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?
Stradivarius instruments deserve being put on a pedestal for <i>historical</i> 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 <i>still</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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.<p>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 <i>couldn't</i> 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.
> 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.<p>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 <i>rest of the listening audience</i>. On the other hand, a violinist's sentiment typically does.<p>Also, just to be clear-- are you saying there are blind tests where an expert tried <i>playing</i> multiple violins and couldn't guess better than chance which one was the Strad?<p>Edit: clarification
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.
I'm a semi-professional violinist who got to borrow a Strad for a couple months and whose long-term teacher has the lifetime loan of a del Gesu (and has had access to a Strad but prefers the del Gesu!)<p>I don't have Studies to back this up, but anecdotally:<p>* Playing fine violins takes a lot of practice with the specific instrument to begin to unlock its potential. I was scratching the surface after a couple months; people with longer-term loans say it takes years.<p>* Strads in particular are surprisingly hard to make sound good at first. I'd say there was a good two weeks where I sounded better on my $2500 Chinese-made violin than I did on the multi-million dollar Strad. (del Gesus sound great out of the box. This is widely agreed upon but I don't know why it is)<p>* In terms of pure craftsmanship there are many contemporary makers who are working as well as Strad and del Gesu, and I don't place much stock in them having access to uniquely good wood or magic varnish or anything like that.<p>* However, for poorly-understood reasons the act of playing a violin "opens up" the sound and also gives you access to more and more tone colors. A 300-year-old violin that's been played a lot will therefore have a much bigger tonal palette than a contemporary violin, even if any individual tone color isn't strictly better than the tone of a contemporary violin.<p>* The corollary is that in the year 2300 I believe top-end contemporary instruments will be as good as Strads are now.<p>* If you just thought "what if we simulate the vibrations of playing on new instruments to expedite their aging", you're not the first! Some luthiers hook new instruments up to a specialized amplifier and effectively play music through the violin for a couple weeks before selling it. A lot of people claim this helps a lot, but I don't have first-hand experience of it.
A bit of engineering and a lot of myth and degradation due to time.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>players</i> than anyone in the time of Stradivarius.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
<i>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.</i><p>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: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47015987">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47015987</a>
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
Sounds to me like a bunch of physical and therefore measurable (and tangible) properties and some placebo effect on top.
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.
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.