Dear @billstevenson , @frogman , @lewm , @jollytinker and friends : We differ in opinion because we are taking personal assumptions that just don't count against the study results.
To can give a useful contribution on the subject we need to know first than all the premises and targets that were the foundation of the violin tests study and that's why I post/paste here for everyone can read it and stay in the same " channel ". I repeat, these are the premises and targets and we don't have the " rigth " to change those premises or targets and if we want it then that could be for other study but not this one:
:
""" SignificanceSome studies open new fields for investigation; this study attempts to close a perennially fruitless one—the search for the “secrets of Stradivari.” Great efforts have been made to explain why instruments by Stradivari and other Old Italian makers sound better than high-quality new violins, but without providing scientific evidence that this is in fact the case. Doing so requires that experienced violinists demonstrate (under double-blind conditions) both a general preference for Old Italian violins and the ability to reliably distinguish them from new ones. The current study, the second of its kind, again shows that first-rate soloists tend to prefer new instruments and are unable to distinguish old from new at better than chance levels. AbstractMany researchers have sought explanations for the purported tonal superiority of Old Italian violins by investigating varnish and wood properties, plate tuning systems, and the spectral balance of the radiated sound. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has been investigated scientifically only once very recently, and results showed a general preference for new violins and that players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old. The study was, however, relatively small in terms of the number of violins tested (six), the time allotted to each player (an hour), and the size of the test space (a hotel room). In this study, 10 renowned soloists each blind-tested six Old Italian violins (including five by Stradivari) and six new during two 75-min sessions—the first in a rehearsal room, the second in a 300-seat concert hall. When asked to choose a violin to replace their own for a hypothetical concert tour, 6 of the 10 soloists chose a new instrument. A single new violin was easily the most-preferred of the 12. On average, soloists rated their favorite new violins more highly than their favorite old for playability, articulation, and projection, and at least equal to old in terms of timbre. Soloists failed to distinguish new from old at better than chance levels. These results confirm and extend those of the earlier study and present a striking challenge to near-canonical beliefs about Old Italian violins. The violins of Stradivari, Guarneri “del Gesu,” and other Italian makers of the 17th and 18th centuries are widely believed to possess playing qualities that are both immediately discernable to experienced players and not found in new instruments. Over the past two centuries, numerous playing and listening tests have challenged this belief by pitting new violins against old . Although results often favored new instruments, the tests typically lacked sufficient rigor for the results to stand as scientific evidence. It is only recently that well-controlled studies of player preference have appeared in the literature . In a 2010 double-blind test held in a hotel room at the International Violin Competition of Indianapolis, 21 experienced violinists compared three new violins with two by Stradivari and one by Guarneri del Gesu. Results showed that the most-preferred violin was new, the least-preferred was by Stradivari, and players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old. However, the small number of violins and brief evaluation periods (less than an hour for each player) left many questions unanswered, the most obvious being whether results would hold with a larger set of test violins, a different group of players, longer evaluation periods, and more true-to-life test conditions. Although the Indianapolis study focused on player preferences, violin quality can be judged from several other relevant points of view—including those of listeners, colleagues in an ensemble, recording engineers, and orchestral conductors. There is no a priori reason to assume that all should agree or that one party’s preference is more “correct” than the other. For example, a violinist might prefer an instrument that is the easiest or most inspiring to play whereas listeners choose another because it carries better in a hall. That said, violinists have at least two advantages over their audiences when evaluating instruments. They are inside a feedback loop and so base their judgments upon interaction rather than passive listening. They are also very close to the instrument, where its sound is most intense and least colored by room modes. And, in the end, it is violinists who choose their instruments and whose judgments are therefore most consequential. The current study was designed to retest the Indianapolis findings with a larger number of violins and then explore how well judgments carry from a small venue to a larger one. Whereas the Indianapolis study relied on 21 players of various levels, this study concentrated on the judgments of 10 renowned soloists. Blind tests were conducted in both a small rehearsal room and a concert hall, with the option of piano accompaniment and listener feedback in the latter.
Materials and MethodsThe Team:
Although it is unusual to describe the team, given the nature of this experiment, we believe it important to provide some details. Designing an ecologically valid experiment that answers questions relevant to the violin world requires a variety of experts with differing interests. The team thus included several scientists, a violin maker and researcher who builds and sells new violins, a violin soloist who owns and plays an Old Italian violin, a professional violist and instrument dealer who owns several Old Italian instruments, and a string engineer and amateur violinist who owns and plays an Old Italian violin.
General Design:
The experiment was designed around the hypothetical premise that each soloist was looking for a violin to replace his or her own instrument for an upcoming solo tour. Tests were structured to emulate as far as possible the way a player might do this search in real life. Typically, a number of instruments are informally tested at a violin shop; then one or more are taken away for testing in other contexts—almost certainly including a concert hall, with one or more colleagues present to give feedback. We decided to allow the soloists the greatest possible freedom to test instruments as each saw fit, believing this freedom would give the most meaningful results—as opposed to standardizing interactions between players and test instruments (e.g., by requiring players to spend the same amount of time with each instrument, or to play the same musical excerpts on each), which would however have the advantage of eliminating some variables. We believed that 12 violins (6 old, 6 new) would allow a nice variety of instruments, yet still be manageable for the players. In a real-life situation, players would rarely be presented with so many instruments at once, but in the authors’ experience, players tend to quickly eliminate instruments they find unsuitable, then spend more time on those that seem a better fit. We polled nine soloists (by means of a questionnaire sent before the experiment) about the time needed to comfortably evaluate instruments within the context of the experiment (i.e., choosing from among 12 violins a replacement for their own for an upcoming tour). Their average estimate was 50 min, with a SD of 30 min. In light of this average estimate, each soloist was scheduled for a pair of 75-min sessions, each held on a different day in a different venue . Before each session, soloists were given written instructions . After their first session, they were interviewed; after the second, they answered a brief questionnaire. When testing violins in real life, players typically use their own bows, which through constant use have become, in effect, extensions of their right arms (5). We therefore asked the soloists to use the bow they normally played and to use that same bow throughout the study. We are aware that the choice of bow may affect the perceived quality of a violin and so introduce an unconstrained variable—but so too would asking all players to use a single, unfamiliar bow. To facilitate testing, we provided players who used shoulder rests with additional ones of the same model. During both sessions, soloists wore modified welders’ goggles, which together with much-reduced ambient lighting made it impossible to identify instruments by eye. The fact that the new violins had been antiqued helped eliminate any tactile clues to age, such as unworn corners and edges. It was proposed that a dab of scent be placed under the chinrest of each violin to mask any distinctive smells. This idea was, however, deemed unacceptable by those responsible for the condition of the old violins, who felt the essential oil might possibly infiltrate the varnish. However, no distinctive smells were detected by the authors, nor were any reported by participants. Two of the authors (C.F. and I.W.) were present during the sessions; they made notes of the subjects’ comments but responded only to confirm what had been said and to move players from one task to the next. The researchers were seated behind the players and, in any case, were scarcely visible to subjects, given the dim light and goggles. A large, back-lit timer helped participants keep track of the time.
Test Instruments:
A pool of 15 new and 9 Old Italian violins was assembled by the authors. The new violins (none of which were used in the Indianapolis experiment) were built by professional makers in Europe and North America and were between several days and two decades old. Makers were invited to submit only instruments that were “antiqued” (i.e., made to resemble old instruments). The makers agreed not to publicize their involvement in the experiment and were aware they would never know whether their instrument had been included in the set of 12 test violins. Old violins in the pool included 2 by Guarneri del Gesu (both made after 1740), 6 by Stradivari, and 1 by another well-known 18th century Italian master. None of these violins belonged to or were played by the invited soloists. All were loaned on condition that their identity remain confidential (thus, the very general descriptions used throughout this paper). It was assumed that the parties who loaned instruments had an interest in them sounding their best and so had them set up and adjusted accordingly. All violins were therefore kept in the exact condition in which they were received. This condition was monitored throughout the study by separate “guardians”—J.C. for new violins and T.G. for old. Other than a slight buzz that developed with one of the new instruments and the replacement of a reportedly uncomfortable chinrest on one old violin, none of the instruments presented problems, nor did any soloists report difficulties with setup or adjustment. Six old and 6 new violins were selected from the pool by means of informal blind tests designed to eliminate instruments with the least impressive playing qualities . Just which instruments were included in the final 12 was not revealed to the makers, dealers, collectors, and players who submitted them. None of the test instruments were unusual in terms of size, proportions, or setup. Although not all had the same strings, all had very typical combinations of a steel E-string and metal-wound synthetic-core lower strings.
Venues:
The experiment took place at two locations, both on the outskirts of Paris, France. The first was the home of a family of professional string players. The room used was one favored for rehearsals and individual practice. The second was a 300-seat concert hall, well-regarded for its acoustics. An acoustically transparent screen was installed between the stage and the seats, where a small, varying audience included at times soloists not currently involved in a test, authors other than C.F. and I.W., and a few interested outsiders.
Violinists:
Whereas the Indianapolis study involved players of varying levels, including soloists, orchestral players, and amateurs, this study involved only soloists. Although the preferences of players at all levels is potentially interesting, the preferences of soloists were felt to be most important for our purposes due to their high playing standards under widely varying conditions and their (typically) broad experience playing top-quality violins. We also considered the common belief that it takes a top player to “get the most” out of an instrument, especially in terms of projection. And there is the fact that the real-life choices of soloists have been very important in forming the reputations of individual violin makers, past and present. To give the experiment maximum credibility, we tried to choose internationally known soloists and/or those who had won major international competitions. Time constraints limited the number of players we could work with. The old instruments were available for just a few days, and the auditorium for a day and a half. Considering the estimated time (50 min on average; see required by soloists to choose a single favorite violin from a set of twelve, we judged that giving more time to fewer players would lead to more reliable judgments than would the converse. In the end, 10 soloists were invited, along with an eleventh who participated in the final session only. Ranging in age from 20 to 62, their combined awards included Avery Fisher career grants (2) and first prizes in the Tchaikovsky (2), Sibelius (1), Paganini (1), and Long-Thibaud (3) competitions, along with many other lesser awards, including a silver medal at the Queen Elizabeth Competition. Although 10 soloists may seem a relatively small number, it should be remembered that the world population of players at this level is not large—indeed, the combined number of first prizes awarded in the above competitions in the past 50 y is about 90. Given our selection process, however, the 10 soloists can hardly be regarded as a random sampling of this population, and we have no information on how and to what extent they might differ from it. Consequently, in this paper, we consider those 10 individuals as our population of interest and limit ourselves to descriptive statistics (i.e., avoiding confidence intervals and significance tests). Two of the soloists regularly play new instruments but have in the past played extensively on violins by Stradivari and/or Guarneri del Gesu. A third soloist, who owns and performs on both a Guarneri del Gesu and new violins, came to the experiment with a new instrument. The other seven soloists play old violins—including instruments by Carlo Bergonzi, Gagliano, Gobetti, Guarneri del Gesu, Storioni, and Vuillaume. Soloists were given no information about the test instruments although the publicity generated by an earlier study (1) may well have led them to expect a comparison between new and old. """
That we like it the results or not it does not change the result of those tests where the prefered violins were the new ones. Btw, no audience/listeners participated only the very well regarded soloists.
Try to diminish the results ( as some of you are doing. ) needs another different study that can proves that that one is wrong and not only opinions.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC not DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @frogman : """
tests and in the reporting of the methadology and results there are other issues that are often not reported.... """
other that the players that were in all those tests no one can say what you posted. You are only assuming that with out any single prove other that your words that for me in this case has a little minor level that the ones coming from the players/soloists.
For your post is clear you are " biased " through what you name " magic ".
Results says other things and NO a kind of tests like this can't be takes months or weeks to do it because is a double-blind test where those players just do not know which violin are playing. Even the tests were with ligth at very low shine effect to impede identification.
I respect your opinion but mine is diferent, You say that " mood " moment in a player does not affects the player performance, well that's what you said where I think that some way or the other it affects. You can't prove your opinion only because you are a violin player. No, I can't prove my opinion neither.
There are other similar tests in that site and I choose this one because in my opinion was the more complete that under the tests scenario conditions exist no " magic " but preference for the new instruments with no-biased soloists/players.
Have you many doubts about?, ask them through the tests leaders. These people seems/look to me are non-biased through the new or old instruments. Why should them be that way? and I'm refering to the National Academy of Sciences USA.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
@lewm : hard data? which one are you looking for?, come on. |
Dear @frogman : """
This kind of test proves very little other than the fact that, yes, there are good modern instruments being crafted today. """ I think that proves more than that because some of those new instruments outperforms the old very well regarded ones. """
the reason that these tests are pretty pointless, is that finding that "sweet spot" does not happen in minutes or even hours """ why pointless?, the tests goes in both directions: new ones and old ones and in exactly the same enviroment with no advantage to either instrument. In the other side a more in deep test, this is more time is not possible to do it because the tests can takes over a year and impossible that over the time the players moods stay the same. As a fact the tester leaders ask to the first rate soloist how much time they think will need it and they coincided that 50 minutes. The tests took two 75 minutes sessions. Here are some high ligths about:
""" SignificanceSome studies open new fields for investigation; this study attempts to close a perennially fruitless one—the search for the “secrets of Stradivari.” Great efforts have been made to explain why instruments by Stradivari and other Old Italian makers sound better than high-quality new violins, but without providing scientific evidence that this is in fact the case. Doing so requires that experienced violinists demonstrate (under double-blind conditions) both a general preference for Old Italian violins and the ability to reliably distinguish them from new ones. The current study, the second of its kind, again shows that first-rate soloists tend to prefer new instruments and are unable to distinguish old from new at better than chance levels.
AbstractMany researchers have sought explanations for the purported tonal superiority of Old Italian violins by investigating varnish and wood properties, plate tuning systems, and the spectral balance of the radiated sound. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has been investigated scientifically only once very recently, and results showed a general preference for new violins and that players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old. The study was, however, relatively small in terms of the number of violins tested (six), the time allotted to each player (an hour), and the size of the test space (a hotel room). In this study, 10 renowned soloists each blind-tested six Old Italian violins (including five by Stradivari) and six new during two 75-min sessions—the first in a rehearsal room, the second in a 300-seat concert hall. When asked to choose a violin to replace their own for a hypothetical concert tour, 6 of the 10 soloists chose a new instrument. A single new violin was easily the most-preferred of the 12. On average, soloists rated their favorite new violins more highly than their favorite old for playability, articulation, and projection, and at least equal to old in terms of timbre. Soloists failed to distinguish new from old at better than chance levels. These results confirm and extend those of the earlier study and present a striking challenge to near-canonical beliefs about Old Italian violins. """
Those result over more than one study are really interesting and maybe unexpected. The facts are there, any other conclusions from our part is a theoretical and pointless because you was not one of those players and never pass through thse tests.
Of course no one likes that a 2KK dolar instrument suddenly was outperformed for a " penautus " instrument and if I'm the owner of that 2KK instrument I can't accept the results of those tests. The proud feelings that has a Stradivarius owner does not counts in those tests and has no value at all.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC not DISTORTIONS, R.
|
