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

Cirrus

Monquioxote says;

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

imalone says;

'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.'

Theotherdennis says;

'I think personally that the real answer lies somewhere in between - the original conclusions failed to take into account room acoustics and thus should have been tried under identical methodology in a range of rooms; having said that, the methodology and evaluation of the results were perfectly valid, so it's not flawed for the lack of different rooms, merely incomplete.'

Mellowsun says:

'I think the point about the room is important.

My Lowden sounds amazing in a spacious room. In a tiny boxroom, I prefer the sound of my cheap parlour.

Equally, some guitars that sound great solo don't record too well or are hard to fit into a mix.

So I can imagine that a resonant, 300 year old violin might not sound at its best in a hotel room, but a less resonant instrument might fit the acoustics better.'

So I think I have been challenged, and explained why I think it the room acoustics matter, and I got some replies that suggest others understood my point even if they don't agree with it.

Sorry for the lack of quotes... forum software didn't like them!

Skipped

From the link below:

Frank Almond, the concertmaster of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra said in an email that the study could not account for the months it often takes for violinists and instruments to acclimate to each other. "My experience is that if one of these esteemed soloists were given perhaps two months to compare a ‘new’ instrument to (for example) a great Strad or del Gesù under a variety of conditions, I don’t believe there would be much of a discussion."

Earl Carlyss, a longtime member of the Juilliard String Quartet said “I don’t know any great soloist who has a Strad or Guarneri who is trading it in for a new instrument.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-tell.html?ref=science?src=dayp&_r=0

Drew_TNBD

@Cirrus, you'd have a point except for one fact - they compared both instruments in the SAME room. So they DID take room acoustics into account. Just because it was a small room does not negate their results. If they'd done them in two different rooms, and not like-for-like, then you'd have a point.

The fact that smaller rooms have different acoustical properties than larger rooms and halls makes no difference. Because they were not testing the sound of the room. They were testing the sound of two instruments. You're answering a completely different question than the one they set out to answer.

I don't dispute *any* of what you've quoted. Most of it is right on point when it comes to acoustical analysis of rooms.

But I do question the relevancy though. Because again... that isn't what they were testing for. They could've done it in a coffin, a cardboard box, a train tunnel, on top of a mountain, or sitting astride a pony. It still would not have any relevancy to their hypothesis.

And the fact that nobody made this point previously is gobsmacking to me.

ICBM

The room does have a bearing because it's possible that if the room acoustics are different enough, the instrument that sounds better in one might sound worse in the other. So comparing two instruments in the same room proves nothing, if it's not the right room.. ie the type of room in which the instrument will be used properly.

It didn't happen here - at least not overall, although it did change the order of preference for some of them - but you can't say that results you found in one room are necessarily valid for another, very different one. And that's even leaving the question of a 'mix' of other instruments out of it, which could have a big impact as well. (And which they did then allow the players to try too, which makes the results even more valid.)

You *are* testing the sound of the room whenever you listen to an instrument. If you think the room makes no difference to the sound of an instrument, see if you can get access to an anechoic chamber and listen to the sound of your own voice.

Playing violins in a hotel room tells you which sounds better in a hotel room. It doesn't tell you for sure which will sound better with an orchestra, even if it might give you an idea.

Drew_TNBD

I am NOT saying the room makes no difference.

If you want to isolate the properties of acoustic instruments for analysis, you need a room that is going to influence the sound as little as possible. Which is what they did.

I agree that you cannot say results for one room are valid for another. I also agree that one instrument might sound better in one room, and the other might sound better in another room.

But again - they were not testing the room.

Anechoic chambers are scary. I've been in one and it's not nice. lol.

ToneControl

Drew_fx said:

@Cirrus, you'd have a point except for one fact - they compared both instruments in the SAME room. So they DID take room acoustics into account. Just because it was a small room does not negate their results. If they'd done them in two different rooms, and not like-for-like, then you'd have a point.

The fact that smaller rooms have different acoustical properties than larger rooms and halls makes no difference. Because they were not testing the sound of the room. They were testing the sound of two instruments. You're answering a completely different question than the one they set out to answer.

I don't dispute *any* of what you've quoted. Most of it is right on point when it comes to acoustical analysis of rooms.

But I do question the relevancy though. Because again... that isn't what they were testing for. They could've done it in a coffin, a cardboard box, a train tunnel, on top of a mountain, or sitting astride a pony. It still would not have any relevancy to their hypothesis.

And the fact that nobody made this point previously is gobsmacking to me.

take heart, I moaned about it:  it's aperfectly valid test

I said:

This was a playing test, not a listening test.

These were experienced players, PLAYING the instruments in an intentionally dry room so that they could experience who they feel and sound to the player, not the audience. A violin player hears a violin from 2 inches away, not from 100 yards away, so a smaller room is OK if it has few reflections

This is how science is conducted, a controlled experiment, with an intended set of variables to be tested to validate or confirm a hypothesis

and from the article:

"Most violinists prefer to try out violins in a room with relatively dry acoustics, where the direct sound from the instrument is not so much colored by room reflections. Sessions were therefore conducted in a hotel room whose acoustics seemed well-suited to the task. We are aware that room acoustics may influence a player’s preference for one instrument or another. However, that is a separate question not covered in this study."

ToneControl

anechoic chambers are scary as hell

imalone

Drew_fx said:

@Cirrus, you'd have a point except for one fact - they compared both instruments in the SAME room. So they DID take room acoustics into account. Just because it was a small room does not negate their results. If they'd done them in two different rooms, and not like-for-like, then you'd have a point.

The fact that smaller rooms have different acoustical properties than larger rooms and halls makes no difference. Because they were not testing the sound of the room. They were testing the sound of two instruments. You're answering a completely different question than the one they set out to answer.

I don't dispute *any* of what you've quoted. Most of it is right on point when it comes to acoustical analysis of rooms.

But I do question the relevancy though. Because again... that isn't what they were testing for. They could've done it in a coffin, a cardboard box, a train tunnel, on top of a mountain, or sitting astride a pony. It still would not have any relevancy to their hypothesis.

And the fact that nobody made this point previously is gobsmacking to me.

It didn't seem worth challenging because you do not hear the sound without the room. If it had been an anechoic chamber okay, but in a cardboard box (unless it's a really big cardboard box) there's going to be a difference in the sound you hear. And if you're hearing something different that might make a difference to your preferences. So why bother challenging that when you basically have to come up with your own unsubstantiated hypothesis to do so?

Drew_TNBD

The fact it is the SAME room negates any differences the room might make. It puts it ALL on the instruments. Why is that so hard to understand??? If it's incorrect, prove it!! But from where I am sitting it seems like standard scientific method.

The test is valid for THAT room. Do it in another room, that test will be valid for THAT room, but not the former. Standard stuff.

imalone

Drew_fx said:

The fact it is the SAME room negates any differences the room might make. It puts it ALL on the instruments. Why is that so hard to understand??? If it's incorrect, prove it!! But from where I am sitting it seems like standard scientific method.

The test is valid for THAT room. Do it in another room, that test will be valid for THAT room, but not the former. Standard stuff.

It's not hard to understand, but the point was that the test might not be transferable to actual concert use. And whether that's correct or not it's the point that had to be addressed, since it's a common claim that they perform better in concert than other instruments. Same as showing that bleach kills cancer cells, great, but not very useful.

ICBM

Drew_fx said:

The fact it is the SAME room negates any differences the room might make.

No, it doesn't. Quite the opposite - unless you use more than one room, you have no idea how *much* difference the room makes, which is then an unknown variable and hence prevents you drawing any clear conclusion from the experiment.

You need to control the conditions so that only one variable is being tested at once. That is standard scientific method.

Drew_fx said:

The test is valid for THAT room. Do it in another room, that test will be valid for THAT room, but not the former.

Exactly! And if the results are very different, you know the difference is more to do with the room than the instrument. If not, you know it's mostly the instrument.

(Which it did turn out to be.) But you cannot tell which it is until you test in more than one room, unless the first room is an anechoic chamber. Since you've been in one, you will know just how much reverb an apparently 'dry' normal room has... a lot!

Cirrus

 I don't quite get what direction Drew's actually coming from.

Ok, they're all in the same room so it's a valid test of the differences between instruments in that room. On this, we all agree. Within the limits of the experiment, the result is valid.

The thing I've been saying all along is it's also potentially pointless knowledge, because the instruments need to sound good, and are designed to be used in anger, in a totally different environment, and often as part of a much more complex ensemble. And anyone who's ever mixed will know that due to psychoacoustics and physics, to sound good in alongside other parts an instrument often has to have a tone that sounds a bit funky solo'd.

Anyone who's ever recorded or played live will also know the chasm of experience between judging a sound you're playing, and judging a sound you're passively listening to. I know when I record others, the opinion of the player about their own take is often the last opinion I trust because it's incredibly difficult to stand back and judge your own playing objectively.

Based on this line of reasoning, I came to the belief that the experiment, while well defined and perfectly valid in its own limited scope, missed the much bigger picture which is that the instruments are designed to please audiences in concert halls alongside other orchestral instruments. Not the player in a small hotel room. Hence the thread title, which I admit has polarised the issue more than I think is warranted. I was going for an attention grabbing headline.  )

So I take your point, the fact it's in the same room does act as a control so the instruments are being properly judged relative to each other. But I think there's a lot more to the picture, and I'm glad they re-did the experiment in contexts more closely approaching the actual usage of the instruments.

Branshen

I had 2p, but decided to give it to some homeless guy instead. LOLs all round to lighten up this thread.

not_the_dj

Cirrus said:

 I don't quite get what direction Drew's actually coming from.

 

He's looking for room 12a

PolarityMan

ToneControl said:

anechoic chambers are scary as hell

There's nothing to be afraid of, they're just a myth.

Drew_TNBD

Cirrus said:

 I don't quite get what direction Drew's actually coming from.

So I take your point, the fact it's in the same room does act as a control so the instruments are being properly judged relative to each other.

Yes. You do get where I am coming from.

ToneControl

So - did we conclude that the scientific approach was not totally wrong?

It seems these ancient violins should be put in bank vaults and museums, and we should allow players to shine without having to fight to get the loan of a multi-million pound antique from a patron in order to boost their status & reputation

No one likes them in a dry room, and no one even likes them in concert halls, which contradicts the BS snake oil consensus group think

ICBM

I just want to know what the old instrument 'O12' was - since it's clearly a total dog, it was universally rejected in both tests - in case I accidentally buy at auction it for one of my kids. (Violin and viola players.)

imalone

ToneControl said:

It seems these ancient violins should be put in bank vaults and museums, and we should allow players to shine without having to fight to get the loan of a multi-million pound antique from a patron in order to boost their status & reputation

No one likes them in a dry room, and no one even likes them in concert halls, which contradicts the BS snake oil consensus group think

Not so much no-one likes them as very good modern violins were preferred.

ICBM said:

I just want to know what the old instrument 'O12' was - since it's clearly a total dog, it was universally rejected in both tests - in case I accidentally buy at auction it for one of my kids. (Violin and viola players.)

It's unlikely you'll find out, I can probably post this much without problems:

Test Instruments
A pool of 15 new and 9 Old Italian violins was assembled by the authors. The new violins (none of which were used in the Indianapolis experiment) were built by professional makers in Europe and North America and were between several days and two decades old. Makers were invited to submit only instruments that were “ antiqued ” (i.e., made to resemble old instruments). The makers agreed not to publicize their involvement in the experiment and were aware they would never know whether their instrument had been included in the set of 12 test violins. Old violins in the pool included 2 by Guarneri del Gesu (both made after 1740), 6 by Stradivari, and 1 by another well-known 18th century Italian master. None of these violins belonged to or were played by the invited soloists. All were loaned on condition that their identity remain confidential (thus, the very general descriptions used throughout this paper). It was assumed that the parties who loaned instruments had an interest in them sounding their best and so had them set up and adjusted accordingly. All violins were therefore kept in the exact condition in which they were received. This condition was monitored throughout the study by separate “guardians”— J.C. for new violins and T.G. for old. Other than a slight buzz that developed with one of the new instruments and the replacement of a reportedly uncomfortable chinrest on one old violin, none of the instruments presented problems, nor did any soloists report difficulties with setup or adjustment. Six old and 6 new violins were selected from the pool by means of informal blind tests designed to eliminate instruments with the least impressive playing qualities. Just which instruments were included in the final 12 was not revealed to the makers, dealers, collectors, and players who submitted them.

ICBM

I can totally understand that. After all, who would want to find out that the Stradivari they've paid a couple of million dollars for was in fact O12? Or risk having that known if they ever want to sell it...

But I was joking really, it's almost certainly not a dog at all by normal standards.

And keeping them completely unidentified other than as old and new is the best way to make the test result meaningful too.