Interesting bilind testing of Stradivarius Violin

Playing in an orchestra is not likely to make you deaf--unless you're sitting BEHIND the horns, which no one does.

Joseph Curtin (name was misspelled in the article) is quite well-known and no doubt has a long waitng list. He likely needs no advertising.

The fact that the players were fooled is huge. I don't think that some people are getting this. That is the difference between this and previous tests which relied on the listeners and not the players to judge the instruments.

Geoffkait, I hope that what you wrote is hyperbole more than anything; and,
surprising for someone who cares so much about the more ephemeral
aspects of sound. Tostadosunidos is quite right in that playing in an
orchestra is unlikely to cause deafness. Now, it is true that some musicians
do suffer hearing damage from many years of playing in orchestras.
However, musicians in orchestras today are extremely conscious of this
potential and are very very careful about using protection when necessary.
Moreover, since the potential for hearing damage is cumulative, many
players will use protection while off the stage during non-working hours in
order to limit the total exposure to loud sounds over the course of the day.
There is a lot of misunderstanding and myth about this, the Strad business
and many other aspects of a professional musician's life.

Tostadosunidos, Curtin may be well known, but not as a player. He is a
violin maker and that was my point about conflict of interest. Additionally,
there are musicians and then there are musicians; let's just leave it at that.
Anyway, and I will say it again, there are fine instruments being made
today. However, it is absolutely true that for many players the Strads and
others have very special qualities that are often not found in modern
instruments. To not acknowledge that is simply to not understand what
most truly accomplished musicians look for in an instrument and to not
understand the process of playing music itself. Again, a lot of myth and
misunderstanding.

What is being talked about here does not apply only to string instruments
but also to woodwinds, brass and even percussion. Instruments back
when Strads were made (and winds in more recent times but still before
what can be considered current) were made with a different sensibility and,
ironically, without the help of modern "knowledge", techniques
and even computer analysis; there was more reliance on craftman's
intuition. Many of these vintage instruments are actually harder to play at
first than many modern instruments and require a certain familiarity with
their unique character before the special qualities of projection, complexity
of tone, and feeling of response reveal themselves. The way an instrument
responds does not necessarily have anything to do with that instrument's
inherent sound and what a listener may be able to hear as a difference, but
rather it is what determines wether the player will feel at home with that
instrument; a consideration which will then allow (or not) that player to fully
express the music as he feels it and that is a key point. The choice of
instrument for an accomplished player is very personal and like a marriage
of sorts. Some players may want the faster response of a modern
instrument and be content to sacrifice that last tiny bit of harmonic
complexity in the sound, while a different player may feel more comfortable
with an instrument that demands some coaxing and rewards with a certain
depth of tone and power of projection not possible with the other. To
anyone who thinks this is just gobledygook all I can say is that you just
don't understand.

Great debate everyone, thanks for the responses.

Good Listening

Peter

I've heard judges at youth competitions agonize over how to score a poor kid with a poorer instrument vs a rich kid with a better one.
Anyone who does not know sound is different with your eyes closed or open is not serious about music.
Anyone who doesn't know you listen with every sense AND your memory is not there yet.
And anyone who thinks the great old instrument thing is a fallacy is a fool.

Humans are integrated beings, like a audio system every part matters.
And every"room" sounds different .

I was reading up on Stradivarius instruments on Wikipedia.

From what I read, quantifying if and why these particular instruments sound different or better than others is kind of like trying to do the same with fuses in hifi gear. Clearly part of the story here is the legacy and historical impact of these instruments which are very valuable as a result of reputation and age.

Its one of those cases where clearly there may be physical differences from other designs, but quantifying the sound quality remains elusive.

Clearly, few every day shlub musicians would play such an intrument in public or be recorded playing one, so I suspect the skills of the players overall contribute to the instrument's reputation.

I have to believe its possible to make a modern violin that is at least in the same league as one made 100s of years ago. IT might sound similar or different, maybe even better, at least in some ways to some?

I am a firm believer that time always tells though when it comes to practical assessments of value or quality. Good things last, bad things tend to run their course for the most part, but there is always something new on the horizon.