Study confirms superior sound of a Stradivari is due to the varnish

[bluefuzz]

Do modern violin makers do that sort of thing? Make a perfectly new violin look like a beat up model?

Most certainly. Maple and spruce - the woods violins are primarily built from - are rather boring white woods in their natural state which with time only achieve (depending on species and exposure) a bit of a pale 'suntan'. The surface preparations and varnish Stradivarius et al. applied to his violins was almost certainly primarily for looks rather than for any tonal reasons. In the 19th century when Strads, Guarneris and Amatis achieved their 'classic' status it was common (and expected) to copy every ding and scratch of the originals when making a new fiddle. Modern makers perhaps don't go to quite such lengths but a lot of energy still goes into achieving that deep vintage amber lustre in the lacquer and the right 'patina'.

 

[bluefuzz]

Do the experiment for yourself - hold a pickup above the strings, between the nut and the pegs, and between the bridge and the tailpiece. You'll find output in both places, because neither the nut nor the bridge provides a reliable witness point.

No. It's precisely because the bridge and nut are decent 'witness' points, as you put it, that there is vibration between the nut and tuners and between saddle and tailpiece. Otherwise any output there would be severely damped. If the break angle is high enough at bridge/nut (and it only needs to be a few degrees) there is essentially no energy loss at these points. The vibrations behind the nut and before the saddle are being activated by body resonances not through energy loss at the 'witness points'.

It's a different matter on a flat-top acoustic since the bridge itself is both the vibrational 'motor' for the top and at the same time is the anchor for the strings. So the very definition of the string length - that the string 'knows' how long it is - is constantly varying due to the vibration. If the impedance at the bridge is wrong (too heavy or too light) then you can get a guitar that can't be tuned accurately at all. But that's a different can of worms.

 

[Inner Space]

No. It's precisely because the bridge and nut are decent 'witness' points, as you put it, that there is vibration between the nut and tuners and between saddle and tailpiece.

My last comment on a spiraling OT subject: with the greatest possible respect, this is incoherent. If the nut & bridge were reliable witness points, the string would be dead beyond them. You're saying, "The witness points are reliable, because observation shows them not to be."

The vibrations behind the nut and before the saddle are being activated by body resonances not through energy loss at the 'witness points'.

Again, I can't make much sense of this. Have you built guitars? Worked on them? Try a non-resonant test bed - the phenomenon still exists, absent "body resonances". And ... we want energy loss at the witness points. The issue exists because we don't get enough.

Anyway, over and out, have a great day, and keep on shredding.

 

[sgent]

Guitars have to work as guitars, just as other instruments do. When world-class performers play on a crappy instrument, they still sound great. But the question is: What are thy having to do to make that great sound? I've certainly heard high-end performers pronounce that instruments they were trying were "crap", or, more likely, "unplayable". They still sounded great on them.

As for me, I lack the skills necessary to overcome a poor instrument. That same skill limitation means that I won't sound world-class (to say the least) on a world-class instrument, but I will certainly sound better.

The interaction between a musician and an instrument is, at least in part, mystical. Music does not work at a purely analytical level, and here the placebo effect counts, as do purely emotional responses. But that does not mean that performers should be swayed by every cross-breeze that comes their way. I do know musicians who replace their instruments every year or two in search of something better. Often, it's just a tool to stave off boredom, and there's nothing wrong with that. Even some top pros have struggled to find their own voice on the instruments available to them. But their listeners would never know it--musicians are often looking for something beyond what listeners experience. An instrument still has to work--for guitars, the frets have to be aligned, the neck has to have the correct shape, and all sorts of other characteristics I have no knowledge of. Tubas have to have valves that work quickly and reliably, tight tolerances, tuning slides that are accessible and that move smoothly, balance, physical fit to the player, and on and on. All that is in addition to the sound it makes. Just as a camera is more than its sensor image quality, a musical instrument is more than its sound.

I heard one top performer play a tuba, and after ten minutes put it down and said "the scale on this instrument is unusable". That means it is not in tune with itself. My intonation sense is pretty good (at least when listening to others), and I detected nothing amiss in his intonation. But the question from his perspective is: How much work does it take to make this thing play in tune?

Rick "even painters have their favorite brushes" Denney

I'm reminded of multiple times when a family friend who is a grammy-winning clarinetist would join us at a Jazz club and often borrow the HS / college student's instrument for a solo for the club and a lesson for the young musician. He always claimed that his instrument was prettier with silver and mother of pearl, but that they played the same instrument in general.

 

[rdenney]

I'm reminded of multiple times when a family friend who is a grammy-winning clarinetist would join us at a Jazz club and often borrow the HS / college student's instrument for a solo for the club and a lesson for the young musician. He always claimed that his instrument was prettier with silver and mother of pearl, but that they played the same instrument in general.

Please understand that teachers will often do that precisely to make the point that the hunk of brass and wood is not the musician.

But those same people, as performers, will be choosier when deciding how to spend their money. That does NOT mean they will spend more--they will just be choosier.

Rick "once demoralized by hearing his own crappy tuba being 'tested' by his orchestra-pro teacher" Denney

 

[LTig]

Guitars have to work as guitars, just as other instruments do. When world-class performers play on a crappy instrument, they still sound great. But the question is: What are thy having to do to make that great sound? I've certainly heard high-end performers pronounce that instruments they were trying were "crap", or, more likely, "unplayable". They still sounded great on them.

I think they just know how to handle imperfections of an instrument.

There is the story of a jazz pianist who once had to play on a piano which "was intended for rehearsals only and was in poor condition and required several hours of tuning and adjustment to make it playable. The instrument was tinny and thin in the upper registers and weak in the bass register, and the pedals did not work properly." Consequently, he often used ostinatos and rolling left-hand rhythmic figures during his performance to give the effect of stronger bass notes, and concentrated his playing in the middle portion of the keyboard.

As it happens the engineers decided to record the concert despite its short comings. The recording was published and became the best selling single performance piano album of all times, not only in jazz.

 

[Inner Space]

I think they just know how to handle imperfections of an instrument.

There is the story of a jazz pianist who once had to play on a piano which "was intended for rehearsals only and was in poor condition and required several hours of tuning and adjustment to make it playable. The instrument was tinny and thin in the upper registers and weak in the bass register, and the pedals did not work properly." Consequently, he often used ostinatos and rolling left-hand rhythmic figures during his performance to give the effect of stronger bass notes, and concentrated his playing in the middle portion of the keyboard.

As it happens the engineers decided to record the concert despite its short comings. The recording was published and became the best selling single performance piano album of all times, not only in jazz.

Great points. I have spent time with pianists (I recorded Vladimir Horowitz once) and what you notice is very physical - strength, vigor, muscular power, coming from the upper body and shoulders. They physically dominate the instrument and generally make it do what they want.

 

[bluefuzz]

Have you built guitars? Worked on them?

Have you? I just completed my tenth acoustic. And I have restored/repaired many more. So I do actually know what I'm talking about ...

What you seem to be claiming doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry.

 

[rdenney]

Great points. I have spent time with pianists (I recorded Vladimir Horowitz once) and what you notice is very physical - strength, vigor, muscular power, coming from the upper body and shoulders. They physically dominate the instrument and generally make it do what they want.

It's not strength, it's speed--the speed with which the key is pressed governs how hard the hammer strikes the string. Speed takes quickness of muscle, of course, and sometimes more motion of the finger before it hits the key to get enough speed, but I've heard piano players of great power who did not have much in the upper body department. I've heard children who were powerful performers, though their emotional content may be subject to further maturity.

If I may suggest this: What you are seeing is not muscling an instrument into compliance. What you are seeing is the body reflecting the emotion of powerful music uninhibited. You see it with body motions of all musicians, though from a technical perspective, motion of the body is often a problem. I see brass players moving their shoulders a lot--and that constrains air flow. I see brass players (and am one) that moves facial muscles a lot--and that constrains embouchure flexibility for most of them. Those are weaknesses of technique, and part of becoming a world-class performer is ridding oneself of distracting body movements while still being able to move with the music. Violinists often move around quite a bit when they play, but not all of them, and I doubt the difference affects the product. Some seem to muscle the body; others have movements that seem more delicate but get the same output. I see world-class performers of great musical power who are nearly still when they play.

Rick "noting that some soloists (in particular) have learned how to let their body motions add visual effect without affecting the sounds they are making" Denney

 

[Inner Space]

It's not strength, it's speed--the speed with which the key is pressed governs how hard the hammer strikes the string. Speed takes quickness of muscle, of course, and sometimes more motion of the finger before it hits the key to get enough speed, but I've heard piano players of great power who did not have much in the upper body department. I've heard children who were powerful performers, though their emotional content may be subject to further maturity.

If I may suggest this: What you are seeing is not muscling an instrument into compliance. What you are seeing is the body reflecting the emotion of powerful music uninhibited. You see it with body motions of all musicians, though from a technical perspective, motion of the body is often a problem. I see brass players moving their shoulders a lot--and that constrains air flow. I see brass players (and am one) that moves facial muscles a lot--and that constrains embouchure flexibility for most of them. Those are weaknesses of technique, and part of becoming a world-class performer is ridding oneself of distracting body movements while still being able to move with the music. Violinists often move around quite a bit when they play, but not all of them, and I doubt the difference affects the product. Some seem to muscle the body; others have movements that seem more delicate but get the same output. I see world-class performers of great musical power who are nearly still when they play.

Rick "noting that some soloists (in particular) have learned how to let their body motions add visual effect without affecting the sounds they are making" Denney

Rick - no major disagreement, but it's not entirely performative, because you can see it during set-up sound check noodling, and rehearsals and so on, where no one cares, least of all the player. Just that - with piano players specifically - good amateurs seem to use the elbows downwards, and virtuosi use their whole upper body. Anecdotal, I know, but I found it to be such a constant it seems to mean something.

 

[Antirabbit]

I always love this subject. In fact I wrote a paper for my senior defense (for my violin performance degree) on the Golden Age of Guarneri. Who pretty much used the same wood for every violin (oddly a couple other makers in Cremona have instruments that have the exact same sap marks). It was reported that the maple he used for the ribs, necks, and backs were from discarded oars from the Italian navy and the spruce used for the tops were all from the same tree. I have played on one violin that was originally considered an Amati, but ended up being a Strad made during his apprenticeship. It was an amazing violin, but lacked some of the projection and tonal strength of his later works. One consideration that is not spoken about much is the effect a bow has on the sound created. Often the top violinists have several amazing bows that they will use with their golden age Strad/Guarneri for the purpose of generating a different sound or to facilitate a particular need that the piece being performed requires (certain bow techniques are easier on light springy bows vs bows that can take tons of direct pressure but do not have the same springiness). I suppose its similar to how audiophiles build systems, you start with the most amazing speakers you can afford and build from there. Often your end game (does that exist) system has not one component from your point of origin. In my case, by the time I was 18 I had an amazing bow but was being held back by my violin. The process of evaluating violins at the professional level is very tedious and requires more than one person who knows what to listen to, in a concert hall, listening to various combinations of bows, strings, and different days/weather conditions to properly evaluate if any particular violin is most suitable. In my case it was super obvious both under my chin and at the back of the concert hall. Alot of it had to do with the way I play and the characteristics that work best with the way my bow sounds and my "style".
My particular violin was made by an occultist physician in France who studied the minute dimensions of the great masters and then created patterns of his own. His violins have a darker, warmer sound that also has incredible projection in a concert hall. When I think of the Strad I played vs my own violin, I am confidant I would choose my own violin and also easily recognize it. What would be interesting is to have artists make a series of recordings in different halls, with their own violins and a series of "modern contenders" and see what they prefer.
One thing to keep in mind, is after 1000's of hours with a violin attached to your body, you do know what it is capable of, what its weakness' are, and how to cater to what is good and minimize what isnt good. I can brighten my tone by using different string combinations, bow speed vs direct pressure, and I can also change out bows to brighten up the tone.
Anyhow, I do not think it is just the varnish, nor the wood, nor the bow, nor the hall, its all of these factors combined with a masters touch when playing that make these violins so amazing.

 

[agiletiger]

I want to chime in on a couple of points. If we want some empirical evidence, why aren’t we measuring the actual sound instead of doing a survey? As a clarinetist who recently bought a new instrument, I actually played every single note on each clarinet measuring both the intonation and a frequency analyzer in order to see what kind of overtones each horn produces. I also noted how easy it was to produce the results I wanted. I like a bright sound that is rich in even harmonics. I chose the horn that would most easily produce that sound. I even passed up a horn that had better intonation because of the sound I wanted.

Also, on that note, feel is very important. You play better when you’re not putting so much extra effort in trying to sound the way you want to sound. It’s challenging enough playing a virtuosic concerto or sonata. In addition, most musicians have learned at least on a sensory level what feeling matches what the audience might experience out in a venue. This comes from recording yourself and having others listen to you.

One relevant story is when a friend of mine won a big competition, he got to go to a prestigious violin shop and pick out the instrument he would play at his concert. He brought a fellow professional violinist with him. He hated the Strad immediately. The friend told him that he was overplaying the violin. According to him, Strads resonate so naturally that you have to be much more relaxed in both hands in order to get the best results from it. After getting used to it, he did end up playing the Strad at the concert. It sounded glorious.

 

[rdenney]

All said before: I have two large contrabass tubas, both of which are considered superb orchestral instruments. One is a Holton 345, which is enormously fat and maybe 39 inches tall. The bell throat is gigantic, but the bell isn’t particularly large considering the size of the instrument. This type is called a “grand orchestral” tuba.

It shares its basic design with a York tuba made for the Philadelphia Orchestra tuba player at the request of Leopold Stokowski in about 1930. That instrument was subsequently owned by the famous (among tuba players) Arnold Jacobs, who played in the Chicago Symphony for 44 years, and then sold the instrument to the CSO some years after he retired. It is still played by the current player, Gene Pokorny, who is a friend of mine. That instrument’s main feature is its ability to retain its deep, resonant sound even when the player bends the pitch, which to me means the Q of its resonance is a bit low, but the overtones stack up musically nevertheless, retaining resonance and power. Only two of these ever existed, and Holton started making a similar model in the 50’s at Jacobs’s request, when the CSO quintet was sponsored by Holton.

Ad notwithstanding, Jacobs still played and preferred the York in the CSO. He described it as the Stradivarius of tubas—through luck or skill, York got everything right from his perspective. You can hear it in CSO recordings, most famously those made under Fritz Reiner’s baton. The Holton isn’t the same but shares the main qualities due to its very similar shape.

Holtons are notoriously inconsistent, but mine is one of the best examples I’ve played.

My other big tuba is a Hirsbrunner HBS-193, one of maybe a couple of dozen that were all bespoke instruments made by hand in Switzerland over the many decades of that family’s ancient enterprise. (I bought it second-hand.)

It is tall at 44 inches, not quite as fat, but still considered a “Kaisertuba”. Instruments of this type are routinely used in German orchestras when the part calls for “Kontrabasstuba” as it does on music ranging from Wagner to Shostakovich. These are real earthmovers.

The two are very different in mechanics, feel, balance, response, tone, intonation tendencies, and construction quality. But the main difference is the reason I’m repeating all this that I’ve posted before: they propagate sound differently in space. The Holton has wide directivity while the Hirsbrunner has on-axis power and punch. It’s not the difference in spectrum, though they do differ, but rather sound field. You’d need something like a Klippel to gain any real insight.

The Hirsbrunner is easier to play in some ways, harder in others. It’s easier to play in tune, and easier to balance a large wind ensemble even when it’s just me. It goes where you point it, but you have to point it. But the Holton requires a more relaxed approach, and will do the work for you, as long as you agree with the sound it’s making.

I bet the difference in violins is also in directivity more than spectrum, though for different reasons.

Rick “plays the Holton in live halls for omnipresence and the Hirsbrunner in dead halls for projection” Denney

 

[sq225917]

I always thought it odd people claiming the difference veyween the sound of a strad and another makers violin was down to the lacquer. Given that they are totally hand made with nick two being the same never mind no two planks of wood being the same, how yhe he'll can they claim its the lacquer. The very idea of a sound off of hand made instruments is littered with confounding variables