Hacker News Reader

Comment by optimalsolver | Hacker News Reader

Now do one for Stradivarius violins.

Most musicians recognize that the subjective assessment of instruments is deeply problematic. We have not been offered a good alternative.

I'm not a violinist, but a double bassist. The process of choosing an instrument is nothing short of nerve wracking. My last bass shopping episode took me more than a year. I'd love to be able to know with certainty that the sound I'm hearing is real and not biased by my expectations. With some of the instruments, I had to make minor changes to my technique, to accommodate physical differences in their geometry and setup. In one case, I asked the dealer to install a different type of strings, which he was glad to do.

Now, do we know that different basses sound different? That would at least be a safe guess, given that they are deliberately made to sound different for specific uses and player preferences, and there are radical differences in construction and dimensions. One of my basses is carved from solid chunks of wood, the other is made of plywood that is formed to shape in a mold.

Or "audiophile quality" amps.

"most people use equipment to listen to their music, while audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment"

Opus 160kbps (VBR)

What would you measure? One feature of very good musical instruments is, they make it far easier to get the sounds you want. They are versatile and flexible, with a wide range of possible responses. They sound like what the artist intends, which is why they are so popular to play.

So are you measuring the artist? How would you measure this quality in the instrument?

They have. And modern violins in these studies scored better as I recall.

That has been done multiple times. It is easy: just record the sound and compare acoustic signatures. And yes, Stradivarius is different. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/21/scientists-f...

This double-blind study found that experts preferred modern violins to Strads in listening tests:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strad...

These studies are flawed in ways that every experienced musician recognizes they are: context.

It's _common_ that instruments that sound amazing in a solo context will sound poor in a larger ensemble, or might sound great in one ensemble but not another.

Personal context factors in: how does it feel, how stable is the neck, is it work in commonly stressed spots (usually good), is the design kind to your habits, etc...

Business context: prestige, visual impact, lineage, historical accuracy, marketability etc...

I could go on, but I don't think it's controversial to say that an instrument's sonic qualities alone, in a solo context, are NOT what drives value.

I know that, as of this comment, nobody has made the claim or implied it yet, but it's important not to draw conclusions about one instrument being better than another based on studies like this. Imagine if someone went around comparing generics syntax across languages to 'experts and laypeople', and the comments filled with praise for the scrappy underdog. I think the average HN commenter would spot the BS right away. For music though?

It's simply not what music is about.

I don’t know if I understand your point about generics syntax and a scrappy underdog. Are you trying to imply that a group of experts is better than the group of experts and laypeople at judging things? If so, I’m not sure that’s true.

No, I'm saying that generics syntax doesn't express the value of a language.

Stradivarius violins are invariably played and sometimes owned by soloists, who either literally play solo, lead a concerto, or occasionally play with a pianist or as part of a small ensemble.

First violin in an orchestra will usually have a more modest instrument.

Edit to add: of course there's a lot of Veblenisation in music, and this gets silly when people who are really collectors try to do music and end up being just a more extreme kind of consumer.

Hifi, guitars, synthesizers, and recording equipment are full of this - plenty of moderately wealthy doctors, lawyers, financiers and such of low-to-average talent buying vintage or custom signature whatevers and displaying them proudly on social media.

But there are also professionals who are super-sensitive to tone and expression and have a (literal) track record of making choices that audiences respond to.

Some of them have impressive collections too, but they're able to justify them for specific creative ends.

The difference is that if you take an expert and give them an average instrument they'll do miracles with it. If you take a collector and give them a room full of classics they'll produce mediocre mush.

But give an expert the classics and they'll wring an extra level of musical credibility and interest out of them. That zone is out of reach of the collectors, but audiences still appreciate it and pay for it when they hear it.

I find your response somewhat strange. I'm saying that context matters, and your response is that... context matters?

It would appear that I'm being misread to defend a specific instrument. I'm saying that there's more value to an instrument than simply a 1:n listening test. That goes for ANY instrument.

Regarding people spending money on things they can't fully use (or sometimes appreciate), of course. That happens with everything.

I think he is saying that they are used by soloists which is also how they are compared. So the context is the same.

Before going on a huge (but interesting) tangent.

Sure, but thats not the only contingent of context. Location, piece, player, specific instrument, time of year etc...

I'm in no way saying that this means a specific instrument is better, but specifically that we can't draw that conclusion from these types of studies.

(I understand that you're not the parent, but it's still an interesting discussion)

The experts do prefer the more modern sound, but the core of the study proves that strats are different. They have a special sound. If that's what you want to hear then you need a strat. And we should not discount the psychological effects on the player of playing and living with such a legendary object. Great paintings are more than pixels. Great instruments are more than sound boxes.

Watch out, a "strat" is a Stratocaster. ;-)

A "glock" is also not a gun.

Interestingly enough, all of the Strads in playable condition have been modernized to some extent. They have changed the shape of the bass bar, the neck length, and steel / synthetic strings. Meanwhile, the bow has changed as well.

There is a growing sentiment among violinists that the Strads and their ilk are being surpassed by new fiddles, and are possibly also in decline.

Um. That article describes a study where the researchers took recordings of different violins, looked for a difference in the strads, and found one. That doesn't establish that strads sound different, it presupposes it.

Surely if they wanted to show that strads sound different they'd need to test whether their method lets them predict whether an unknown recording is a strad or not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com