

What Really Happened in that Double-Blind Violin Sound Test - yonibot
http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/

======
parfe
From the study's abstract: _Differences in taste among individual players,
along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments,
appear more important than any general differences between new and old
violins._

Another case of science reporting failing miserably at understanding and
conveying the results of studies. The three articles all come up short at even
reading the abstract:

Daily Mail _" Concert violinists can't identify the sound of a multi-million-
pound Stradivarius"_

Phys.org _" Study shows even professional musicians can't tell old master
violins from new"_

Npr.org - Doesn't even come close to the same universe as the study in the
submitted article to the point I wonder if the npr article covered something
else entirely?

~~~
herge
It's the Daily Mail; we should be just happy they aren't claiming playing a
Stradivarius causes cancer.

~~~
Centigonal
Have you seen [http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/](http://kill-or-
cure.herokuapp.com/) ?

I think you might get a kick out of it.

~~~
golergka
It is awesome. At least they don't claim that vaccines are causing cancer.

~~~
avaku
Some other people do!

------
pazimzadeh
Because the violinists were only allowed to try the violins for one minute,
this study has the same flaw that the Pepsi Challenge had in 1975:

"In his book, Blink, author Malcolm Gladwell presents evidence that suggests
Pepsi's success over Coca-Cola in the "Pepsi Challenge" is a result of the
flawed nature of the "sip test" method. His research shows that tasters will
generally prefer the sweeter of two beverages based on a single sip, even if
they prefer a less sweet beverage over the course of an entire can."

In other words, a saturated sound could initially be more attractive but not
as good for an actual concert.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Challenge#Criticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Challenge#Criticism)

~~~
analog31
That's a serious issue. I play a stringed instrument, and purchased a
"professional" model a few years ago. Among the instruments that I was trying
out, some of the physical differences were sufficient that there would have
been little expectation of identical sound, so the game was to discover the
differences and then make a choice.

There were instruments that I rejected within seconds, but others that took me
upwards of 1/2 hour to figure out how to adapt my playing to the
characteristics of the instrument. There were issues that might have been
unnoticeable to an audience member, but that would have affected my ability to
play with good technique over the duration of a performance. Some of the
instruments, including the one I ended up buying, changed my opinion of how I
wanted to develop my tone and playing style.

Granted, I was always faced with a slight doubt about whether any of it was
real, but without any good way of settling that issue. Also, a virtuoso might
have been able to make all of the instruments sound the same with much less
effort.

Oh, and don't get me started about bows.

~~~
banjomonster
They also mention in the post that the old violins were shipped, and no
adjustments made, which means bridges could be improperly positioned, sound
posts in poor positions... having these properly adjusted can make the
difference between a great sounding instrument and a screech.

------
peeters
I'm not a violin player, but to me the allure of hearing a violinist play on a
300 year old violin isn't that it's the best sounding violin on the planet.
It's an opportunity to witness a small part of the history of an incredible
piece of craftsmanship.

I mean, how cool is it to hear music come out of an instrument that spanned
the lives of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Paganini?

------
abalone
Wait a minute. She claims:

"Now a lot of you found it easy to pick the Strad... But it wasn't actually
our task to pick the Italian in this study -- it was to pick our preference."

But NPR directly quotes the guy who ran the study:

"JOYCE: Curtin says of the 17 players who were asked to choose which were the
old Italians...

CURTIN: Seven said they couldn't. Seven got it wrong, and only three got it
right." [1]

Maybe she wasn't one of the 17 asked, but it definitely was studied.

[1]
[http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...](http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=144482863)

~~~
jeroen
The abstract [1] says:

"We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and
Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences
were …"

It then goes on about preferences and says nothing about identifying them.

So it's the abstract of the study, written (I assume) by the researchers, and
one of the participants vs a journalist "quoting" one of the researchers.

[1]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abst...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abstract)

~~~
Fishkins
The abstract you linked _does_ say something about identifying them: "most
players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new
or old."

And in the full text of the study: "Asked about the making-school of their
take-home instruments, 17 subjects responded: 7 said they had no idea, 7
guessed wrongly (i.e., that a new violin was old or vice-versa), and just 3
guessed correctly"

edit: the link to the full study is
[http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.full)
in case anyone was having trouble finding it from the abstract.

~~~
abalone
Yup. Maybe what happened is, since only 17 of 21 responded to that question,
perhaps she was one of the 4 that didn't.

It is a pretty damning study: Few could identify the old, expensive violins
AND most preferred newer, cheaper violins. It means that the tradition of
loaning Strats to top violinists may actually make for (slightly) worse
performances.

I love blind studies.

~~~
Fishkins
Most of the criticisms of the study are inaccurate, but I would like to see
this redone with the old violins receiving the same tuning/treatment as the
new ones. Depending on the condition the old violins were received in, not
being allowed to tune them could have had a big impact on preference. I know
I'd rather play a $50 guitar that's in tune than a $5000 one that's out of
tune.

------
devindotcom
This post was regarding a test conducted in 2012. I'm not saying it isn't
relevant or that the reporting around the new one is good, but the study she
was a part of is a different one from the study making the rounds today:

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1323367111.abst...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1323367111.abstract)

~~~
masklinn
Yep, the one she was part of was basically a "pre-run", which allowed the run
of a new, better and extended study.

Here's Ed Yong's reporting on the new one, gives most of the meat and
introduces the old one (and criticisms to it):
[http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/07/stradivar...](http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/07/stradivarius-
violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/)

------
raverbashing
The objective of this tests seems to be more to prove a point than to be fair,
I'm not surprised.

And the test looks like it's blind, but not double blind.

It seems all rigour goes out of the window in order for the researchers to
prove their point

And of course taste is subjective, but a misadjusted violin will not sound
great even if it's a good violin. (Same with a bad violin, modern or old)

> "professional violinists can't tell the difference between modern violinist
> and old Italians," then I think we need a

> different study in which violinists are actually asked to identify that

Of course.

~~~
ricardobeat
I'm not convinced there is much interference from the conductors to warrant a
double-blind study. Either way, I believe the original paper never claimed
that "professional violinists can't tell the difference", that's the media
twist. It proved beyond reasonable doubt that professional musicians _do not
prefer_ the antique models based on any objective qualities.

~~~
russelluresti
I wouldn't even say the study proved that point. The fact that the older
fiddles couldn't be adjusted for sound optimizations while the new ones could
makes a huge impact on the study - it invariably unlevels the playing field.

~~~
ricardobeat
I believe rare instruments like those are always kept in pristine conditions,
and nowhere it is mentioned that the new ones had adjustments done, you can
assume they all were received in 'normal playing condition' from their owners.

~~~
rquantz
You believe wrong. Also, even if they are, traveling with an instrument,
especially and old finicky one (and they do get finicky when they get old) can
throw it out of adjustment, a seam can pop open, a string can go false, etc.

The new ones, on the other hand, since they were actually new, were probably
being maintained by their makers, who undoubtedly made sure they were in top
condition when they went into competition with a strad.

------
na85
tl;dr: Study seeks to determine if Old Master violins actually sound "better",
media reports misleading headlines (shocker), musicians are angryface.

I remember when this study was first concluded and reported on. The CBC had a
woman who participated in the study (maybe this very woman) on the program and
it was so extremely obvious that her professional pride was wounded, and she
really wanted to make herself feel better by telling the world that she really
could pick out the Stradivarius.

I have no reason to doubt her; she's a professional violinist.

But it seems to me that the study was actually very effective at showing that
masterwork violins do not necessarily sound better than modern violins,
contrary to the regurgitated opinions of hundreds of thousands of novice
violinists out there.

~~~
fleitz
'I have no reason to doubt her; she's a professional violinist.'

You know that claiming to be a professional violinist is an appeal to
authority rather than a logical argument, right?

That said the study does seem to be massively misreported.

~~~
devindotcom
It may not logically follow, but in the real world it is not a strange thing
to trust an actual expert on these topics over, say, a writer at the Daily
Mail. Why object?

~~~
fleitz
It's even better to examine their argument sans credentials.

~~~
calinet6
It's even better to do both, and embrace a complete and holistic argument.

------
abalone
I would love to see a study like this done with vinyl vs. digital.

1\. Put some vinyl-loving DJs in a hotel room.

2\. To factor out identifying pops & scratches, pre-record a vinyl song onto
digital. Record it several times and use each digital recording only once.

3\. Cover their eyes and randomly switch between vinyl & digital.

See if they can tell the difference.

~~~
noonespecial
_To factor out identifying pops & scratches, pre-record a vinyl song onto
digital..._

This would simply be a digital reproduction of a vinyl recording. (Something I
quite like BTW). Vinyl is a "thing" because the process plays a part in
_creating_ that sound people love and not just reproducing it.

~~~
abalone
Which is fine, but that nobody admits to that. How many vinyl enthusiasts
would be just as ok consciously listening to a digital creation of the pop and
scratch filter they enjoy? PVC is as awful, environmentally bad material and
heavy to lug around. Why wouldn't DJs rip their vinyl to digital or just apply
a filter to digital sources?

Most enthusiasts believe vinyl is actually better (quite adamantly) and that's
what this experiment would test.

~~~
noonespecial
I don't know about a pop and scratch filter but I like some of the recordings
of my old records I've captured more than the clean digital versions available
now. I don't want random pops and scratches, I think maybe I want _my_ pops
and scratches.

------
zw123456
This reminds me very much of some studies where audiophiles did double blind
tests of various solid state amps against tube amps. Some audiophiles say that
the tube amps sound "warmer", maybe they like 60hz hum. Whatever. Tube amps
look cool and that is what is really important to them I think much in the
same way that it is a huge status symbol to have an old violin. Same thing I
think. Not that there is anything wrong with that, you get your inspiration in
whatever way works I think.

~~~
praptak
The "warmer" effect is not the hum. I have read it's how the amps process
harmonics (odd ones vs even ones) and that this effect is actually measurable
through testing equipment.

~~~
72deluxe
It's the fifth harmonic isn't it? I would disagree with zw123456's "whatever"
with regard to analogue systems.

(It isn't just the look of valves - they keep your room warm too!)

~~~
praptak
Well, uh, it seems much more complicated than I remembered:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound#Harmonic_content_a...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound#Harmonic_content_and_distortion)

------
the_cat_kittles
What would have been really interesting is if they had also conducted the test
with another group of participants who were all informed about what each
violin was. Then we could see how much influence lore and history have on what
people like, by comparing the scores between groups.

------
mathattack
Perhaps not with violins, but blind wine tasting is very hard to tell
differences...
[http://www.liquidasset.com/WEILVDQS.PDF](http://www.liquidasset.com/WEILVDQS.PDF)

------
amalag
They couldn't even tune the old ones or change the strings, looks like a
useless study.

------
rasz_pl
TLDR: "Im an audiophool. I know whats great by the price stick^^^I could
totally pick Strad blindfolded, I just didnt feel like it that day."

~~~
GhotiFish
read again.

~~~
andybak
He did a rather poor job of expressing himself in a sensible manner but I must
admit I had the same takeaway from the article.

~~~
GhotiFish
pick best does not mean pick oldest, news articles said study was
identification, study subject says study was preference, study says study was
preference. How you could possible reach the grand parents takeaway is
seriously concerning.

explain.

~~~
rasz_pl
Yes. Im sure this is why she herself uses 200 year old violin instead of the
modern one.

> for the last five years, a mid-1800s Italian.

Whole article is a result of authors cognitive dissonance.

I dont see much difference between her and people arguing for $1K speaker
cables and later failing to distinguish them from coat hangars.

~~~
rquantz
Her mid-1800s Italian has completely different characteristics from a 17th
century Italian. A string player spends months or years trying many
instruments before deciding on one. I've never known a professional musician
who cares whether they're playing on a modern or an older instrument, they
care whether they have the right instrument for them. You have no idea what
you're talking about. Please just stop.

------
coldtea
> _This study certainly doesn 't tell us what happens between a player and a
> fiddle over a long-term relationship, and this is an important factor._

No, it's not, because the same long-term relationship can happen between a
player and a modern violin as well.

~~~
davmre
The article explained how the long-term relationship with an older violin,
which is more 'broken in' but temperamental day-to-day, might be different
than with a modern violin, which is more 'dependable' day-to-day but can
experience significant shifts in tone as it ages.

~~~
bsder
Wood also seems to change depending upon how it is used. Conventional wisdom
is that a guitar gets "used to" how it is being played. I do like the comments
about finding the unique characteristics because every instrument has a
personality.

Conventional wisdom in classical guitars _ALSO_ says the guitars have a
lifetime. The wood is tight, then it opens up, and then it breaks down
gradually over time--roughly 15-20 years for cedar tops and 40 years for
spruce tops.

If that is actually true, I suspect that feeds into this study. The
Stradivaris, while phenomenal, are long past their peak and are now at the
point where they are breaking down from playing and are likely only being
preserved by the rarity with which they are being played.

I wonder if the "moderns" used in the study actually had some mileage on them.
It would be interesting to see if a 20 years old "modern" with heavy use
actually scores better than a 5 year old "modern".

Overall, it's actually good news. I suspect that this is like modern classical
musicians, the geniuses are as rare as ever, but the average level of
achievement across all classical musicians is _WAY_ higher now than it was
even 100 years ago, and certainly moreso than 200-300 years ago.

It means that those of us who can't afford Stradvaris can still get excellent
instruments.

~~~
marincounty
I forget the guitarists name, but as a joke his band mates went to a pawn shop
and bought him a used guitar. That gig he played so well it became a
tradition. Every new gig he demanded a used guitar. The name will come to me.
I do know there are a few horrid guitars out there though--the one at costco--
the Yamaha, I can't keep it from buzzing though.

