What is "plasticity in the more human notes"?

@Cid LOL too funny

The outcome of this experiment is sooo not-surprising. Similar experiments have been done many times with similar results:

• "Audiophiles" ranking MP3 encoded audio files higher than 96kHz/24bit PCM in blind tests
• Sommeliers not being able to even tell wines from completely different regions and grape species apart
• "Modern art experts" not being able to tell apart children's paintings from those of "valued artists"
• ...

There's plenty of areas where "fandom" defines the price or "preference" only when the label is known.

BTW: The myths about Stradivari's violins have long been found: He used wood from trees that grew in a particulary cold era, and that caused the wood to be somewhat more rigid and the cells of the wood to be a little smaller than usual. Modern instrument builders can achieve the same effect by processing ordinary wood physically/chemically, with the same results on the sound. No magic involved.

For those interested, more info about the study here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1323367111.abstract

The physics of violin sound are interesting too: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/violintro.html

It would seem that in addition to finding best wood type, famous luthiers knew how to design violin body so it resonates at frequencies relevant to music played on them. It's not unexpected that similar or better quality can be achieved with current high-tech measurements and manufacturing.

Well. Does not surprise me. But the human perception does not happen in a blind test. So I guess old and famous instruments can have an effect on how people perceive the music, just like people feel differently when they look at the "original" Mona Lisa, even though they have no idea if it is or if it is a copy. Clearly fetishism.

@arnarfjodur I like that. Perception doesn't happen in blind test. This pianist is so good you can appreciate with the sound muted.

Controlled tests are difficult.

Test above is quite scientific. It is proper way to eliminate factors that can affect perception and focus on real sound.

I do not have any problems with this test and I think it is quite informative. All I am saying is that in some cases, human perception matters, beyond "real sound". When it comes to art, subjective human perception is what matters the most, not objectively measured data. And this perception is always influenced by all kinds of factors, such as context or external references.

I would suggest that to measure "real sound" it is best to do this with tools. But if you are considering which violin will please an audience the most, or even from which violin the performer will do there best, there can be factors that have nothing to do with the actual sound coming out of it.

Personally I don't care at all about violin brands and have no interest in Stradivarius or any such things. I think if you read carefully what I'm saying you'll see there is no contradiction here.

All I am saying is that in some cases, human perception matters, beyond "real sound".

But that's exactly what the study claims to reveal! That professed preferences have little to do with the actual sound the instruments are producing.

But, in this case, the musicians were converted by these tests: they wanted to know who made the instruments they actually preferred, so they could go out and buy one. So three cheers for rationalism. These people care more about the music than what appears to be a myth.

As for audiences -- some may be happier thinking the players are using Strads or Guarneris, but I doubt the few codgers who still go to classical music concerts will boycott them because the instruments are "only" worth $50K each and not $3 million. And most of these people are far too deaf -- high frequency roll-off with age -- to tell the difference between student violins and Strads.

@vk. . "Test above is quite scientific."

thanks enough said. science tests on art. and I get it, however, for my money I trust an artist over any science guy. I suppose that's why the writers can't state the names of the musicians that were tested along with the violin makers.. the adverts.lol. maybe the national enquirer could run this piece of garbage.

Another way to look at it is that no one has ever heard an actual Strad, so we don't know what they sound like. In the late 19th and early 20th century, these instruments were drastically altered to make them louder, sacrificing the tonal balance. The bass bars were removed, the necks were removed, and the bridges and tailpieces were replaced, and so on. Changes were made to the soundposts and the soundboard as well, permanently and irreversibly altering the sound.

Crucially, as far as tone goes, the original twisted gut strings were replaced by wire, and then by steel. A chin rest was then clamped onto the lower bout, effectively deadening the sound, as a large portion of the upper soundboard is no longer free to vibrate, and the instrument has now almost doubled in weight, further deadening the upper harmonics.

So, strangely enough, no one has ever really heard the signature sound of Stradivarius. Ironically, there are possibly two instruments in original, unaltered condition that are in museums and rarely played. Hopefully they will not be retrofitted with telephone wire like the others.

"...love trust and opinions lead to nowhere."
-Vitaly K. 4-11-2014

I want that in your book of quotations someday. =)

that being said...

I Guarantee on a sunny day next to the Matterhorn a Stradivarius sounds better, simply because the magic that is inside of it; and that it emits, is real.