Is the mystique around Stradivarius instruments subjectively put on a pedestal like wine tasting or audiophiles or can someone actually tell the difference in a blind test?

▲

hn_throwaway_99 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Stradivarius instruments deserve being put on a pedestal for historical reasons. Stradivari basically defined the sound of the modern violin, using flatter arching and f holes with smaller hole areas than the Amatis, which resulted in a significantly more powerful instrument that was better suited to playing in a concert hall (vs. the chamber music of earlier times). Stradivarius violins are also noted for their extremely fine craftsmanship and attention to detail. The majority of modern violins are still modeled after Stradivarius examples (with a probably smaller number modeled after del Gesu instruments and some other makers). Most top soloists play on (heavily modified) Strads, and so it seems pretty clear that, at the very least, Strads are not holding any soloists back - and that is not the case for Amati instruments, for example, which despite being coveted for their age and history just don't have the same power and sound projection as Strads.

But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts. People have been studying and modeling after Strads for so long it would be pretty shocking if we couldn't make instruments that sounded as good. In my mind that doesn't make Strads any less valuable - an original Picasso is still valued so highly because it was created by the master that invented Cubism, but that doesn't mean that a modern painter couldn't create a Cubist painting that was "just as good", objectively.

	▲	jancsika 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts. Others are also commenting about audiophiles. But there's a big difference: an audiophile's sentiment about their gold wires doesn't change the sound coming out of the speakers for the rest of the listening audience. On the other hand, a violinist's sentiment typically does. Also, just to be clear-- are you saying there are blind tests where an expert tried playing multiple violins and couldn't guess better than chance which one was the Strad? Edit: clarification
	▲	dyauspitr 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah I completely understand the value of the Stradivarius as a work of art. My question was more functional and it seems like the vast majority of the value comes from it being art and not from being functionally better than something we can make today.

▲

hackingonempty 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only a handful of controlled tests have been conducted and listeners failed to identify or prefer the Strads. None of the experiments were very big so there might be a perceptible difference that can be detected with more statistical power. Blinding the eyes and noses of top level musicians might bias the results.

It is very difficult to obtain access to the instruments. The general sentiment from musicians and collectors seems to be that they don't want a bunch of scientists to come into their world and tell them that what they are or are not hearing or they just don't understand why controlled tests are required.

▲

userbinator 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The general sentiment from musicians and collectors seems to be that they don't want a bunch of scientists to come into their world and tell them that what they are or are not hearing or they just don't understand why controlled tests are required.

There seems to be the same sentiment from audiophiles against testing their ridiculously overpriced placebos, although sometimes it does happen and the results are exactly as you'd expect: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47015987

▲

baerrie 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Furthermore, there are many intangible qualities of the way an instrument resonates and feels while playing that often contributes more to the better playing than the raw sound itself. It’s strange to say but instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound

▲

dyauspitr 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You’re going to run into a bunch of trouble using “soul” for anything. It serves a purpose but that’s usually either laziness, inability to measure some physical quality or a placebo effect. Generally pointing that out will end up putting someone in the pedant bucket but I’m risking it.

▲

danielbln 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds to me like a bunch of physical and therefore measurable (and tangible) properties and some placebo effect on top.

▲

hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I understand what you're getting at, and I can appreciate it, but it's also kind of bullshit. You say "instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound" - well, if that's the case, then people should be able to hear the difference in that sound in blind tests, which so far they basically haven't.

▲

vscode-rest 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Are the studies blind or double blind? If the musicians do not know what they are playing, they will not be able to “respond” to it.

	▲	hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There have been both. Here is a famous example from around 1977 I believe that was broadcast on the BBC (I knew of this example but this is the first time I actually found a recording of the broadcast): https://www.baroquemusic.org/violincomparison.html . The violinist playing is Manoug Parikian, who presumably knew which instrument was which, and neither Isaac Stern nor Pinchas Zukerman (both world class soloists) nor Charles Beare (a famous luthier described as "the most esteemed authenticator in the world" by the NYTimes) could identify which violin was which.

▲

bsder 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A bit of engineering and a lot of myth and degradation due to time.

The engineering seems to be a combination of genuine construction advances and the usage of wood that was abnormally dense due to having been grown during a big drought.

This, of course, contributed to the "myths" around the Strads with the varnishes, techniques, etc. supposedly being "The Thing(tm)" that made Strads so much better.

Finally, wood degrades with time--period. It doesn't matter how much you try to preserve it, it's just fact. The current Strads are either "Ship of Theseus" type violins, or they are heavily degraded.

At this point, modern luthiers create better instruments than even a Strad in its prime. They have access to better woods, better glues and finishes, better tools and training, better analyzers and better players than anyone in the time of Stradivarius.

When played as close to double blind as is possible, the data comes back with modern players preferring modern violins made by modern luthiers over the old Strads.