbit hole waffling about the scientific method... but the initial assertion was never backed up with reasons why.

This makes me sad.

ICBM

Drew_fx said:

Despite the last four posts or so... no one actually challenged the OP on why it would matter that they did the test in a small hotel room. He never backed up why it mattered either. Everyone went off down a rabbit hole waffling about the scientific method... but the initial assertion was never backed up with reasons why.

This makes me sad.

I missed the thread originally (I rarely come into the theory section, too scared ), but if it matters, the reason is in my opinion similar to why you might want a different type of overdrive pedal for use at home in a small, fairly 'furnished' room and a different one for using on an open stage with a band. It's pretty well-known that Tube Screamers don't really sound all that great when you're playing on your own at low volume, but sound amazing at high volume with a band - and often vice versa with more "preamp type" pedals. If you had to rate overdrive pedals in a hotel room you'd likely pick and reject different ones than you would if you tried them at a gig with your band.

It's most likely less important with a violin because you can take out the interaction of the instrument with the rest of a signal chain, but the room itself is also part of the sound path from your hands back to your ears, even when you're very close to the instrument.

So the result of both tests is *very* useful, because it shows that the original conclusion is supported, but not perfectly. I feel the same way about trying gear in a shop or at home, or even listening to clips. It's not always perfectly accurate but does give you a pretty good idea usually.

But it also wouldn't have surprised me if it had been the other way round, either.

Cirrus

Despite the last four posts or so... no one actually challenged the OP on why it would matter that they did the test in a small hotel room. He never backed up why it mattered either. Everyone went off down a rabbit hole waffling about the scientific method... but the initial assertion was never backed up with reasons why.

Let me quote some of my posts explaining my reasoning:

'In this case, they haven't considered that a violin needs to sound good in a concert hall, and also needs to have a tone that fits well with an orchestra, which is a wholly different ball game than sounding pleasing in a little hotel room. In my opinion, they're using the instrument incorrectly....it's a good example of how evaluating something like tone using objective means can fall flat on its face.'

'just pointed out the obvious flaw in the study, which is that room acoustics and context are vital'

'Nor did I say the conclusion was definitely wrong. Just that I think the lack of awareness about the impact of acoustics and psychoacoustics on the participants perception of what sounds good is enough to make the process of this study (IMO) wrong.

Have any of you heard a violin being practiced up close in a small room? There tends to be a major element of scratchy brightness which isn't much fun to listen to. But you put that same violin in a huge concert hall, sit a few rows back and even as a solo, unmiked performance the sound suddenly makes sense. The scratchy brightness fades with distance and becomes a major component in the expressiveness of the instrument, so in that setting it sounds good.

My contention, hypothesis if you will (so here's where my science comes in!) is that a violin which sounds good to the ear in a small, acoustically dead room may be too mellow in a concert hall to be effective. Whereas a violin that doesn't sound good in a small room may be just right Tonally in a concert hall and also to sit alongside other orchestral instruments better. And that the difference between the two environments might be so profound that even a trained ear wouldn't be able to account for it.

So if the linked experiment was done in a concert hall both with solo pieces and ensemble playing, whatever the conclusion I think it would be more valid.