This is a good example of how being scientific about music often makes you totally wrong.

Cirrus · March 2014

I see this kind of thing all the time of forums.

Here we have a study in which it's concluded that a Stradivarius Violin sounds worse that 20 other good, modern violins. It's very well presented, great lengths went into ensuring the experiment was a true double blind test. On the surface it's pretty watertight - the 300 year old violin, worth $10m, was far and a way the least preferred by all the players involved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abstract

Except for one small detail that IMO renders the whole experiement void.

It was done in a small hotel room.

monquixote · March 2014

But being scientific isn't the problem here is it.

Cirrus · March 2014

Let me explain my point further then. Quite often people think they're being scientific, but in doing so miss some massive variables that mean their conclusions are wrong. In this case, they haven't considered that a violin needs to sound good in a concert hall, and also needs to have a tone that fits well with an orchestra, which is a wholly different ball game than sounding pleasing in a little hotel room. In my opinion, they're using the instrument incorrectly.

A common forum example is when people post frequency response plots to try to "prove" that one speaker sounds the same as another - they think that the science is all done for them and they can make safe conclusions, but the resulting graph leaves them blind to so many other variables.

In this case, lay people may read the conclusion and take it at face value. I'm not trying to argue that a 300 YO violin is worth ten million dollars - I'm just saying that it's a good example of how evaluating something like tone using objective means can fall flat on its face.

frankus · March 2014

monquixote said:

But being scientific isn't the problem here is it.

Is it about not having the right mushroom to make yourself smaller and the room relatively bigger?

Cirrus · March 2014

frankus said:
Is it about not having the right mushroom to make yourself smaller and the room relatively bigger?

Imagine the looks on the trustee's faces when you return their Strad to them, shrunk to the size of a matchstick.

)

monquixote · March 2014

I would say it's an example of the scientific method working.

They submit their findings for publication.

You critique their experiment for failing to take into account the properties of the room.

A follow up experiment can be devised to test the impact of the room of the perception of quality of violins (repeat in different rooms and see if the same results are obtained) this may invalidate their previous experiment.

This is a strength of science.

A non scientific approach would be worse because you have no proper methodology to critique you just get "I am an authority on violins and I say Strads are great/shit delete as applicable"

Cirrus · March 2014

monquixote said:

A follow up experiment can be devised to test the impact of the room of the perception of quality of violins (repeat in different rooms and see if the same results are obtained) this may invalidate their previous experiment.

I hope it does, fucking whitecoats lording over everyone.

frankus · March 2014

I hope they do a control experiment in a vacuum too..

guitarfishbay · March 2014

Is it something to do with mids, did the Strad have mids on 10? I bet the modern one had scooped mids which sounds nicer on its own but in a mix it just doesn't cut it because it is all about mids.

guitarfishbay · March 2014

Cirrus said:

A common forum example is when people post frequency response plots to try to "prove" that one speaker sounds the same as another - they think that the science is all done for them and they can make safe conclusions, but the resulting graph leaves them blind to so many other variables.

My favourite graph based fail post on a forum was a guy blaming their 'spike' near 20khz as the reason V30s are so harsh. Wish I could find the thread, think it was TGP

monquixote · March 2014

I think Bucket has a 500 fret guitar that has a spike at 20khz

frankus · March 2014

Bucket has a guitar with just one spike? chinny-reckon.

imalone · March 2014

Cirrus said:

monquixote said:

A follow up experiment can be devised to test the impact of the room of the perception of quality of violins (repeat in different rooms and see if the same results are obtained) this may invalidate their previous experiment.

I hope it does, fucking whitecoats lording over everyone.

Science: here's what we did, here's what we think it means.
Accepted wisdom: here's what you should think.

Lording?

Cirrus · March 2014

Sorry, I don't think I've got your point. Could you be a bit clearer?

mike_l · March 2014

frankus said:

Bucket has a guitar with just one spike? chinny-reckon.

You not heard of the 8000 fret spike guitar? Do keep up Frankus. :P

imalone · March 2014

Cirrus said:

Sorry, I don't think I've got your point. Could you be a bit clearer?

Two points I suppose.
One, telling people what they should think, particularly on the basis everyone should obviously prefer the Stradivarius because it's expensive, comes closer to what I'd think of as "lording it over everyone".
Two, I don't like being referred to as a "fucking whitecoat".
Cheers.

Cirrus · March 2014

Oh my god, you're seriously offended? Were you involved in the study?

$:\$ ">

Sorry man. It was meant in jest. What area of science are you involved in?

I wasn't telling people what to think, and I didn't express an opinion as to which violin is best as I'm not qualified to make any claim there - just pointed out the obvious flaw in the study, which is that room acoustics and context are vital. I tend to take it as said that everything I write is my own opinion, and it's supposed to invite discussion rather than demanding everyone holds my view.

ThePrettyDamned · March 2014

That's as may be, but I think it's fair to say this test is very, very close to being conclusive.

Okay, so they didn't do it in a concert hall. Then again, unless playing a solo piece, it would be mixed in with so much other stuff, surely the sound becomes less relevant? I always say, with guitar, the finer nuances are generally lost in the mix, so I would say it's the same with violins.

And if playing a solo piece, it would be mic'd up - and eq'd. So... That's not strictly just the instrument you're hearing, and acoustic guitarists are always talking about which mic to use, mic placement etc. What PA would be used? What if it's the wrong type of PA for that violin? Who's the sound man, and how does he think it should sound?

I'd say a hotel room is as good a place as any, and the fact that everyone said it was not so great speaks volumes - is it fair to assume these people were professional violin players and, therefore, knew a good sound when they heard it? If they played it in a concert hall, would the argument then be the concert hall didn't flatter that violin, and they should have done it in a whole range of concert halls?

Science like this really needs some element of acceptance because to do all of that would cost stupid money. And people who think Strads must sound better will still think it because there will be, somewhere, a small hole in the experiment. This experiment is as good as there is any point in doing - common sense should prevail in light of the evidence, and others will keep talking about the holes to prove otherwise.

Imagine (shock horror) if instrument building at the top level has improved over the last few hundred years. Who'da thunk it? I think it's fair to say we live in a golden age of music, where a low quality instrument is as good as what used to be mid or top range, and a top range one is incredible, made to exacting standards by people who have been handed down hundreds of years worth of experience.

ThePrettyDamned · March 2014

Here, however, is an example of what you mean.

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

They conclusively, 100% PROVE with science that the tone woods sound different

And yet they say the evidence proves they don't ¬_¬ Never understood this one, but I assume they have no idea how the dB system works. Some frequencies on some strings are 6dB different!

goldtop · March 2014

Cirrus said:

I see this kind of thing all the time of forums.

Here we have a study in which it's concluded that a Stradivarius Violin sounds worse that 20 other good, modern violins. It's very well presented, great lengths went into ensuring the experiment was a true double blind test. On the surface it's pretty watertight - the 300 year old violin, worth $10m, was far and a way the least preferred by all the players involved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abstract

Except for one small detail that IMO renders the whole experiement void.

It was done in a small hotel room.

You make a good point,but out of interest, how do you know they were, as you put it "totally wrong"?

You cannot conclude that, just by identifying a potential problem in the face validity of the test. You can't know that if they did it again in a concert hall with audience they would get different results.

FWIW, I went to a demonstration of Stradivarii and other vintage and some new violins hosted by the curator of the Royal Academy of Music's violin collection, and the Strad was not the favourite of either the concert violinist playing them, not the audience. (Subjective.)

imalone · March 2014

Cirrus said:

Oh my god, you're seriously offended? Were you involved in the study?
$:\$ ">

Sorry man. It was meant in jest. What area of science are you involved in?

I wasn't telling people what to think, and I didn't express an opinion as to which violin is best as I'm not qualified to make any claim there - just pointed out the obvious flaw in the study, which is that room acoustics and context are vital. I tend to take it as said that everything I write is my own opinion, and it's supposed to invite discussion rather than demanding everyone holds my view.

No worries, had left it a while to see if it looked tongue in cheek, but couldn't get it, and you'd be surprised the attitudes some people take. I'm in a completely different area, medical imaging in dementia (mainly MRI).
Agree with the spirit of your thread, people need to be able to look critically at studies.

LastMantra · March 2014

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Cirrus · March 2014

I was quite careful not to express an opinion as to whether Stradivarius violins might be better than a modern violin, so I think it's interesting that some are feeling the need to make the argument that this might not be the case. Nor did I say the conclusion was definitely wrong. Just that I think the lack of awareness about the impact of acoustics and psychoacoustics on the participants perception of what sounds good is enough to make the process of this study (IMO) wrong.

Have any of you heard a violin being practiced up close in a small room? There tends to be a major element of scratchy brightness which isn't much fun to listen to. But you put that same violin in a huge concert hall, sit a few rows back and even as a solo, unmiked performance the sound suddenly makes sense. The scratchy brightness fades with distance and becomes a major component in the expressiveness of the instrument, so in that setting it sounds good.

My contention, hypothesis if you will (so here's where my science comes in!) is that a violin which sounds good to the ear in a small, acoustically dead room may be too mellow in a concert hall to be effective. Whereas a violin that doesn't sound good in a small room may be just right Tonally in a concert hall and also to sit alongside other orchestral instruments better. And that the difference between the two environments might be so profound that even a trained ear wouldn't be able to account for it.

So if the linked experiment was done in a concert hall both with solo pieces and ensemble playing, whatever the conclusion I think it would be more valid.

goldtop · March 2014

Now I'm confused: "may be more valid"; and not "totally wrong" then?

Suppose as a thread title it would have got fewer clicks.

Cirrus · March 2014

Headlines and thread titles are important! "Would" be more valid, not "may". If you're going to mince words don't misquote me. :P

imalone · March 2014

Cirrus said:

I was quite careful not to express an opinion as to whether Stradivarius violins might be better than a modern violin, so I think it's interesting that some are feeling the need to make the argument that this might not be the case. Nor did I say the conclusion was definitely wrong. Just that I think the lack of awareness about the impact of acoustics and psychoacoustics on the participants perception of what sounds good is enough to make the process of this study (IMO) wrong.

Have any of you heard a violin being practiced up close in a small room? There tends to be a major element of scratchy brightness which isn't much fun to listen to. But you put that same violin in a huge concert hall, sit a few rows back and even as a solo, unmiked performance the sound suddenly makes sense. The scratchy brightness fades with distance and becomes a major component in the expressiveness of the instrument, so in that setting it sounds good.

My contention, hypothesis if you will (so here's where my science comes in!) is that a violin which sounds good to the ear in a small, acoustically dead room may be too mellow in a concert hall to be effective. Whereas a violin that doesn't sound good in a small room may be just right Tonally in a concert hall and also to sit alongside other orchestral instruments better. And that the difference between the two environments might be so profound that even a trained ear wouldn't be able to account for it.

So if the linked experiment was done in a concert hall both with solo pieces and ensemble playing, whatever the conclusion I think it would be more valid.

It was a while ago, so can't find it, but radio 4 had an interview with a violinist who has charge of a stradivarius and this is pretty much what she said, she played it and another violin and the other one was less harsh, but in a concert hall she would prefer the stradivarius for its projection. I think there's value in doing things like this to find out why they sound like they do and how we can make better new instruments.

Tunez · March 2014

Cirrus said:

I see this kind of thing all the time of forums.

Here we have a study in which it's concluded that a Stradivarius Violin sounds worse that 20 other good, modern violins. It's very well presented, great lengths went into ensuring the experiment was a true double blind test. On the surface it's pretty watertight - the 300 year old violin, worth $10m, was far and a way the least preferred by all the players involved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109.abstract

Except for one small detail that IMO renders the whole experiement void.

It was done in a small hotel room.

At the risk of 'flogging a dead horse' here, I would like to say that it is wrong of you to suggest that these researchers' scientific method is flawed and conclude that their experiment is "void", at least for the reasons you state.

As a '...fucking whitecoat' myself in a former life, I thought their method was wholly acceptable. Both the parameters and objectives of their study were well defined and clear. Their method was unprejudiced. No unfounded extrapolations of the data were made. The team set out to observe and record perceptions and that's exactly what they did. The researchers did nothing more than report their findings. Whilst they did publish their surprise that the results of their study did not appear to reinforce the popularly accepted hierarchy of instrument quality, they did not suggest that their results were conclusive and nowhere, as no scientist ever would, did they use the 'P' word. Proofs are the property of mathematicians and courts, not natural scientists.

It was a scientifically sound (pardon the pun!) and interesting study. Inevitably in this, or any other field, there is always room for more research.

Cirrus · March 2014

I honestly am shocked that the fucking white coat thing keeps coming back to haunt me. It's such a preposterously un targeted, meaningless and ridiculous insult I thought it would be a chuckle at best or ignored at worst. Next time I'm chatting to my friends who consider themselves scientists I'll avoid calling them fucking white coats, so thread has been informative to me!

Tunez · March 2014

Lol, with the 'whitecoat' thing I was just continuing the 'leg-pulling'. I, for one, don't care about that.

The only thing I think is unfair is the slating of a good and competent bit of research...

Cirrus · March 2014

Well, I've given my reasoning so I think it's fair. And my reasoning is being pulled apart by peer review, which is kind of amusing >:D<

imalone · March 2014

It's not peer review unless there's blood.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

This is a good example of how being scientific about music often makes you totally wrong.

Comments