2. analog
  3. 129764-1647

Audiophiles are not alone

In the current (May 13th-19th, 2017) edition of the Economist there is a short piece entitled "Violins" that I want to bring to your attention.  It is about new violins and old violins, specifically Cremonese (Guarneri, Stradivari, Amati) vs. Joseph Curtin (modern violin maker in Michigan).  With Dr. Claudia Fritz of the University of Paris, presiding, experiments were held in Paris and New York that proved to the majority of both musicians and listeners (other musicians, critics, composers etc.) that new fiddles out performed old ones.  There were some sort of goggles used so that the players could not tell what instrument they were playing.  The audience was also prevented from seeing the instruments somehow.  All this done without inhibiting sound transmission.  Both solo and orchestrated works were performed.  You can read the whole story in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  And this is only the latest evidence of this apparent reality, as according to the article, similar experiments have reached similar conclusions prior to this.  The article concluded with the observation that these results notwithstanding, world class players are not about to give up their preference for their Cremonese fiddles.

This reminds me very much of some of our dilemmas and debates such as the ever popular: analog vs. digital, tube vs. transistor, and subjective listening vs. measured performance parameters.  If it has taken a couple of hundred years and counting for the debate on fiddles to remain unresolved, what hope have we to ever reach resolutions to some of our most cherished and strongly held preferences?  This is asked while hugging my turntables and tube electronics.
billstevenson

Showing 3 responses by jollytinker

jollytinker
213 posts
 
I think the trouble here, with all due respect, is that there is no real connection between the sound of a violin and its market value. So there won't be any collectors or foundation heads who read this article and start regretting their purchase of an old Strad. Violins are valued in the market as art objects, which means that their price is determined mainly by their provenance. And this is not just with super-expensive violins. If you try a series of 5k instruments you'll find that some are terrible and some are great. A $10k fiddle might come from a well known 19th century maker but sound nowhere near as good as a $1k chinese model.  Annoying but true.

Which leads me to another contrarian point: audiophiles actually have it better than violinists. Generally speaking, you get what you pay for in the audio world. Yes of course there are exceptions like overpriced tweaks that don't really work or 'giant killer' components that sound better than they should. But in general, whether it's SS or tubes, analog or digital, spending more money gets you a better sounding system. IMHO. 


jollytinker
213 posts
 
So recently I walked into a violin shop in downtown Boston, just as the proprietor was playing a violin. The instrument belonged to a customer and I couldn't help but notice that the sound was unusually powerful, as if there was a freight train moving towards me from across the room. I didn't even notice it at first - the feeling hit me unconsciously and then gradually worked its way into my (sometimes dim) awareness. 

I poked around the shop for a while as the proprietor talked about violin strings with his customer, and then I went outside to feed the parking meter. When I came back in the owner and the violin were gone. I said to the proprietor, "that was a nice violin you were playing." He gave me an impish grin and said, "Guarneri." 

For what it's worth, I heard that violin with a completely blank slate, no expectations whatsoever. I won't say that it's impossible for a modern violin to approach that sound (I doubt that's true) but I will say that the sound of that violin was unlike anything I've heard before or since. And I've heard a lot of fiddles....  


jollytinker
213 posts
 
On the issue of "key points": the study is questionable because its methods are based on the faulty assumption that playing the violin is a simple, mechanical process. The trouble, as Frogman pointed out, is that it takes a lot of time and adjustment for any player to get the best sound out of a particular instrument. I also imagine it’s easier to do so with a new instrument that isn’t as ’fussy’ and isn’t hyper-controlled by the foundation that owns it. That means that the methodology of this study has a bias towards modern instruments.

I would also add that the same thing goes for hearing. Discerning the differences between these instruments is a process of learning and adjusting over time, and that isn’t possible within the terms of this study. So Lewm is right when he says that the study produces no "hard data." It only shows that a few people had a few subjective reactions to a few particular violins. there’s nothing generalizable about that information.
More to discover