Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveC
I think the Stradivarius Trial highlights one of the dangers of science. Can you imagine the headlines; 'Scientist Proves that Stradivarius Violins are Superior to Modern Counterparts' ......not exactly compelling reading. The opposite however stands 300 years of expert opinion on its head by supposedly proving that there's actually nothing really special with these 300year old Cremona masterpieces and that its all hype. Now there's a headline....
|
There's countless examples of 300 years of expert opinion being proven wrong. It might have even been true back then; perhaps these master craftsmen made violins which shat all over other violins of the time.
I find it difficult to believe that violin makers of the past just lucked upon some perfect, unreproducable combination of wood grain, humidity and shape. And I find it even more difficult to believe that modern makers are unable to reproduce an equal or better product. The burden of proof is surely on those who believe a Stradivarius sounds better to prove it conclusively; until then it's just supposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveC
So you take a violin renowned for its ability to energise large reverberant spaces and make them 'sing' and test it in a small over damped room, with enough absorbent material to suck the life out of any frequency above 400hz (most violin fundamentals and all the harmonics). Its no wonder it did not distinguish itself; how could it when the room is removing the very thing that differentiates it....namely its reverberant qualities?
|
Or maybe violinists who are aware that they're playing a hideously expensive instrument try harder, and therefore play it better.
Nonetheless you pose an interesting hypothesis, someone should test it.