Living violinmakers score a win over Stradivari in double-blind test | Hacker News Reader

Living violinmakers score a win over Stradivari in double-blind test

science.org

39 pointsLopRabbit22 comments

That's a lot of words to say "in blind comparisons, people prefer the louder sounds".

It would be interesting if they recorded the performances, equalized their volumes, and then had listeners choose.

I think you are focusing on one side comment. I don’t believe that was the summary.

Up to a certain point, volume is useful as it makes it easier for the listener to hear more detail about the sound. It doesn’t simply mean that louder sounds better.

Louder _does_ sound better. This is a well known and tested phenomenon. Listeners will favour loudness over any other metric of quality. Even very small differences in loudness (0.5dB or so) can be enough to have a substantial effect on preference.

In general terms, it's accurate to say "simply, louder sounds better".

(note: it's also discussed in the study itself as the likely primary effect!)

Listening level affects the way your hearing weighs frequencies.

Also: a violin is an acoustic instrument, it's loudness is part of it's qualities

An upvote simply doesn't do it here. I agree fullheartedly

I was curious how the musicians, even with the goggles on, might not recognize the old instruments.

I would think the physical touch sensation and especially the smell would give it away.

Just as an example, with saxophones it’s immediately obvious which instrument is a selmer mark iv vs a new horn, even another selmer, at least if you’ve spent time with one.

Unlike a saxophone, the parts of a string instrument that you touch are entirely modern, especially given modern violin technique involving a chin rest. The strings are of course modern, the fingerboard gets worn out and replaced a lot during the lifetime, the neck will have been reshaped (and when that happens the soundpost, nut and bridge will have been replaced) and the chin rest is entirely not original[1]. The playing feel of the instrument is largely down to the shape of the neck and how the instrument is set up (type of strings, bridge and nut height, position of the soundpost relative to the bridge).

[1] Up until the romantic period, violins and violas were played sitting lower down on the neck rather than clamped under the chin. See this contemporary illustration of Mozart playing for example https://baroquebows.com/wp-content/uploads/Mozart.jpg - no chin rest.

I wonder if the touch points of the old violin were modern — I.e new bow, new chin rest, strings. Really would just leave the thumb the the fretting hand on the old surface.

Note, am not an actual violin player. But can speak to the sax example, you’re hands are all over the keys, so a VI feels very diff from a VII or series III

Actually, the fingerboard is often replaced, or re-planed, too. The necks on almost all Stradivarius violins are also modified. It's a highly modular instrument, and almost everything can be replaced. The only "irreplaceable" part is the body.

I believe one method is to dab the chin rest with a drop of perfume to mask the scent of the violin.

Strads are all significantly restored by generations of luthiers. New violins (high end) are usually well-rested when it gets to player’s hands.

Unless the old violin has been through some atrocities, like a smoker owner, they won’t smell or touch much differently.

There has been several studies over the years confirming the same result: The best modern violins are equal or better than Strads.

Is there anything the ancients did, technology wise, better than us? We are better. Lostech isn’t real.

Roman concrete would be a strong contender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

That stuff is clearly better than our modern concrete.

In theory one could replicate that material but nobody does, hence our crumbling bridges.

We don't use it because it would be expensive to make, and modern concrete is stronger (by as much as 5 times stronger!)

One of the reasons modern concrete fails is because steel reenforcement, as it corrodes and expands inside structures. Ancient buildings such as the Pantheon rely on compressive strength for support, so they last much longer. We could build building in this way, but it uses a lot of material and would be prohibitively expensive; especially since most building are not long term investments.

A friend of mine surprised me with this example. Recreated in modern times, but not to the same quality and craftsmanship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_Cup

Enjoyable example for sure. I’ll add it to my list.

That’s probably not an answerable question, much like “tell me something you’ve forgotten”.

A fair point. But assuming Lostech exists then we would expect some number of impressive examples to be discovered. We might, for instance, find a device that we can then build off of or which is superior in functionality to our present devices for the purpose.

The pre-dynastic Egyptians made tens of thousands of stone dishes by a process we don't understand, that still exist.

They cut corundum -- matrix sapphire -- like butter.

Apparently by the time of the pyramids the secret was lost.

> The first listener test took place in Vincennes, a suburb of Paris.

Where ? On the street ? In a concert hall ? In a house ? The acoustics of the place matters.

I would like to know who made N5

Reply on news.ycombinator.com