Slashdot Mirror
Wood Density May Explain Stradivarius Secret
Whorhay writes "A Dutch doctor and a violin maker from Arkansas have compared five classical and eight modern violins in a computed tomography (CT) scanner. Apparently the 300-year-old violins are made of wood with a more consistent density than the modern violins. They aren't saying for sure that this is what gives the Stradivarius violins their unique sound, but it's the first scientific explanation I've heard for it that seems to have merit." Unfortunately science has yet to explain how how all three chords I know ROCK on my SG.
So I suppose someone could carefully manage a tree farm to produce some new perfect instruments.
The varnish on a Stradivarius is what biochemist Joseph Nagyvary thinks is relevant. Cheaper varnishes may be too rubbery and as a result damp high frequencies. He's built some violins based on his ideas, though apparently a good musician can still tell the difference between one of his and a Stradivarius.
One problem with the wood density idea is that not all Stradivarius violins have the sound for which they're famous.
This is a problem with woodwork. It is difficult to get dense wood. Only 20 years ago it was easy to get good dense wood that could be built and oiled so it would last a very long time. Now all I see is light junk wood.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I heard something similar from a violin maker in Indiana. He said the wood was treated by submerging it in the acidic bogs around Cremona. Supposedly this efficiently removed the pectin leaving only the cellulose.
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
There was a TV show some years back about a physicist who tried to figure out what makes violins sound good. He found a few interesting things.
High-frequency response depends on the shape of the bridge. All those curly-cues cut into it control the transfer function from the strings to the body.
Mid-range response depends on the shape of the f-holes in the body. In this range, the bridge is rigid. The strings push on the bridge, and the bridge rocks the portion of the top plate between the f-holes back and fourth so that it radiates sound.
Bass goes from the strings, through the bridge, down through the sound post to the back panel, and is radiated by the back panel. Stradivarius shaped the back panel of his violins asymmetrically, so that the center of percussion was right where the sound post pushes on the back panel. IIRC, getting the center of percussion under the sound post was a distinguishing characteristic of Stradivarius violins.
Who alternately and randomly played a strad and a fake strad for an audience and for experts. Turned out that the well made violin was dubbed a strad equally often as the strad even by experts.
What really makes a strad sound good is the musician playing it.
How many entry level violin players play a strad?
There is no magic, there is just LOTS of practice.
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
Why is it that people seem to seek the most complex answer for these type of things? It's the wood. It's the varnish. It's the 'Little Ice Age'. Why not Stradivarius was the best violin craftsmen? Ever. Like other artists before him, he had a unique understanding of how to make this particular instrument and polished his abilities to perfection, the results of which the musicians and listeners still enjoy hundreds of years later.
I've got your sig, right here.
Not necessarily.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've a violin that's my grandmother's, which was her mother's (I think). It's very old, and German, and is a pleasure to play.
I also have several new violins that have been modeled after the really good old ones (including one that's modeled after a Bolshoi instrument). Now, the new ones sound fabulous, no doubt, but the old ones still have an ineffable quality to them that makes the music stand out.
For the longest time I thought this was psychological, but I've played both kinds of violins to friends and family with no music knowledge, and almost always, people say that the older violin just sounds richer. Even more interesting is the fact that the strings (both violin and bowstrings) are all quite new, so it most certainly is the body.
Secondly, it is also the collector's value - you have some excellent replicas of some of the world's most famous paintings, perhaps in better quality and in better resolution. However, that hardly diminishes the value of the original.
Do I enjoy playing my new violins? Hell yeah. In fact, I've some with fixed microphones inside which makes it easier for me to make recordings and the like (this is a problem because appropriate placing of mics inside a violin is hard, without affecting the harmonics, and there are some violins that take this into consideration).
And while some of my new violins can certainly take a beating, while I'm scared shitless of doing anything to my grandmother's violin. That does not mean that it diminishes the value of the old one - if anything, it makes it a delicate, valuable item.
Even with electric guitars weight and density are considered a good thing. You'll find people complaining how heavy their Les Paul Custom is yet still play it for the sustain the extra weight provides.
That sustain comes at the expense of having a very simple clean tone. They're great for distortion, though.
And Swamp Ash is a preferred material for Stratocasters and Telecasters because it is very hard while not being as heavy.
A swamp ash Stratocaster is my ideal guitar for playing clean, since it brings out the fundamental note and higher harmonics without so much midrange -- that's great for getting an ominous sound when you want it. I suspect it's the hardness that lets the higher frequencies reverberate so well.
You have to remember, though, that Fender sells many times more Stratocasters made of Alder than made of ash. Not everyone wants that sound.
I have played fiddle for 10 years, mostly bluegrass and Irish music. I've also spent time in an orchestra as a clarinet player, as well as a smattering of other instruments. The world of bowed strings and the prices associated with Strad-grade instruments has always astonished me. I can't name another type of musical instrument people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for, and I think there are a couple of factors behind it:
1. Most classical violinists play in the company of others, i.e. in an orchestra, where 'one-upmanship' can play a big role. If your instrument isn't as expensive as your stand partner's, you might fear the perception that you value your craft less highly! In fact, I'm told some orchestras won't audition players unless their instrument cost a certain (quite high) dollar amount.
2. I can say as a violin player that the instruments are basically impossible to perform systematic A/B tests with. For example, I can't A/B two different brands of string on my instrument, because changing the strings takes at least 5-10 minutes, by which point my short-term aural memory is already gone. Furthermore, it's next to impossible to change strings without shifting bridge and tailpiece position, both of which affect tone as well. Need some more nails in the coffin? Rosin buildup on the strings and string age also affect the tone _more_ than different brands of strings do. It's a different picture than, for example, factory built electric guitars, where you could set up two identically built solidbody guitars with your A and B stringsets, and (at least within a first order) you could claim equivalence between your two string-testing platforms.
In the absence of the ability to perform systematic tests, it seems like string players go for a lot of "magic" - $90 sets of strings, rosin with gold flecks in it for "warmer, richer tone" - and a lot of other bullshit, including price-performance equivalence. Like Lotus owners, violinists are usually limited far more by their technique than their instrument (once you get into the 10-20K range), and yet there is still a push to buy the 100K instrument!
As for the Strad instruments: scientific inquiry into things like wood density, varnish, etc, seems pretty disingenuous if no one can reliably detect the qualities the instruments are supposed to have. If, as the earlier posters mention, Strads can't be reliably detected in double-blind conditions, it seems obvious that any investigation into their unique properties would be chasing one's own tail. Even if there is an amazing, one of a kind Little Ice Age, shipwreck-sunk virgin blood Stradivarius, none of those attributes are relevant if they don't impact the sound. And if "what makes Strads so great" isn't about the sound, then WTF is the point of the investigation? Dense wood really isn't great for its own sake.
Whew. rant over.
Find a music teacher. http://www.learningmusician.com/
That it was the volcanic dust they used to finish rubbing the wood before varnishing, which stayed in the wood to leave a very hard layer under the varnish - it floated my boat.
-- Only information exists, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I'm a woodworker and some of my friends have tried to make violins. They all looked good and sounded terrible. It's definitely a tough business.
I saw a special, on History Channel I think, where they thought that the trees that Stradivarius used to make his violins had unusual density qualities caused by the mini ice age.
I would be surprised if, in his entire lifetime, Antonio Stradivari used much more than two trees. I say this because, as any violinist knows (and yes IAAV and violin-maker) most violins are made with a spruce belly and maple backs and sides.
Given that these members were and are quarter-sawn (i.e cut radially across the trunk), he would have got quite a few instruments out of each 14.5" (the usual total length of the back) section.
There is a rumour that the maple was sourced from ships' oars, but that has been pretty much debunked.
Yes, a trained professional can pick a Strad' out of a crowd of violins just by the tonal qualities. The resonances & harmonics have a distinctive gestalt.
Dito.
No, there is a difference that you can clearly see in the waveforms between a good instrument and a great instrument.
God no. Ignoring the sense of pacing, emotion, and the hundreds of details a violinist can put into a piece, a cheap violin sounds just that - cheap. Even on a bad day, a mastercrafted violin has a sense of warmth & a clarity of tone that a cheap instrument can't match. It's like saying a trashcan lid is just as good as a Zildian cymbal.
That being said, there is a diminishing return & once you get into those instruments that are made by the masters of their craft, then the differences become minute. The difference between an instrument hand crafted by a master of the art & any mass produced ones will be detectable.
Read the complete article here.