Slashdot Mirror
Elite Violinists Can't Distinguish Between a Stradivarius and a Modern Violin
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "If you know only one thing about violins, it is probably this: A 300-year-old Stradivarius supposedly possesses mysterious tonal qualities unmatched by modern instruments. However, even elite violinists cannot tell a Stradivarius from a top-quality modern violin, a new double-blind study suggests. Like the sound of coughing during the delicate second movement of Beethoven's violin concerto, the finding seems sure to annoy some people, especially dealers who broker the million-dollar sales of rare old Italian fiddles. But it may come as a relief to the many violinists who cannot afford such prices."
I bet that's worth a fair bit.
It's because they are "playing it wrong" in the tests
Table-ized A.I.
Important paragraphs:
Have you read my journal today?
Yeah, but you're still not cool if you don't play a Stradivarius ...
"cannot tell the difference" -- that's not what is being said here. Instead, the violinists were asked which ones they preferred. Certainly they could distinguish between them.
This is nothing new. Audiophiles and musicians are notoriously stubborn when it comes to accepting reality. There are still people who insist that vinyl records are a more genuine/accurate representation of sound than digital formats. There are people who insist that they can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts.
Science and math proves all of these things wrong, yet people still insist they're right.
Yes, but you *can* tell the difference if you play the recordings on the original vinyl with a tube amp. That's how Stradivarius intended his instruments to be heard. He even held the wood close to a fire for a few minutes, to give it that warm sound.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
People have some kind of innate (or maybe learned, but deep) fondness for "authentic". They'll pay for things that were touched by celebrities, as if there's some kind of magic that's transmitted through it.
These were, almost surely, the best violins available. The Stradavari family had extraordinary skill, surpassing anybody else at the time. It's remarkable and amazing that it should take us centuries to make other instruments with similar precision, balance, and quality.
But it's not amazing that we should eventually do so. There was no magic to these instruments, just tremendous hard work and a commitment to quality. These are rare, but hardly unique, especially over the course of centuries.
Let us appreciate these for what they are: remarkable artifacts of history, hand-made to extreme precision, durable enough to stand the test of time and be selected for their quality. There's no point in adding an additional layer of BS about some magic, unattainable extra that can't possibly be reproduced. It doesn't diminish the instrument, nor does it make every hack a great musician. Great instruments and great musicians will continue to make great music; surely that should be enough without sullying it with gullibility.
have some play a few violins of different quality and record them.
See if there is even a scientifically measurable different in the sound. At that point you can determine if any change that may be there is within the optimal human range to detect.
Of course that's just sound, it could mechanically be better, or feel better when held.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm in my mid-thirties now, and have been playing since I was 5. I played 5 hours a week until high school, which rose to nearly 10 a week. I took a hiatus from playing in college. I play about twice a month now, having many other demands on my time. I'm not all that good, but I enjoy it and hope to pass some form of love of playing music to my children.
I can tell the difference between my crappy violin and nicer ones in the store. Do you know how much a top quality modern violin costs?
These things aren't remotely affordable. A crappy old one might cost $1,000. A top quality modern one will cost you what a decent house might. Saying that a modern violin is more affordable than a Strad is like saying that a Bugatti Veyron is more affordable than a F-16 fighter jet. I'm not buying either one.
nice.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's well known that many Stradivarius violins have only average sound quality- and there hundreds of them.
love is just extroverted narcissism
can distinguish sounds of a violine much better than I'm able to play a violine. .... nevertheless: I hvae not such a good ear for 'tunes' or tones ... why should a 45 year old violinist be better off than me?)
In fact: I cant play a violine at all.
Who came to the brain dead idea that an elitist violinist has perfect ears? (I have perfect ears, I'm 47 but on hearing tests I'm 14 year old
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A Stradivarius would still have value for its age and rarity. Doesn't mean they are best sounding instruments in the world and there is no reason to suppose they are either.
Well, at least Stradivarius is as good as a top quality modern violin. Maybe they don't consider the Stradivarius as better. It could be something similar to a fancy dress: adding festivity and status. It can be the feeling that you're just playing with something very rare that used to be the top. And sometimes people just want the opportunity to find out if there is something special to a legendary instrument.
Sometimes period instruments and associated techniques add authenticity. I know that there used to be a technique with the bow in cello playing that was very different. I don't know if that's the case for violins.
The real conclusion that should have been drawn, is most people who claim they are experts, are not.
Much like how over 90% of Ivy league-educated economists were unable to see a bubble was forming in real estate nearly 10 years ago.
We live in a society where we act as if a person's credentials actually mean something, but most of the time, in reality, they mean absolutely nothing. It's just a placebo effect.
I do not understand why some people believe these instruments have something so powerful it cannot be replicated. If Antonio can do it, so can a good modern human.
We are all human and what one human can do, so can another. We need to look at our generation as no worse than generations past, and in some ways better.
I can't tell the difference between a signed first edition of On the Origin of Species and a regular seventh edition either if I'm only allowed to look at certain pages, but that doesn't mean they're of equal value. The value of a Stradivarius lies not in the sound it produces but in its provenance.
It doesn't surprise me that there's no noticeable difference between Stradivarius and well-made modern violin. But I wonder if there are other intangible benefits owning a Stradivarius, like boosts to the player's confidence and drive to excel. At any high-level musical play the differences between "very good" and "great" musicians are often very subtle.
I would also be willing to bet that that professional violin judges have some unintended bias towards players they see have a Stradivarius. Maybe this data will level the playing field though...
New violins don't have cool names like Stradivarius though. That name is so epic, it could make anything look or sound high brow and expensive. Stradivarius Coffee, home of the $75 latte. Stradivarius Bounce House, let your kids bounce around for only $125/hr. Stradivarius Water, Anything less, will dehydrate you, only $49.99 per 8oz bottle made out of the finest Stradivarius plastics. With a name like that, people will pay anything.
They didn't use Monster(tm) cables!
3 years ago I had the privilege and pleasure of running sound mix for a piano (9 foot Steinway) and violin concert. The violinist played a borrowed Stradivarius. I expected it to be deeper, richer, fatter, fuller, etc., like a viola, but it was kind of bright. Turns out that's what makes them so good. The violinist commented that it's like playing an electric guitar- you get much more volume for the same bow effort and enables far more dynamics. He was almost giddy with excitement. It certainly made a lot more sound than I'm used to from one violin.
We now have the tools and tech to analyze the wood, finish, glues, bracing, etc., and people have, so I fully believe a well-made new violin could duplicate the Strad's sound. The $ value is, like any antique, based on who is willing to pay what.
There is a Wikipedia page on the original study conduct back in 2012. Edward Carlyss criticized the study by saying, "He said that what makes the older violins better is how they sound to an audience in a concert hall and that it is irrelevant whether a violinist prefers a certain violin in a hotel room. He felt the test was as valid as comparing a Ford and a Ferrari in a parking lot."
Many of the old strads have been modified to have a taller bridge
or this or that to improve on the voice.
The old strads that were less than wonderful have been used
as kindling or rebuilt and refitted to be playable. i.e. only the
instruments that stand the test of time made it to today.
One anomaly in the good ones that is almost impossible to measure
is the way the wood was dried. One supply had been submerged in
volcanic ash and was gently permeated with silica as well as it
was cured for decades before being sawn into boards and finally
dried. Should someone pull some Mt. St Hellen spruce out of Spirit
lake and slow cure the boards well we could have a modern fiddle
that in 700 years will prove to be a master.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
People impose value on something and then suddenly everyone has to have one.
If I had the world's greatest art at my fingertips... would I fill my home with it? No. I already have access to the same art. I can get prints or lithographs of any of it and really its close enough that would would care. And if you want to talk about the texture of the brush strokes... fine, there are some prints that exactly match the topography of the original work so closely that it takes a forensic art expert to suss it out.
I could have all of that and more. Why this fascination with getting your hands on the original work? Its a status symbol. As if you're less of a twit because you happen to own an artifact created by someone in the history books. Who cares. You aren't them and simply buying something expensive doesn't make you more sophisticated or special.
You could take the same money and invest it in a giant gold dildo statue and it would be about as meaningful.
Maybe I'm being unkind... but I do not understand collectors at all. Its right up there with gambling... I don't get the fascination with it.
Why am I flushing my money down the drain again? Why am I blowing an absurd amount of money on stuff that can't possibly be worth that to any individual?
All these things violins should just make their way into exhibits or something. By all means... lend them to musicians. But stop putting these stupid things up for auction.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Looks like thet did the test in someone's living room -- shouldn't they have rented a concert hall or someplace more appropriate to where the instruments would be played on tour?
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf! /ducks
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
These things are analog. You tune them by twisting a wooden peg. They don't even have frets! Each instrument is unique and so are we. Professional players really take their time searching for an instrument that suits them.
I play trumpet Thank God. Our instruments are MUCH cheaper. But most of the pro players I play with own several instruments because of all the little variations between them. Go to the home of any serious guitar player and ask how many guitars they own... It's quite common to find guys who own a dozen or more.
Are the Stravdivari and Guarneri violins worth the 8 figure prices? It's all a matter of supply and demand. There are only so many of the old instruments and if enough people want them, then the price goes up. The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it, which in the case of violins, does not necessarily correlate to how well it plays.
My wife also plays baroque violin and has a French instrument, made in 1774, which cost her only $12k. She tried out nearly 20 baroque violins before she settled on this one and it's a gem. There aren't many people playing in the baroque style, so there isn't as much demand. Most of the old Italian instruments have been altered over the years from their original form. "Modern" violins (those made after about 1830 or so) have necks that are bent further back and put more tension on the strings. They are engineered to play louder than the older instruments. The bows are bigger and heavier as well. And the bows are concave instead of being convex and have more horse hair on them so they play louder.
Because there isn't as much demand, the prices for the old instruments are much lower. The old instruments are worth that much because people are willing to pay for it, not because they necessarily are "better".
Read an account about it here:http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/
First of all, the violinists were able to tell the difference between old and new violins.
It was a double blind study about which violin the violinists preferred to play. And since musicians that play the same instrument have different ideas of what kind of sound they prefer, it should not be a surprise that some preferred newer models. Of course, no two violins are created equal, and some Stradivariuses sound better than others. There were some constraints to the study, however. The older violins are worth several million of dollars and they were loaned on the condition that they could not be tuned.
next thing you tell me is that i can't hear the improvement my $5k www.lossless.com power cable makes to my audiophile setup?
Reminds me of the many blind studies show how 'experts' on wine are very often totally full of shit -- which is why my eyes begin to roll when I hear people throwing around their pretentious adjectives when describing their favorite Cabernet or whatever.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
There are more than enough examples of ridiculous amounts being spent on not much more than popularity or a whim. Why is it so surprising people are willing to spend a lot on legendary and very rare instruments from several hundreds of years ago?
Maybe our modern-day instruments can hold up to those legends simply because today violin makers are standing on the shoulders of giants like Stradivari? A brand-new violin still costs a fortune and the most famous violin-makers today still select their clients very strictly. You essentially have to apply to even be allowed to pay them all that money.
And without trying to be too "voodoo" about this but as a musician myself, I am wondering just what kind of effect this privilege of playing such a rare instrument could have on the violinist. Maybe part of the "myth" is simply that the feel-good knowledge of playing one of the most legendary instruments out there can slightly improve an artists performance to push it to where "magic" happens?
World-class athletes do all sorts of "magic" to push themselves beyond their limits, to get just a slightly better performance. Why should the same not be true for performing star musicians?
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
Try listening on a stereo with wooden knobs... or a computer with wooden keys.
These violins are to be heard, not seen. They should have done a double deaf study not double blind study.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That's the only explanation that I can accept. I don't think anyone is hating you, you are in general agreement with what looks like the popular opinion.
There are people willing to pay several hundred dollars per pound for the coffee beans that have gone through the digestive system of some rodent because of the claimed superior flavor and taste. But these people need some certification and testing agency to confirm it was really rat-pooped coffee because they can't tell the difference on their own.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I think to really accentuate the difference between the two violins we need to commit them to vinyl. How else can we really appreciate the true richness and colour of the sound?
...not to include a couple of clunkers in the test; the sort of violins the average student may possess at high school.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
.. the violinists were asked which violin they *preferred*. Many could tell the old from the new - but the preferred the modern for many different reasons. One participant's experience documented here: http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/
That people can't tell difference between cheap or expensive food or wine or that a $1000 audio cable sounds the same as 5 cent one?
Elvis would never have wiped his butt with a $5. He was holding a $100 bill.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'd guess there were more person hours spent on classical music then vs. today.
Maybe per capita but not likely on an absolute basis. Populations now are just a LOT larger.
What I'm reading is that with 300 years between them, modern violins aren't *better* than a Stradivarius.
(Yet?)
Since when does listening to 3-minute, or 55-minute performances count as a valid listening test? How about listening to the same song for three hours, and then judging whether or not you have a headache the next day?
There are loads of elements to "quality" that aren't easily identified conciously. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. That doesn't mean that they aren't beneficial. That simply means that you can't measure them in a blind listening test in under an hour.
And, of course, none of this takes into account what the violin ought to sound like. What a performer "prefers" has absolutely nothing to do with how the composer wanted it to sound. There are plenty of benefits to things that you don't like, especially when paired with many other sounds concurrently.
But hey, I heard a tamborene last week that had no trouble competing with a tuba and a drummer, without being amplified. It meant that the three instruments could be played off-stage, in the audience. Maybe that's a quality tamborene. Maybe it's not. But that's certainly not the type of attribute that would have been captured by any listening study such as these.
I recall a magazine article from 15 or more years ago - might have
been in Scientific American - about comparisons of a Strad, a fine
modern concert violin, and a student-grade violin. Said the listeners
could not reliably distinguish among them, but the players could
tell the difference immediately. Which suggests that an expert player
can get great sound even with a so-so violin.
There was more recently a comment by a professional violinist
who went from a Strad to a modern violin. Asked why, he replied
that not every violin Stradivarius made was a winner.
Not at all. Take cars for example - a front-wheel drive with automatic transmission will be far easier to drive, but a good driver will be able to drive circles around it in an otherwise identical rear-wheel drive with manual transmission. It's more difficult to drive initially, but with mastery it also has more potential.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Probably some really bitchin' funny cat videos. Who has time to make violins by hand?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There are two mutually exclusive sets of frequencies, "can hear" and "can't hear".
Max(can hear) = 20k.
Therefore 320k and uncompressed (above 20k) are both in the "can't hear" set
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I remember this discussion when I was playing violin in high school and college (quite a while back), but it seemed like professors and violin teachers talked about surpassing Strads as a goal that might be reached someday, and that people were working toward. It never seemed to me like something the music community thought could never be achieved, like there was something mystical about it. So I'd chalk it up to time, not gullibility.
Since at least the 80s, modern instrument makers have been trying to duplicate and reverse engineer the Strads and try and make a modern instrument that's equally good. And there were tests like this, but when they were performed, the Strads would win out consistently. But now it looks like they finally succeeded. And we're entering the age where even outside blind tests, performers are starting to recognize this, like Yo Yo Ma and his professed affinity for carbon fiber cellos (I think he appeared on "How it's Made" a couple of years ago when they were demonstrating their construction).
I think you're right that it's not amazing that we'd get here eventually. In any theoretically achievable goal, where you're not trying to break fundamental physical laws, time, effort, and innovation win out. It's just like building better computers and programming them to beat chessmasters. At first, the technology and the programming just wasn't there, and computers lost. Now it is, and they win.
What this test doesn't say, however, is that the best of the modern violins are cheap. They aren't. They may not be the historical artifacts that Strads are, but they aren't something your average highly ranked college student performer could afford to perform on. I remember how prices ran, even for decently good modern instruments. This may bring the cost down from the tens of millions to the tens or hundreds of thousands, but the instruments they're comparing with are still astronomically priced, from most people's perspectives. They're the product of decades of research and mastery of the craft by modern luthiers, where the work is one part art and one part science. Good progress, and a big milestone, but they're still probably decades from making the same kind of qualities common and affordable.
You should ask your synthesizer company why they have so much problems replicating the sound of a violin.
bash$
As with all artistic judgments, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same applies to the sound of a Strad vs. a fine modern violin, or even another 17th or 18th century violin. I am not a violinist or not even that much of a musician but I know a good sounding violin when I hear it. The finest sounding one in my opinion is not a Strad, it's "David", the Guarneri that Jasha Heifetz owned and preferred. The rest of you may disagree.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Modern instrument manufacturing is capable of making incredibly high quality instruments at very reasonable production costs. Higher end instruments require a lot more human hands-on intervention in the manufacturing process but the high precision manufacturing equipment means instruments can be built to exacting specifications and done repeatably. The human finishing and fine tuning process completes the process for high end instrument builds. I play guitar and love to play many of the Paganini pieces from Opus #1 and therefore I listen to violin virtuosos like Perlman, Heifetz, Midori, Mintz, etc. I think they deserve to own the classic instruments with incredible provenance. Much of the tremendous sound they produce though is also a product of having master luthiers perform expert restoration and maintenance to these older but very finely built instruments. As a guitar player I am constantly amazed by what guitar collectors will pay for "classic" guitars. I grew up in the 60's and I love classic Strats, Teles and Les Pauls too but the idea that the sound is worthy of 6 figure prices is rediculous. Many fine instruments are built in the far east, starting with great Japanese guitars built in the 70's and growing from there (South Korea, China, Indonesia). In general I believe today's high end violins are certainly comparable with the finest classic violin masterpieces from the Italian luthiers of the 18th century. But that does not mean that those instruments are not to be admired and sought out by the finest virtuoso violinists who relate to the importance and provenance of these instruments in addition to appreciating their stellar tone.
Any playable Stradivarius violin has had most of its parts replaced over the years. So in many ways they are quite similar to more modern violins. "...it is impossible that any Stradivarius violin actually remains in its complete original condition today. Maintenance results in incremental changes to the instrument. For example, only one Stradivarius still has its original neck (Barclay, 2011). The body of a violin is critical to the sound of the violin, yet the neck and fingerboard are also important to the instruments sound (Hall, 2001). As the different parts of the violin are replaced the sound that is produced changes."
from: http://badacoustics192.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/what-makes-a-stradivarius-so-special/
Monster Cables CEO found to have the Stradivarius family in his family tree! :P
Sure, the violinists may have preferred the modern violins in a double blind PLAYING test. Note that I emphasized PLAYING. The difference between speakers and violins, is that speakers are PASSIVE to the people in the study and the violins in this test were being ACTIVELY played.
I would expect that performing artists who are confident in their talent and the quality of their instruments perform better. So if a violinist *THINKS* their violin is a cut above the rest, it will help make their performance better because they are confident that their instrument is UNIQUELY SUPERB, rather than just great. So the artist's subjective feeling about the quality of their instrument *CAN* influence the quality of their performance.
Whereas, if one subjectively thinks ones speakers are better, it doesn't improve how it sounds to other people, but a better performance on a violin will sound better to everyone.
Kinda reminds me of arguments I've had with people who say they can't hear the difference between 48K & 96K sampling rates....but reminds me a lot more of many people not noticing the difference between MP3 and uncompressed... :-/
That is quite true. But to invoke the mandatory car analogy a well-heeled driving enthusiast might take several sports cars out for a test drive and choose the one that was immediately the most fun to drive, and a second just for variety. But after months of driving both might discover that, once having mastered the basics, the subtleties of the second actually make for a more enjoyable drive. This is actually not at all uncommon in driving games where players have massive fleets of different cars at their disposal.
A driver/player may well come to prefer a particular vehicle because the quirks of that vehicle are more suited towards his style of driving. Similarly, a violinist may prefer to play a particular instrument because the attributes of that particular violin suit his style of playing better.
In both these cases, it does not mean that the preferred car or violin is objectively superior to all other cars or violins. Subjectively, yes, but only for that particular driver or violinist who made that choice.
The issue with onboard sound isn't about sound quality, but in isolation. If I stick a DVD in my computer and hear the drive spin up over my speakers, it's time for a discrete sound card.
Not surprised, really!
Yesterday I was watching old episodes of Top Gear. Aston Martin DB 5, the famous 007 car was beaten by an average, awfully average modern Honda. Then it went around the track and it was the slowest car ever! Old tech is old...
I sometimes wonder [being quite the fan of Japan] - is really a 400 year old katana as good as the best modern metallurgy can offer? I doubt it...
Bah the link was deleted entirely
Now try this same test with a pre-war Martin D-28 and the best modern guitar you can find.
The modern guitar wouldn't stand a goddam chance.
Its frightening how good those old martins sounded. Why they can't get them to sound like that anymore is beyond me (Even martins re-issue D-28s dont stack up, despite being exceptional guitars).
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Everybody knows Stradivarius violins only sound better when the one who listens to it knows the violin is a Stradivarius. The same goes for french wine that tastes better only if you know where it comes from, etc.
It actually would be very dependent upon the instrument in general. A number of high-end instruments couldn't even be played by a novice. For example, reed instruments like clarinets and saxophones have different grades of reeds based on how firm they are. Someone inexperienced has to play a softer reed because the muscles used in playing aren't developed enough. There are also elements like scalloped frets on a guitar, which allow for playing with an incredibly light touch, but said touch must be so delicate that a novice is only going to get awful sounds out of them.
So, to treat this question fairly, you have to treat ease of playing as a separate issue from tonal quality. Also, even if you treat being intimate with the instrument as a necessity, you could still reasonably do a double blind test, assuming that the musician doesn't attempt to subvert the process. Give them two very nice violins, and don't tell them which on is the strad. If the physical appearance is too telling, then we might have to have a musician who is literally blind.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Strands vary so much that it is meaningless to consider them as a class for music-quality tests.
They also vary considerably in how much of the original remains.
I'm fairly sure this article is from a participant in the previous test, not the new one. For instance, it discusses being done in a hotel room, while the new study was done in a practice room and a concert hall.
I have made 14 guitars and one violin. I think there might be subtle ways an older instrument could be distinguished from a newer one, apart from the sound. Like the feel of the finish, the feel of the tuning pegs, or the smell. But this study does not surprise me. "Cork sniffing" is also very prevalent in the tube amplifier industry, much of what people hear must be in their head.
As a guitarist, however, I know what it is like to feel a bond with an instrument that is not easily explainable. I repaired a Gibson SG recently (I don't really care for them) but after fixing the high action and polishing the frets, I was unable to put it down, it was such a joy to play.
If you're ever in a music store, walk down the isle and briefly play each guitar or violin. It is amazing, the difference in feel and sound, and it does not correlate to price.
One quality I like about really old instruments (pre-Stradivarius), both actual specimens and reproductions, is that the sound often varies over the pitch range. The "feel" of the sound is inconsistent across it's spectrum, and this often makes them more interesting.
Modern instruments strive for consistency so that the conductor knows what he/she is getting and nothing stands out unless it was intended to stand out in the score. However, this makes old-style inconsistency sound refreshing in comparison.
Maybe if one heard the inconsistent sound all day, it would grow annoying, but in the age of generic-ness and mass production; the old ones provide a warm organic kind of feel as an alternative.
Table-ized A.I.
Do any of you know the music in the OP? The key is G-major, and most of the music would be played on the higher pitched strings. It is not at all the same as, say, the middle movement of the Tschaikovsky Violin Concerto, the movement in B-Minor, so I wonder at the quality of the test, or what if they used Bach unaccompanied Sonatas and Partitas or Beethoven String Quartets?
One needs to judge the tone of each range, so music that exercises the G-string, especially the open G-string, the lowest note a violin can make, the G below Middle C, is as significant at what can be played on the top E-string.I would much rather here the Bach C-major Partita than the Beethoven Concerto.
A good modern violin doesn't cost as much as a Stradivarius, but the price tag can reach into six figures. So this finding may ease the financial burdens of top violinists a bit but they're still going to need to take out loans to buy their instruments.
Look at the price tag.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
...it says that sometimes they found the new equaled or surpassed the old.
That's far from being "can't distinguish".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Elite violinists may be the wrong test group. I remember a test of high tech tennis rackets, and the pros didn't find them much better than the regular designs, but the amateurs found them easier to use, less fatiguing, etc. Similarly, auto racing at the level where an amateur team has a professional driver on the team, is rife with stories of the pro bringing it in for a driver change and saying "it's perfect, don't change a thing" and the new guy takes it out and discovers it's missing a wheel or something. I suspect the elite violinists could do well with a plastic violin from the dollar store.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.