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
tomwh
150 posts
 
And your tubes and vinyl will allow you to hear what the violins sound like.  One is absolutely subjective.  The other should reproduce which subjective violin you chose.


wolf_garcia
6,628 posts
 
The feel of the instrument to the musician is what counts, and all that matters.
billstevenson OP
345 posts
 
There is absolutely no question about variations instrument to instrument, particularly for percussion instruments like pianos or even simple cymbals.   Two brothers, last name Zildjian, both keepers of their family's great secret formula for the world famous Turkish cymbals, split over how the alloy should be hammered.  One brother insisting on hand hammering as has been done for hundreds of years, the other insisting on switching to machine hammering.  Now there are two companies, Zildjian and Sabian, both making similar world class cymbals and apparently the two brothers do not get along.  And still no two cymbals sound alike.  Something as simple as a cymbal.  And cymbals are to pianos as a sand filled glass timer is to a fine Swiss watch.   No wonder pianos all have unique sound characteristics.  And there is no rational reason for it, but a good Steinway is hard to find. 
Post removed 
frogman
7,364 posts
 
This kind of test proves very little other than the fact that, yes, there are good modern instruments being crafted today.  Are they as good as the Cremonese instruments?  Wolf Garcia has it exactly right; it is the feel of the instrument to a particular player that matters.  This merits some expounding as there is a lot more to "feel" than may be obvious:

Every player looks for different traits in an instrument's response characteristics ("feel").  Some players like a very responsive (fast) instrument, while another player may prefer an instrument that needs to be coaxed to some degree for it to respond.  It is a very personal thing and a kind of relationship between the player and the instrument.  As a general rule modern instruments (not just violins) tend to be more responsive than vintage ones and this goes to the appeal of the Cremonese instruments.  The Cremonese may need some extra coaxing to respond, but the reward can be layers of harmonic complexity and color that many players feel cannot be found in many modern instruments.  The most important aspect of "feel" is what some payers call the "sweet spot".  The sweet spot is the "spot" at which the instrument's inherent "requirements" come together (hopefully) with a player's individual technique characteristics (and this includes the player's actual physical traits) to let the instrument fully express its potential.  When this happens is when the player can, in turn, fully express musicality.  Importantly, and the reason that these tests are pretty pointless, is that finding that "sweet spot" does not happen in minutes or even hours.  A player needs to live with an instrument for some time in order to understand it and how that particular instrument's personality meshes with his/her own technique and expectations.

More to discover