To add a datapoint:

In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8q3zrCYMRw, they managed to differentiate most high end violins (4/5 tests - 10 Violins).

Incidentally, the only mistake was with one of the two Stradivari examples.

I worry that the takeaway for people that only read clickbait headlines about the 2012 Stradivarius study was: expert violinists can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive violins.

All the new violins in that study were high-end instruments by trained artisans, which can easily be $100,000 or more. So really the takeaway is: modern players like violins from today's masters of violinmaking as much as or more than those by Stradivarius.

AFAIK there were also cheaper ones, but the more important takeaway, IMO, is that Stradivarius isn't something magical (like this article also claims in the headline), but simply a very well crafted violin. Which is great, but no lost art.

They are master quality violins for the time period and they pretty much set the standard for modern violins.

If they were being made today they would be considered very good quality violins and fetch in the $10,000+ range or more most likely, especially considering the location they are made in, the materials, and the methods employed to build them.

"They are master quality violins for the time period and they pretty much set the standard for modern violins."

Classic literature is the same way. It's classic because of its influence, not just quality.

I dunno - the blind test results sort of prove that they are the gold plated monster cables of violins :p

Looks like it was only 3 Strads and 3 new violins, which were selected from a pool of 15 submitted by violinmakers. So only really good violins. (But also a very small sample.)

8 players chose a Strad as their favorite, so it's not as clear-cut as "new violins are better." It's more like, Strads are in a similar league, but do not outclass, new violins, despite costing an order of magnitude+ more. But then again, they are pieces of rare collectible art that are hundreds of year old–it's kind of amazing that you can play them at all!

So it's more like: imagine if there were a handful of surviving vintage audio cables from the 1600s (okay, the 1800s?) that performed almost as well as modern ones. I imagine they'd cost more money. And that wouldn't be so crazy, given their history.

Here's the original study & NYT coverage for reference:

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619443114

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-betwe...

That test compares them to modern violins. Maybe comparing them with their contemporaries would provide more accurate results? I know I prefer the sound of a Guarneri violin, but Strads are reputed to have better piercing power for carrying to the back of a concert hall, which was definitely an advantage in the days before electric amplification and computationally modeled and strategically baffled reverberant chambers for maximum audio enjoyment over the widest possible range of listeners.

>I worry that the takeaway for people that only read clickbait headlines about the 2012 Stradivarius study was: expert violinists can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive violins.

A key point that's omitted in most of the reporting is that the Strads were loaned to the organisers on the condition that they not alter their setup in any way, whereas all the modern violins were adjusted and given new strings immediately before the test. It's also not true that the testers couldn't tell the difference between the new and old violins; they weren't asked whether they could tell, they were only asked which they preferred.

Technique for play violins like Strads needs to change. (almost every violin needs slightly different technique)

As quoted, this isn't a test for superior sound, but rather whether a violinist preferred playing a certain instrument.

Stradivarius violins are known for being very difficult to play, so that result is not entirely surprising.

I think that goes for all violins. I had two years worth of lessons and never managed to get to a point that I felt that it was time well spent. Compared to other instruments which are much more rewarding initially I found the violin to be absolutely beautiful to listen to when played by an accomplished violinist but a total horror to actually master.

May I ask - did you have a previous background in music? When I think of my own experiences and those of not only my kids but other musicians I've observed, two years is really just a starting point (IE: you should not have expected to have any degree of proficiency unless you already have considerable musical background)

No, I started out with violin, then moved to piano, did nothing for 5 years, then played saxophone for 17 years and then stopped for a couple of decades.

The big difference between violin and say piano is that with a piano if you hit a key with a certain velocity it will make a certain sound. Over and over again. On the violin it isn't nearly that simple and just forming the tone will take a long time (in a way you never stop getting better at that).

A fun illustration of this with violin is this TwoSetViolin video [1] where they and 8 non-violinist musician friends play a game similar to "Telephone". They split into two teams each consisting of one of the TwoSetViolin violinists and 4 of the others.

Each round one of the violinists plays a simple melody for one non-violinist member of the other team. Then that person takes the violin and tries to play it for another non-violinist member of their team and so until the last non-violinist plays it for the violinist on their team. If the violinist can identify the piece their team gets a point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYaYHmCmAE

Oh that brings back some painful memories, hilarious though, and some of them are surprisingly good! (and some are just horrific). The most clear memory I have from those days is that during one of the lessons one of the violin teachers dogs keeled over and died. I think she blamed me for that...

It also makes me wonder if I would be able to get any sound out of a violin today.

That's a really interesting observation you make, and one where I'll have to think on it for a bit. One of my thought exercises on this is to think about Glen Gould vs. Simone Dinnerstein's interpretation of Bach's Goldberg Variations. There's something I like about the way Dinnerstein hits those keys that is different to my ear than Gould.

There is the myth of 'touch', the problem with the myth is that the piano was designed with the very explicit goal of eliminating it, just like it's predecessor, the harpsichord.

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3139/can-a...

Can you expand on this? Would love more information about what makes it "difficult" relative to another instrument.

(Orchestra supporter and string player dad over here, so genuinely curious)

iirc there were two studies that included audience preference and performer preference, and the truth is the sound is typically average for a high end violin, there are much better contemporary offerings.