Do we have any classical musicians on tildes? I'm pretty curious about this bit: Can contemporary violins not result in the same sound? I would have thought it would be even better, new...
Do we have any classical musicians on tildes? I'm pretty curious about this bit:
The sound of the Joachim-Ma Stradivarius has been described as 'rich, complex, and full of depth'
Can contemporary violins not result in the same sound? I would have thought it would be even better, new technology, etc.
So I don't play violin but I did look into this at one point. From what I recall, it's more of a legend at this point. There's evidence that there was a cooler period of time from around 1650-1750...
So I don't play violin but I did look into this at one point. From what I recall, it's more of a legend at this point. There's evidence that there was a cooler period of time from around 1650-1750 which resulted in the trees during this era to be denser than modern trees, which would result in a more dense wood used in the violins, and thus better resonance in the instrument. With that said, blind experiments over the years have found no significant differences between a Stradivarius and modern high-quality violins. I think it's more a testament to how well made they were at that time in history more than anything. They achieved legendary status because the sound was so much better than anything else at that time, and it stuck as a status symbol of peak quality and sound.
I think there's a lot to be said though that an instrument from 300+ years ago can compare similarly in sound quality to modern higher end models.
Definitely. Also crazy to think about that it has survived for this long. Not only been in safe hands of renowned violinists but also that it hasn't been accidentally dropped or broken somehow
I think there's a lot to be said though that an instrument from 300+ years ago can compare similarly in sound quality to modern higher end models.
Definitely. Also crazy to think about that it has survived for this long. Not only been in safe hands of renowned violinists but also that it hasn't been accidentally dropped or broken somehow
I read once that in a blind test, musicians preferred the sound of newer quality instruments, over older expensive ones. I think It is mostly for show, kinda like how, to the average person, a $6...
I read once that in a blind test, musicians preferred the sound of newer quality instruments, over older expensive ones.
I think It is mostly for show, kinda like how, to the average person, a $6 wine will taste better if told it costed $60, except that the old instruments are still great instruments.
It’s basically the same thing as the audiophile world, where people will pay thousands for gold-plated “premium” cables that promise the highest quality… digital… signal. There’s a market for...
It’s basically the same thing as the audiophile world, where suckers people will pay thousands for gold-plated “premium” cables that promise the highest quality… digital… signal. There’s a market for that, there a companies making these overpriced components and buyers who will swear up and down that they can tell the difference. It’s a grift.
Not so different from designer fashion, either. People are willing to pay the premium for a status symbol. Personally I find this sort of thing kind of repulsive, it’s just waste for waste’s sake, and there so many better ways for one to part with one’s money. But at the same time, who am I to tell people the value of their own happiness? If something makes you feel happy and the high price tag is part of that calculus, that’s your business. But pretending there’s actually some scientific, objective reason one of these products is superior is a dishonest justification IMHO.
Don’t claim a Stradivarius is a magically good-sounding instrument. Appreciate it for its historical value, sure, or its rarity. At least those are grounded in something real.
Ehhh, no. I would not compare instruments to audiophile equipment at all. You can get absurdly good sounds out of "budget" instruments because a lot of QA improvement over the 80's-00's has ironed...
Exemplary
Ehhh, no. I would not compare instruments to audiophile equipment at all.
You can get absurdly good sounds out of "budget" instruments because a lot of QA improvement over the 80's-00's has ironed out issues in lower-brand factories in Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, etc. They're up to an incredible standard now for students and amateur musicians, and they'll sometimes give you like 9/10 of the sound or more for half the value or less. I ended up on three "budget" brand options for the bass, guitar, and saxophone I play with no regrets, and I even preferred playing my Ray34 bass guitar to the higher-tier Musicman I tried at the shop.
BUT, without even getting to what they sound like, I'd still rather own a higher priced option if I had the income or if I played professionally. Problem is, that last 10th of the QA on a guitar can be a bad fret that leads to questionable intonation on a particular note, poor fret leveling that's difficult to wrangle on faster playing, wonky electronics or unreliable wiring or poor shielding... On a sax that can be difficulty getting the sound out of a particular note on the sax, poor action on the keys, some persistent issue with one screw, etc etc etc. It's sometimes stuff that's fixable or modified yourself, but for a pro that's something that needs to be fixed immediately for a gig. There's also the technique to consider, since sometimes certain notes just require more breath support or embouchure or more trained fingers or unconventional setup to get good sound out of it, and I know from saxophones that there's a hella ceiling to pushing air through the thing right. The extra thousands a pro would pay - or tens, hundreds of thousands - aren't even always spent on sound; it's for having a piece that doesn't bother someone to play literally every day without having to constantly repair, set up, tune, or bulldoze through some issue whenever they play it. They need it to sound the way they need every time, and there's finesse to having a consistent quality instrument that's capable of that.
The magic in the Strad, IMO, isn't that they sound magical. Yamaha probably makes something as good/better because they have thousands of people who drew up these things in CAD, got professional feedback, have precise machinery at their assembly lines and dozens of engineers reviewing every step, plus the craftsman who actually build it... The wonder is that, with very little of that collective insight, someone got it to that quality 300 years ago. And that it still - even if just almost - sounds that good. It probably belongs in a museum more than a concert hall, but that's a piece of history that still does its job 300 years later, and of which you can put on a show with. I think that's pretty fuckin cool regardless of what you think about the sound quality.
Do we have any classical musicians on tildes? I'm pretty curious about this bit:
Can contemporary violins not result in the same sound? I would have thought it would be even better, new technology, etc.
Edit: thx everyone for the replies!
So I don't play violin but I did look into this at one point. From what I recall, it's more of a legend at this point. There's evidence that there was a cooler period of time from around 1650-1750 which resulted in the trees during this era to be denser than modern trees, which would result in a more dense wood used in the violins, and thus better resonance in the instrument. With that said, blind experiments over the years have found no significant differences between a Stradivarius and modern high-quality violins. I think it's more a testament to how well made they were at that time in history more than anything. They achieved legendary status because the sound was so much better than anything else at that time, and it stuck as a status symbol of peak quality and sound.
I think there's a lot to be said though that an instrument from 300+ years ago can compare similarly in sound quality to modern higher end models.
Definitely. Also crazy to think about that it has survived for this long. Not only been in safe hands of renowned violinists but also that it hasn't been accidentally dropped or broken somehow
I read once that in a blind test, musicians preferred the sound of newer quality instruments, over older expensive ones.
I think It is mostly for show, kinda like how, to the average person, a $6 wine will taste better if told it costed $60, except that the old instruments are still great instruments.
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check
It’s basically the same thing as the audiophile world, where
suckerspeople will pay thousands for gold-plated “premium” cables that promise the highest quality… digital… signal. There’s a market for that, there a companies making these overpriced components and buyers who will swear up and down that they can tell the difference. It’s a grift.Not so different from designer fashion, either. People are willing to pay the premium for a status symbol. Personally I find this sort of thing kind of repulsive, it’s just waste for waste’s sake, and there so many better ways for one to part with one’s money. But at the same time, who am I to tell people the value of their own happiness? If something makes you feel happy and the high price tag is part of that calculus, that’s your business. But pretending there’s actually some scientific, objective reason one of these products is superior is a dishonest justification IMHO.
Don’t claim a Stradivarius is a magically good-sounding instrument. Appreciate it for its historical value, sure, or its rarity. At least those are grounded in something real.
Ehhh, no. I would not compare instruments to audiophile equipment at all.
You can get absurdly good sounds out of "budget" instruments because a lot of QA improvement over the 80's-00's has ironed out issues in lower-brand factories in Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, etc. They're up to an incredible standard now for students and amateur musicians, and they'll sometimes give you like 9/10 of the sound or more for half the value or less. I ended up on three "budget" brand options for the bass, guitar, and saxophone I play with no regrets, and I even preferred playing my Ray34 bass guitar to the higher-tier Musicman I tried at the shop.
BUT, without even getting to what they sound like, I'd still rather own a higher priced option if I had the income or if I played professionally. Problem is, that last 10th of the QA on a guitar can be a bad fret that leads to questionable intonation on a particular note, poor fret leveling that's difficult to wrangle on faster playing, wonky electronics or unreliable wiring or poor shielding... On a sax that can be difficulty getting the sound out of a particular note on the sax, poor action on the keys, some persistent issue with one screw, etc etc etc. It's sometimes stuff that's fixable or modified yourself, but for a pro that's something that needs to be fixed immediately for a gig. There's also the technique to consider, since sometimes certain notes just require more breath support or embouchure or more trained fingers or unconventional setup to get good sound out of it, and I know from saxophones that there's a hella ceiling to pushing air through the thing right. The extra thousands a pro would pay - or tens, hundreds of thousands - aren't even always spent on sound; it's for having a piece that doesn't bother someone to play literally every day without having to constantly repair, set up, tune, or bulldoze through some issue whenever they play it. They need it to sound the way they need every time, and there's finesse to having a consistent quality instrument that's capable of that.
The magic in the Strad, IMO, isn't that they sound magical. Yamaha probably makes something as good/better because they have thousands of people who drew up these things in CAD, got professional feedback, have precise machinery at their assembly lines and dozens of engineers reviewing every step, plus the craftsman who actually build it... The wonder is that, with very little of that collective insight, someone got it to that quality 300 years ago. And that it still - even if just almost - sounds that good. It probably belongs in a museum more than a concert hall, but that's a piece of history that still does its job 300 years later, and of which you can put on a show with. I think that's pretty fuckin cool regardless of what you think about the sound quality.
I think one of the things often mentioned is that the wood ages and cures and whatnot, over time, and that affects the sound