Vintage vs. Modern, a study with (not so) surprising results...?

ORCRiST

Hero Member
Messages
759
Original article: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/million-dollar-violins-dont-play-better-than-the-rest.ars By: Kate Shaw

violin_label-4f046e4-intro-thumb-640xauto-28956.jpg


The old adage tells us not to judge a book by its cover, and now it seems as though we shouldn’t judge a violin by its price. Violins crafted in the so-called "golden age" by expert makers Antonio Stradivari and Guiseppe Guarneri "del Gesu" are worth up to several million dollars each, and they have long been considered the best violins in the world. However, nobody has studied whether or not these instruments are actually superior to other violins in their tonal qualities. New research in PNAS shows that these lofty prices might not actually reflect how musicians actually feel about the instruments themselves.

The research took place at the Eighth International Violin Competition of Indianapolis, a prestigious gathering of violinists, violin experts, and violin makers. Twenty-one subjects were included in the experiment, and all were very experienced violinists. The researchers used six violins in their tests; three were new high-quality violins, ranging from just a few days to a few years old, and three were old violins (two Stradivari and a del Gesu) crafted in the 1700’s. The three old violins were worth a combined total of $10 million, which was about one hundred times the combined value of the new ones. The musicians were unaware of the objective of the experiment, as well as the identities of the six violins used.

The sample sizes here are admittedly small, but as the paper notes, “it is difficult to persuade the owners of fragile, enormously valuable old violins to release them for extended periods into the hands of blindfolded strangers.”

While the violinists weren’t actually blindfolded, their sight was indeed compromised. Both the researchers and the violinists had to wear modified welders’ goggles that limited their vision. And for good reason: experienced violinists can recognize a prized Italian violin instantly by its appearance. Just as wine tasters’ preferences are influenced by a wine’s price, it’s likely that violinists’s perceptions would be swayed by the reputation of an old Stradivari or a Del Gesu violin. Therefore, the experiment was carefully designed to be double-blind; neither the musicians nor the experimenters knew which violin was which. The researchers went so far as to place a drop of scent on each violin’s chinrest, in case the instruments could be distinguished by their smell.

The experiment had two phases. In the first, the researchers wanted to determine whether the musicians had an immediate preference for the old violins, as the instruments’ value would predict. They presented the violinists with pairs of violins, one old and one new (which was unbeknownst to the subjects). The violinists were given one minute to play each instrument, then asked which they preferred. Each violinist tried ten pairs of violins, covering each possible old-new pairing with one pair tested a second time to see whether the preferences remained consistent.

As it turned out, the violinists were remarkably inconsistent in their choices in this test. Barely half of the musicians made the same choice twice when presented with a pair of violins a second time. The experimenters suggest that this method may not have allowed the violinists enough time to choose the better instrument. However, one result was clear: the violinists didn't prefer the old violins to the new ones. This trend was driven by a definite dislike for one particular instrument: the oldest Stradivari. This violin was consistently picked as the poorer of the pair, while the other five violins were chosen with about equal frequencies.

In the second part of the experiment, the violinists had more opportunity to evaluate the violins. They had one hour to play all six of the violins in any order, and could switch back and forth between the instruments as they wished. At the end of the hour, they were asked to choose "the instrument they would most like to take home with them," and to pick the best and worst violin in four categories: range of tone colors, projection, playability, and response. Again, the double-blind controls prevented both researchers and musicians from recognizing the instruments.

Again, the old Stradivari was the least popular of the six instruments. It was chosen just once to “take home,” and was rated by six violinists as their least favorite. It also ended up being deemed the worst violin in a category sixteen different times. In contrast, one of the newer violins was the clear winner. Eight musicians wanted to take it home, and nobody called it their least favorite. The violinists rated this one as the best violin in a category 38 times.

Overall, just eight violinists (less than 40 percent) wanted to take one of the three "golden age" violins home. When asked to guess what era their favorite violin was made in, seven guessed wrongly, just three guessed correctly, and the rest either didn’t know or declined to offer a guess.

While these results aren’t a decisive victory for the new models, it definitely counters the wisdom that these old, highly valuable violins are unmatched in quality. In many cases, the old and new instruments are equal in quality - in some, the new models are superior to their “golden age” counterparts.

There is clearly a lot of variation that wasn’t controlled for in this study. The violinists ranged in age and years of experience, and the violins were tested in only one set of acoustic conditions. Additionally, they were rated only by the players themselves, not by listeners situated where an audience would ordinarily be. And, of course, different violinists have different preferences when it comes to their instruments.

Scientists and music aficionados alike have been trying to figure out what aspects of craftsmanship make a violin sound great and play well, but there are no clear answers yet. There are hypotheses that the density of the wood, certain properties of the varnish, and the way the front and back of the instrument are tuned determine a violin’s quality. All we know right now is that being crafted in the golden age by a famous maker may not be enough to make a good violin great.

FIN

Discuss.
 
if I am reading it right the 3 new violins have a worth of 100x less than the expensive ones. That is 100,000 for 3 or 33,333 each. I would definitly expect a insturment produced now and costing 33,333 to be far supirior to an insturment produced 300 years ago at any price. That being said the outcome doesn't suprise me at all. Everyone talks about tone and what effects it and how a tele sounds like this and a strat sounds like that and how maple sounds vs mahogany. Truth is (for me anyway) is you can "make" your instrument sound like you in just about any case. Some will be easier because of the construction materials but in the end it will have all of your tones you just have to get them out.

Also I would be willing to bet all the tone mongers on out there would fail a blind test as as to type of guitar used and the wood used just by listening to it. That goes for live or sound clips
 
I've been saying that for years. Between inaudible differences and crummy, dysfunctional hardware, I've never been able to see the draw of "vintage" instruments. I mean, I can understand if you're a collector and you want the guitar Jimi set fire to at Woodstock, or something SRV sweat/spit/bled all over at El Mogambo, but in those cases you're not buying them for their sound or playability. You're buying a piece of history. Sound- and playability-wise, I'm sure both those guitars were junk once they were separated from their owners. That is, owning one or the other would do nothing toward making you sound like either one of those guys.
 
This isn't really a new study. I've heard about this for years, and there are a few documentaries about it on YouTube.

It's really no different than all the kids that assume that if they see a vintage Fender something or other, it has to be the holy grail of guitars because it's "vintage."

 
line6man said:
This isn't really a new study. I've heard about this for years, and there are a few documentaries about it on YouTube.

It's really no different than all the kids that assume that if they see a vintage Fender something or other, it has to be the holy grail of guitars because it's "vintage."

What's really hard on my heart are all the kids going after 70's fenders because they are 'vintage'.  Then I get funny looks when I tell them to get a new MIM strat instead.
 
Mayfly by VOX said:
What's really hard on my heart are all the kids going after 70's fenders because they are 'vintage'.  Then I get funny looks when I tell them to get a new MIM strat instead.

No kidding. Between CNC machines and modern designs/hardware/assembly/finishing processes, it's actually kinda tough to get a crummy guitar these days. Not so back then. There was some really pitiful stuff to be had in "The Olden Days", and a lot of it.
 
I was actually just watching a couple of videos about this a few days ago.

A chemist was analyzing the varnishes used on some of the old violins, since he found that only violins of certain regions held up over the years. He was met with much criticism from the violin world, since, apparently, they would like to believe that the way Stradivari crafted his instruments was somehow magical. In other words, if you can figure out exactly what Stradivari did, his highly prized instruments lose a lot of value to collectors. Imagine if it were like that for guitars? You can copy Leo Fender's methods fairly easily. :blob7:

In any case, I would imagine things to be a bit different with violinists than guitarists, since their "vintage" is unaffordable to all but the wealthiest players. There probably aren't many kids buying Stradivarius violins because they think they are cool. :icon_jokercolor:
 
line6man said:
I was actually just watching a couple of videos about this a few days ago.

A chemist was analyzing the varnishes used on some of the old violins, since he found that only violins of certain regions held up over the years. He was met with much criticism from the violin world, since, apparently, they would like to believe that the way Stradivari crafted his instruments was somehow magical. In other words, if you can figure out exactly what Stradivari did, his highly prized instruments lose a lot of value to collectors. Imagine if it were like that for guitars? You can copy Leo Fender's methods fairly easily. :blob7:

This is it exactly - some people want stuff to be somehow "magical" and thus unobtainable. They hate nothing more than the idea that something can be easily mass produced, reproduced or, gasp, digitized.

I always think, gee if aging is going to change the sound of my guitar, and I think it's perfect right now, doesn't that mean it's going to be worse 20 years from now?
 
I guess it comes around all the time, the question of tone vs age.
I do not think it has to do with age, it has to do with that maker, and the materials used, vs his competition at the time.
Such as those Stradivarius violins, I think his meticulous methods, the wood he had available to him, and the fact he sold a certain amount makes them famous. However had he lived in 50 years later, he may not have had the impact he had. It could be the wood available or something.
Look at a preCBS Fender, there is nothing about those guitars that make them sound any better than a brand new American strat. Fact be they use a better hardware today, and as far as quality control, can you beat computer CNC?
I feel they are sought after because of the mystic of having one. Tone wise, I have owned quite a few and they are not much different than todays models. Maybe a different pickup wind or newer cleaner pots.
But do I think the old wood makes it sound better, there are a ton of cheap guitars built in the last 70 years that still sound like crap. I think a good product can get more expensive with age, but again it is the mystic of that product, not any magical properties.
 
Jusatele said:
I guess it comes around all the time, the question of tone vs age.
I do not think it has to do with age, it has to do with that maker, and the materials used, vs his competition at the time.
Such as those Stradivarius violins, I think his meticulous methods, the wood he had available to him, and the fact he sold a certain amount makes them famous. However had he lived in 50 years later, he may not have had the impact he had. It could be the wood available or something.

There was an interesting show on TLC or Discovery (can't remember which) a couple years ago on the Little Ice Age.  They stated that the wood that Stradavari used came from a forest of very slow growth trees because of this mini ice age, which was said to be around the 1600's.  This slow growth created very dense wood.

Obviously, there are other factors that would make a great violin.  I find it funny that people weren't able to pick the one that was supposed to be the "best". 
 
I have stymied a few of the Vintage-as-God fundamentalists. They say that the old "first-growth" maple is categorically better, because it grew slower, the rings were closer together, and this made it start with a higher sap-to-wood ration, then the sap hardened. But, as we know, very hard maple + single=coil pickups can make a guitar sound very shrill, which is there are other guitars just as popular - made out of softer mahogany.

So: wouldn't some newer, less growth ring-infested maple just sound more like a softer, less screechy wood?

There is, unfortunately, nothing that can be done for these yoinks. B. Hefner AKA "Edenhaus" even proudly proclaims:

Welcome to B.Hefner Company and Guitar Alley the premier guitar parts manufacturer

Guitar Parts and Custom guitars are our specialty, we manufacture Strat, Tele, J Bass and P Bass parts the same way Leo did, by hand.

http://edenhaus.com/

Umm, dooshie-kins, Leo was proud of the assembly line he borrowed from Henry Ford, every neck always fit every body, no luthiers need apply. He was an efficiency engineer, breaking down the process of making guitars so that each person would do one small thing over and over. He had three design criteria:

1) Everything was designed to use currently-available furniture-making equipment.
2) All the parts and materials had to be cheap, and readily available.
3) Everything could be done by (at best) semi-skilled laborers.

Lovingly hand-crafted.
 
Just another reminder that it's your civic duty to separate fools from their money so long as you can do it ethically.
 
Mayfly by VOX said:
swarfrat said:
Just another reminder that it's your civic duty to separate fools from their money so long as you can do it ethically.

ethically?

What I mean, is that so long as you're not practicing deception, or theft - if you can make top dollar selling stuff to people who feel the need to differentiate themselves from other people by virtue of the fact that they paid more for their whatchamcalit than anyone else on their block - go for it.
 
If YOU can't hear the difference, you don't deserve to own one. Only us really, really perceptive people can tell, and there's only one way to prove you're perceptive and not some low-grade yuck dredged up from the exhaust=pipe cloggings of the gene pool -

BUY ONE!

(oooh, mister - you're so perceptive! Kin I come up and see your etchings? Goo, goo goo, etc.) :-\
 
Place the word "vintage" in front of something and all of a sudden you have a mob of people clamoring for it.  It's either because it's an impression of value, superior craftsmanship, etc., but maybe for some it's just the "feeling" or "experience." 

We seem to gravitate to things of the past, even placing them up on pedestals.  "Yeah, I had a Hemi Cuda and it would SCREAM!"  Yeah, I'm sure it did for its day, but in reality these bigshot Muscle Cars would either have their hands full or just plain get smoked by a 2012 Toyota Camry with the 268 hp V6.  Very few of these "monsters" from the Muscle Car era would be hard-pressed to run these super-low quarter mile times, even the vaunted Hemi Cuda, which was good for low 13 second quarter mile runs, at best. 

Now, experience...NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING comes to the feel of a Muscle Car.  It's an experience.  I've driven my share of the classic big block Muscle Cars, and had my time behind the wheel of my own.  Now, I own  1994 Camaro that's pretty modified, and while it lopes and shimmers and shakes at stoplights, it just isn't the same.  I would pay big money to relive that old experience once again, and maybe it's the same for some of these people after vintage instruments.

Everything else aside, including the "They don't build them like they used to," that may be a good thing, not only in the automotive world, but also in the world of instruments.

FWIW, when I see a 1950s Fender, I think to myself, "Cool, it stood the test of time and it's worth a fortune," but that's it.  The only reason for that reaction itself is because I know these things.  If I'm just some guy off the street I'm going to look at that guitar and see nothing but a beat up guitar I wouldn't pay a dime for.  In reality, it wouldn't surprise me if today's Fender Bullets were built to higher standards that what Jimi Hendrix's axe was built. 
 
All true. Most of the time when somebody says "They don't make them like they used to!" I can only reply "Thank God!"

I'm sure there are exceptions here and there, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment what they'd be. Maybe McDonald's/Burger King burgers and fries?

The car analogy is a good one, though. I, too, had much experience with the old Detroit big iron, and while there's a lot to be said for the neck-snapping off-the-line torque of a big block, they had no staying power and the vehicles those engines were in were junk. Terrible suspensions, brakes, steering - the list is long, and made driving those things positively frightening. The cheapest cars you can buy today could run circles around any of those old muscle cars handling-wise, and for a few dollars more you could best most of them in the quarter. They're just a lot smoother now, so it doesn't feel like a ground-pounder when you put the pedal to the metal. But, 4 to 6 seconds later, you're doing 60+.
 
Back
Top