Fungus-treated Violin Outdoes Stradivarius | Hacker News Reader

Fungus-treated Violin Outdoes Stradivarius

sciencedaily.com

67 pointsdimas22 comments

Fungus is the new computer. There's nothing like that feeling a beginning programmer has when he realizes that he can give the computer a few simple instructions and, in a matter of seconds, the computer does something that would take thousands of man-years of manual computation.

This is why biotech is such an interesting field. If we can give fungi and bacteria simple instructions and let them execute those instructions in massively parallel fashion, we can accomplish amazing feats.

I don't really see the link with computing here. The fungi changed the cell structure of the wood, chemistry and woodworking on a microscopic scale.

Which is in-line with its purpose: (in this case) the cellular digestion of waste wood. Given enough time, the fungus would have consumed all the wood, rather than die off like a scientist would prefer to program it to do.

There is no link with computing as in running a program. The link is the perception changing technology that lets us accomplish previously difficult tasks in a simple manner.

what you mean is that nature is interesting. here's a clip to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhh32JYkQPk

Worth noting that this was only a single-blind test, with a sample size of 1 violinist.

There were 5 violins, 2 of which were fungus violins, one of those in particular received a staggering 60% of the votes. Not sure what the best conclusion to draw is but it's certainly believable that one day you'll be able to get a cheap violin with incredible tone quality.

But it's quite plausible that the performer played slightly differently on the various violins. A more robust test would include several performers, playing the different violins in arbitrary order, to rotating groups of listeners.

That would introduce more extraneous variables. Do you think that different violinists might suit different violins better to an extent that overrides that additional noise?

I assure that you that short of molecular self-assemblers, these fungus treated violins are not going to be cheap. They will cost well above the average for a new violin, but much, much less than a violin from a classic master.

Demand will probably lower the cost of price due to competition and the related support of research. While demand for cheap violins might be low, the demand for cheap "x made better by fungus" will probably be pretty high, and violins will peripherally benefit.

True, but no-one is making Stradivariuses these days.

Stradivarii ? :)

I still think it's interesting that, even though the violinist knew which violin he was playing, the audience liked him playing the Opus 58 violin better than playing his own Stradivarius, which he could have been subconsciously influenced to play better because of its familiarity.

He could have been subconsciously influenced to play the Opus because of its novelty.

Unlikely. Most violinists play their own instrument far and away better than other instruments.

(I come from a family of professional violinists, and very nearly became one myself, so I am at least tangentially qualified to comment on this.)

The difference between one violin and another is very noticeable. The shape of the bridge influences the distance between the strings and the height of the strings over the fingerboard. Violins have idiosyncratic resonances, a very loose sizing standard (my Vuillaume feels much larger than my sister's Mermillot), differing shapes (both subtle and obvious---see "guitar-shaped" Strads, for example), and varied neck angles and thicknesses, to name just a few off the top of my head.

Beyond that, professional violinists practice and play a lot---hours each day. To say that he would be more familiar with his own instrument is a drastic understatement.

On the other hand, none of this is proof that somehow the Opus 58 is better or worse. There are many superb-sounding instruments that are nevertheless not as celebrated or as highly regarded as the Strads and their ilk, and the reasons have little to do with their tonal quality. For example, who wouldn't want to play on the same instrument once owned and played by Paganini?

For that matter, there are many old makers whose violins are considered at or near par with the Strad, e.g., Andrea Amati and Guarneri del Gesu. These instruments share with the Strad a rich back story that no modern instrument, no matter how superb a specimen, can have. In other words, they're not just great instruments, they're literally some of the centerpieces of musical history.

The prices of the Stradivarius violins are as reasonable as the price of Van Goghs and vintage wines. The truth is, Joshua Bell playing a swinette would sound better than me on a Stradivarius.

Since you mentioned Joshua Bell, I'd like to remind people of the previously posted on News.YC Pulitzer-award winning article, "Pearls before Breakfast"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04...

As the article points out, other more mundane violins have done the same thing.

"Identify these sounds" is a fundamentally different exercise to "decide which of these sounds you prefer". And the sample size in that instance was three.

Wait, just by chance it looks like there was a 4/5 chance that the Stradivarius would loose/be outdone.

That's like saying a grandmaster has a 4/5 chance of losing a 5 person chess tournament. The competition must be genuinely good to have a chance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com