Official Luthiers Forum!

This is a very interesting article and really calls into question all the hub-bub about particular old instruments and their worth in producing unique sounds.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecaden ... -the-strad

_________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
Christopher Morley

just an FYI... the new violins used in this test cost upwards of $30k each. it's not like they were compared to some carlos robelli student model violins.

_________________
"All of us contain Music & Truth, but most of us can't get it out."
- Mark Twain

$30,000 is a far cry from a million + strad. The point is, there is no "holy grail" out there. A good, bad or great instrument is in the ear of the beholder and often times a late 30's Martin sounds better to you because it's a a late 30's Martin not because of any inherent properties of the instrument. What we think we hear is often biased by other information we have such as brand or appearance. Think of those that won't look at any guitar other than brand x.

_________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
Christopher Morley

i brought up the price because on a few other forums people were using this study as proof that a $300 guitar is indistinguishable from a $3000 guitar. I think it's important to point out that the study was comparing new and old instruments of an extraordinarily high quality.

_________________
"All of us contain Music & Truth, but most of us can't get it out."
- Mark Twain

Particularly compelling to me is that "once knowledge of the origins of special things are taken away, they aren't so special". I've been saying that for years.

Also, "She's found the same in tests with other musical instruments. "I haven't found any consistency whatsoever," she says. "Never. People don't agree. They just like different things."

Combine these concepts and tap tuning and all that becomes irrelevent, from a sales point of view. If the instrument plays comfortably and is intonated correctly, SOMEONE will like it.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Shoot.. Blind listening is really, really tough.... The vast majority of listeners out there can hardly tell between a Banjo and an accordion.... much less an actual Torres made guitar and a replica Torres....

If you read the studies done with blind listening tests for actual peer reviewed research papers... One of the first hurdles is to weed out the 95% of people who can't tell any differences between any of the test designs/instruments at all...

But.. The deal with Strads.... The irony is that the real Strads don't frequently place high in blind listening.... That's not the point of owning a Strad, though.. is it?

Thanks

I guessed it right. One just sounded older to me, and actually a bit....smaller(?)>... Thanks for the link.

Don't know if I'd call it better though.

_________________
"Preoccupation with an effect gives it power and enhances the error"
from "Your Owner's Manual" by Burt Hotchkiss.

#2 was was obviously better sounding, I could pick it from a mile.

A summary of the research and comments from some people not involved in it can be found at

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/scien ... ius&st=cse

For example: "A less respectful view of Dr. Fritz’s study is offered by the violinist Earl Carlyss, a longtime member of the Juilliard String Quartet. 'It’s a totally inappropriate way of finding out the quality of these instruments,' he said. The auditions, he noted, took place in a hotel room, but violinists always need to assess how an instrument will project in a concert hall. He likened the test to trying to compare a Ford and a Ferrari in a Walmart parking lot."

_________________
Tim Allen
"Never hurry, never rest."

Must say that comment carries much weight in this debate. Much the same is said of Greg Smallman's guitars..it would seem a great many remain unimpressed with the sound until they are seated in a concert hall. Only then comes an understand of what Williams and players at the top of their game are so enthusiastic about....horses for courses.

Cheers

Kim

I know some concert violinists and have had several opportunities to listen to them discuss instruments with their colleagues. Most of my acquaintances do, indeed, play old Italian violins. One plays a German instrument. One plays a contemporary cello. All of these are excellent instruments--and excellent instrumentalists. I've heard them all in a concert hall--soloing and in ensemble. I complimented the cellist one time on the excellent tone and sheer cutting power of his instrument in ensemble. He seemed surprised. He's still searching for his "holy grail." One my friends remarked to me about another player: "She's such an excellent musician...she needs a better instrument." In fact, all of these people seem to think they need "better" instruments. Not arguing with the quality of certain rare Italian instrument, but I personally believe that the finest violins in the history of the instrument are being made right now, in small shops all over the world. I also believe it'll be a LOOONG time before they are fully appreciated. Having said all that, I expect this test, if conducted in a concert hall, would have yielded pretty much the same results.

As far as it pertains to guitars, I think the article should be taken as another indication that while woods and glues and dovetails/bolt-on, etc all play a role, ultimately it's what a person wants. I have good friend who's been playing for 35+ years and wanted a Taylor so bad. He got one and spent a good deal on it, but does it sound or play better than a Korean-made Carvin I picked up five years ago? Not really. He won't admit it, but I think he prefers my Carvin.

_________________
Adam

guitarwhisperer quoted from the original article:
""She's found the same in tests with other musical instruments. "I haven't found any consistency whatsoever," she says. "Never. People don't agree. They just like different things." "

Right.

I'd make a few points:
1) A Strad may or may not 'win' any _particular_ listening test, depending on the preferences of the folks in it, and the exact circumstances of the test. As has been poinred out, a hotel rpopm might not be the best place, for example. What counts in the long run is the judgement of the market: lots of folks do prefer Strads, and are willing to pay the high prices for them, so that's a sign that they're 'better', however you want to define that. Musical aptness is only one part of that meausure, although it's a big one.

2) As John points out, listening tests are difficult to do in any case. One test, no matter how well conducted, is not going to be definitive.

3) A lot of the application of 'tap tuning' or what have you is not about making the 'best' guitar, it's about making the guitar you want to make. You hope, of course, that you're making the best possibleguitar out of that particular set of wood, or the best gutiar for a given customer, but, given the range of variation in opinion, there is really no such thing as 'the best': no instrument that will be prefered by everybody.

This last is a very important point. The manufacturers make 'standard' guitars from decidedly non-standard materials, and the result is a wide range of vartiation in sound from one instrument to another. They bank on the idea that every one of them will be _somebody's_ 'Holy Grail': all they have to do is find that person and they've got a happy customer. The small shops and individual luthiers using 'tap tuning' and other methods are generally working on order, and need to make a particular sound for a given buyer. It's not so much about 'quality', which is a somewhat abstract concept in this context, it's about 'control'. It doesn't matter what _you_ might think of the instrument, it's what the _customer_ wants, and anything that will help me make that is a useful technique. Don't knock it until you've tried to make somebody an instrument based on an e-mail or three...

I would think anyone could make a very good comparison, parking lot or no, between a "Ford and a Ferrari." Bottom line is people can't accurately assign a brand to an instruments sound in study after study. It's funny how hard it is for people to give up long held notions regardless of the proof. One would think this information would be considered good news. Each of us have something more to aspire to than what was once accomplished in the past. The past, if seen only as a benchmark and learning tool, allows the potential to improve and possibly produce better. Better of course is open for interpretation.

_________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
Christopher Morley

What proof??? A jam session in a hotel room??

So the millions spent and careers built upon research to understand architectural acoustics mean absolutely nothing them???

In my opinion the whole fiddle experiment was completely pointless simply because the person conducting the research clearly lacked any understanding of what is expected of concert worthy instruments. The only thing to come from their effort is just more rubbish to throw upon the huge heap already generated by so called academics who come to a question without 'any' understanding whatsoever of how it needs to be posed if it is to reveal 'anything'...The only 'proof' that comes out of such misguided bungling performed in the name of research is the gullibility of those who give it credibility.

In case there is any confusion, I feel that story is complete nonsense and stands as a perfect example of why the utterance of the term "research has shown" in the media these days has become que for so many of us to go take a piss just in case we miss an important advert.

Cheers

Kim

I read many years ago that violins develop with aging and playing such that many that sound very good when first built will fail in the not too distant future.

In the UK the BBC did their own test on a radio news programme recently following this news story. They got a professor of music to play two violins, one dated 1870s, and one from an old italian master, cant remember the name sorry.

They got listeners to vote on which was oldest. Seening as even the new one was 140 years old, it seemed an odd comparison. But anyhow..

The majority guessed wrong. Im not a fiddle player, but guessed correctly which was the older but was by no means convinced I was right at the time. The point was both insutruments sounded really lovely to me, but the younger one had a brighter tone which I actually liked it better than the older one.

What concerns me more is that the £50 concert uke I bought my husband last Christmas sounds much better than the one I spent 8 months making out of recycled mahogany, although he kindly says mine has more character to the sound. I will still make them however, because I enjoy it and it satisfies the creative bits that the day job doesnt.

Ahh, so you obviously married brains as well as beauty then Yvonne..

Good to hear you are getting what really matters from the craft..and with each better than the next, it should not be too long before that
£50der finds it soulless self on Ebay to make room for the new king of cool and yet more wood for the prince in waiting.

Cheers

Kim

The results are the results no matter who asks the question. The answers were given by professional players trying, one would assume, to give the correct answer some even making comments as to the certainty of their answers. What is funny is seeing folks actually get upset and defend what is the "best" sounding instrument or what has the "best" tone. What is laughable is the idea a certain maker sometime in the past made an instrument that can't be surpassed in tone, play-ability and projection. I doubt any of us has actually held much less played a Strad but because someone told us it is the best it somehow must be.
The only opinion that counts is the one playing or listening to the instrument at the time. We may disagree with it but then we all know about the similarity of certain body parts and opinions.

_________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
Christopher Morley

The only thing laughable is the notion that any player could ever consider their opinion would have some meaning when trying to make a comparison of instruments of that calibre within the confines of a hotel room. This is not science, its bunk and if this forum had a joke section that story should listed in there under...really bad humour generated by desperate people with a degree who will do anything to get their name in the paper because everyone keeps ignoring them.

I say Barrington!

Yeeessss Pontsby?

I see Dr Fritz has gone and done it again!!

Done what again good fellow?

Demonstrated there's little she won't do to get her name published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of course.

Oh yes, you mean with yet another shock and awe Strad investigation?

Precisely...the fame name seems to gets them in every-time!!

Yeeess, indeeeeed, you'd think old Derrick would get with the times and start tapping peoples smart phones for a headline like everyone else is doing these days....Nother G&T Ponty??

Kim, I'm sure your a nice person and I know you make beautiful instruments but your spending a lot of time arguing the research instead of the question it poses. The question was asked of the test subjects simply, which is the better sounding. I believe they all knew they were in a hotel room and not a concert hall. Some of them felt confident they where able to accurately tell the difference, which they could not. It was not a test to check the attributes of the instruments in various locals and situations. I think some are expecting more from the study than it offers. It says much more about people than it does about any instrument, it's qualities or it's maker.
I love Colling's Guitars their fit, finish, sound and the way they feel in my hands. Some models better than others. If a different label were applied to it's head plate and I was unaware would I feel the same? I don't know? I'd like to think I would know but the bottom line is we bring a whole lot more to the table when rendering an opinion about anything.
If you would like to sit in the chair and compare even your own guitars sound against others of equal quality(s) and try to pick I would love to see the results. I would not want to take the challenge.

_________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
Christopher Morley

I agree that the study isn't proof, it only used 17 violinists and 6 violins, and it took place in a less than ideal listening environment.
As i understand it, most violins are closely based on old strads. So I think in terms of guitars this just means that a vintage martin and a vintage martin replica might be indistinguishable, but two different, independent guitar designs could still be told apart.

That is my point...the so called 'study' offers nothing useful at all to anyone....NOTHING!

I am not suggesting for one minute that one cat gut rack is any better than the next. What I have said from the start is we have horses for courses, and the closest any of those ponies came to the track on that day was a tethered walk around a pre-race inspection circle....Ask any punter what odds he'd expect to risk putting his money on the nose of a winner from the form demonstrated in a dress circle and he'd look at you like your a blazing idiot to even ask...and for good reason.

So its not about defending anything but 'valid' research....Just like so many 'scientific studies' before it, the whole Dr Fritz thing was no more than another pointless exerciser which only managed to gallop its way into the papers on the back of the Stradivarius name...There's nothing for anyone to defend because the 'only' thing to come of it was a bunch of pointless opinions developed during a tease baited with "come up to my hotel room big boy where there's many a good fiddle to play the same old tune"..

Hope your getting it now Orion, I am sure your a nice bloke and make beautiful guitars too, but that 'STORY' is complete and utter nonsense.

Cheers

Kim

I get your point about the studies author wanting to be published but that is all supposition. I have no idea of the motive. What it does prove, and it does do this, is those professional musicians did worse in picking the instrument and matching them to their sounds than chance would even dictate. This as others here have mentioned is not the first time this sort of experiment has been performed and it re-enforces their findings. This is science and it accomplished it's goal.

I think you missed the point of the article. It is not about violins or their makers. It is about humans and how they form opinions.

Bye the way, I'm still on my first guitar and will post the final result when it finally occurs. I do make nice chairs though.

_________________
No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.
Christopher Morley

That may indeed be what the article has tried to demonstrate, 'but', the testing was fundamentally flawed. The experiment had been conducted in an environment of convenience for the researcher, rather than one of specific design for the intended purpose of those instruments being tested. This had made it impossible for any of the subjects to form a 'valid' opinion and based upon that flawed data, the researcher had then concluded that the subjects had been unable to pick one instrument from the next so therefore there is no real difference, only a 'perceived' difference.

For all they have achieved, these ridiculous test may as well been blind AND deaf because the only things they have managed to demonstrated are the ineptitude of the investigator, the eagerness with which media outlets with print any crap just as long as it has a famous name attached and the gullibility of those who would take such foolishness seriously.

'Good' science is to start out with a theory, and then to do all you can to prove yourself wrong. Should you fail to do so after exhaustive test, 'then', just maybe, your on to something. But peer review will be waiting when your done to ensure you had not allowed the excitement of 'all most there' to fool you in to believing you could actually steal their thunder......The article you have posted in this thread Orion bares no semblance to good science whatsoever...its just plain bunk and I'm not missing a thing.

Cheers

Kim