Wood Density May Explain Stradivarius Secret 318
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.
This has been known for years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Create some new ones ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Highly unlikely. Are old paitings worthless because we have high definition movies now? No, because they are considered works of art. This is the same for the Stradivarius.
Re:What else? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to know how long they were trying to determine the differences without considering wood density. Other than the shape and size, what other differences could there be?
Craftmanship.
Re:Alternative idea: varnish (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I believe that your statement "... not all Stradivarius violins have the sound..." may support the wood hypothesis, not refute it.
The ideal test (if possible) would be to obtain several Stradivarius violins, have them categorised by top-notch professionals as "have" or "not have" with regard to "the sound", and then compare them.
A reasonable (though maybe not accurate) "assumption" would be that the varnish is identical on all of the sample violins. That way, the only variable to be examined would be the structure of the wood. That would, in short order, either refute or support the "wood" hypothesis.
The Stradivarius Myth (Score:5, Insightful)
So, there's some big mystery about Strads that makes them sound better than other violins? Or do people just think they sound better, because a single Strad goes for millions of dollars? Jon Rose adheres to the second theory:
As any honest violin dealer will tell you (and there are a few) the sound of a violin can be priced in a range from $50 (bad, but playable), to $10,000 (good-sounding) to $20,000 (extremely good tone and projection) to $100,000 (simply over-priced). The rest is snotty-nosed hubris. As has been proven on a number of occasions, most notably by the BBC in 1975, a well-made, top modern violin can sound just as good if not better than the prized golden age models. In a recording studio, behind a screen, the violins of Isaac Stern, Pinchas Zukerman and Charles Beare were played back to them. The instruments were a Strad, a Guarneri del Gesu, a Vuillaume, and a Ronald Praill (a modern instrument less than a year old). None of the esteemed violin experts really had a clue which violin was which. Furthermore, two of them couldn't even tell which was their own instrument. They were left mumbling platitudes about the personal relationship between fiddle and player — bloody obvious if you spend most years of your life playing the violin.
His full rant here [abc.net.au].
Re:Create some new ones ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Harmonics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Harmonics (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a guitar player. I might try my hand at making one, though.
I can imagine that the wood affects the rigidity with which the bridge and (for guitars, the fret on) the neck hold the string, and hold the pick up under the string. Some frequency components of the vibration of the string get damped because the body and the neck absorb them.
And, of course, the weight and shape and finish of the instrument change how it affects the musician. Do not underestimate this impact.
Re:Alternative idea: varnish (Score:1, Insightful)
A side by side comparison would still not prove or disprove anything. Because all of the instruments were hand made, none of them were made exactly the same. Even for a same design, there are subtle variation that may affect how it sounds.
I think the only reason that instruments made by old masters are better is simply that they were made by the old masters. These people, through talent and/or experience, instinctively knows which piece of wood will result in better sound, and the little bit of variations needed to compensate for wood's inherent imperfections. Plus, even for the masters not all of what they made are master pieces. We all know the good ones, but who knows how many just ordinary pieces were turned out for each of the great piece.
So to reproduce a stratovarius, we will need someone with the same talent, dedicate to the craft for as long as the old master did, use top quality material, and even then, plenty of trial and error.
Re:Define the terms.. (Score:1, Insightful)
> I can't name another type of musical instrument people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for, ...
Organs, and a few pianos get up there.
Re:Create some new ones ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only a work of art, but a historical artifact, just like Civil War-era keyed bugles, serpents, sackbuts, etc.
Re:Harmonics (Score:3, Insightful)
And, of course, the weight and shape and finish of the instrument change how it affects the musician. Do not underestimate this impact.
That's very true. There's nothing quite like the inspiration you get from jamming the first time with a new guitar.
The will to believe (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that what makes a Stradivarius better than other violins is the same thing that makes audiophile equipment better than other equipment: the will to believe.
Higher quality makes a difference, but beyond a certain point the extra quality is all imaginary. I greatly suspect that the reputation of Stradivarius is simply due to high quality construction and craftsmanship. Beyond a certain point that reputation is name only. Trying to find secrets in the wood is pointless, in my opinion.
But what the eff do I know? I can't tell the difference between $499 and $4.99 cables either.
Re:This has been known for years (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, actually, no. Most people can tell violins apart. Even two Strad violins sound different. If a person was good enough at writing audio analysis tools (I'm not), it should be possible to write a program that can tell them apart. Then the question becomes whether you think the sound is better or not. However, it most certainly is *different*.
I've seen a number of posts from audiophile people where they will say the equivalent of "well, you can't see it on an oscilloscope but it's real!". Well, you *can* see the difference between a Strad and, well, any other violin - even other Strad's, on a scope.
According to violinists, one of the main reasons that Strad's are prized as instruments is that it is easier to get the violin to sound the way they want it to. In particular, controlling volume level from extremely soft to filling a concert hall, is apparently easier on better instruments.
As to the Joshua Bell experiment, you will note that most of the people, when asked, thought he sounded quite a bit better than an average street musician, but they didn't bother to stop. That study says way more about our society's lack of appreciation for our surroundings than anything else.
Re:Harmonics (Score:1, Insightful)
You're probably right for a guitar, but synthetic quartz crystals grown in an autoclave to optical quality standards can be 10cm in diameter and as long as your arm, so a quartz violin would be possible.
Whether it would play any good, I have no idea.