2012 - The Paris Double-Blind Violin Experiment 

I have a big problem with this assumption that Amati, Stradivarius, Guarneri all have better sounds than modern instruments. All these makers come from the Baroque period where the violin was played quite differently. All baroque violins today are already modified. Here is the list. 1. Held differently 2. Tuned differently 3. Different length of neck with different angle. 5. We use far greater string pressure. 5. Different Bass bar. (This is usually due to all the above factors), (Changing the Bass bar sometimes means retuning the plates, which means there has been modifications to the thickness of them). 6. We use different Bows, (and better). Tourte invented these in about 1785. This means that the instruments featured in this documentary were designed for an entirely different use and sound and any credit to their tone etc is purely random. They never made the sounds required for todays admiration and therefore looking for a designed sound by a maker who never heard or experienced what we expect from a violinist today, is purely a wild goose chase in my opinion. Below are some references which may be of interest. At the beginning of the 18th century, at the very height of the Baroque period, the demands on musicians began to change. As music became more of a public event, the performance spaces grew larger, along with the size of the orchestra. The repertory, too, began to include concertos. And then, as the Classical style began to emerge, the balance of the orchestra began to change, with an increased emphasis on brass. (stringsmagazine.com/the-role-and-romance-of-the-bass-bar/) Baroque 415 Hz 1600 - 1750 17th and 18th centuries. They favored a standard pitch of about 422-423 Hz. Current 440 Jambe de Fer (Lyons, 1556) “ ...it is supported by the arm” Praetorius (Wolfenbüttel, 1614/20) “...it is held on the arm” Prinner (Salzburg, 1677) “... the violin must be held firmly with the chin” Falck (Nürnberg, 1688) “Place the violin below the left breast, the instrument should lean a little downward towards the right.” Merck (Augsburg, 1695) “One should hold the violin nicely straight under the left breast, leaving the arm free, not resting against the body/belly” Speer (Ulm, 1697) “The remainder, how one holds the violin correctly in the hand, rests it on the breast, leads the bow ... that a trusted teacher must show his student” Playford (London, 1667)“... the lower part of the violin must be rested on the left breast a little below the shoulder” Matteis, according to Roger North 1670's “... rested his instrument against his short ribbs” Lenton (London,1693) “... as I would have none get the habit of holding an Instrument under the Chin, so I would have them avoid placing it as low as the Girdle” Monteclair (Paris, 1711/12) “To hold the violin securely, the tail-piece is placed against the neck just under the left cheek.” Corette (Paris, 1738) “... he must place his chin on the violin” Crome (London, 1740) “let the back part rest on your left Breast. The best way is to stay it with your Chin” Francesco Geminiani (London, 1751) “The violin must be rested just below the Collar-bone, turning the right-hand Side of the Violin a little downwards” Leopold Mozart (Augsburg, 1756) “The violin is placed against the neck so that it lies somewhat in front of the shoulder and the side on which the e-string lies comes under the chin, whereby the violin remains unmoved in its place even during the strongest movements of the ascending and descending hand.” Herrando (Paris 1756) “The tailpiece must come under the chin, being held by it there, turning the head slightly to the right.” L'Abbé le fils (Paris, 1761) “The violin should be placed on the collar-bone in such a way that the chin rests on the side of the fourth string” (www.baroque-violin.info/vhold1.html) It's hard to imagine an instrument as staid as the violin going through any evolutionary changes. Most of our modern violins are so standardized that if the string length is off by just a couple of millimeters, an experienced player will notice it. But early violins were not made to such standardized measurements. And one huge change that happened in the early 1800s is that the length of neck (and thus the string length) became longer! Almost no violins made before about 1830 retain their original necks. That includes Stradivaris, Guarneris, and Amatis. (blog.feinviolins.com/2015/06/your-violin-neck-used-to-be-shorter.html) The original violins built by Stradivari and Amati lacked the kind of string pressure that is standard in violins today. This is due to the lengthening and deepening of the bass bar, its design evolving in the 18th Century. At that time, the tension of the violin’s strings was about equal to a weight of 63 pounds, while nowadays the tension is equivalent to more than 80 pounds. Consequently, bass bars on older instruments have been replaced, as modern violinmakers can now construct bass bars at the same quality as the original masters. (go2article.com/article/violin-bass-bar/) The procedure outlined here is the same as that to which most classic period instruments were subjected in the 19th century when the broad, low angled baroque necks were replaced with modern necks. The scroll, which must be preserved as part of the original instrument, is grafted onto a block of wood which will be used to form the new neck. (www.andrewcarruthers.com/replacing-a-violin-neck/) We use Toute Bows nowadays which requires a different technique, gives a better sound and enables more string pressure if needed. The virtuoso Viotti made a sensation playing his Stradivari violin and turned to Tourte to design a bow which could bring out all the violin's interpretive powers as well as its sheer projection in large halls. (ervinviolins.com/tourte_bows.shtml)

What was the end result? What conclusion did they come up with?

After this documentery I am asking myself why I was not given the possibility to judge myself and why I was not given the result.

Absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for doing such rigorous research in the name of music! Looking forward to reading your findings.

Here are the results : www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Vincennes/FritzEtAl_PNAS_public.pdf

26:33 Pretty much sums it all up.

i would have appreciated that this video could have been more fast paced, and with a better and clear presentation on what the results were, and the process to be told more clearly.

I wish I knew those new violin names especially the N5.

Trips and falls and destroys all the violins while blind.

This proves that the violins produced by the old masters ARE different -- they're old.

The outcome is rather logic. A good violin is good, irrespective of its age. Age does not make a violin good by itself. Craftsmanship and the right material is what makes a violin good. The art of violinbuilding did not go lost with the death of Stradivari and Guarneri. But as to the test: Every violin needs its own set up. Were the violins all individually prepared to get their best sound out or did they all get the same Dominants and the same brand of rosin and the same bow? I was just wondering about that variable.

Who made the Violin no. 5?

Thanks for publishing this and I can't wait to see the full documentary. I would someday like to see blind tests w/ cheaper end models against the so called elite models as well. The rest of us Joe schmoes will never be able to afford any of the violins tested so the relevance here only applies to a few. The reality is that a cheap violin can sound just as good as a million dollar violin. It may hurt the pride of those that dream of having a strad or equivalent but unfortunately it's the truth. I've seen it in guitars as well. I've heard $5K acoustic guitars that don't sound nearly as well as $299 ones.

The guy at the end of the video is right. How would those new violins sound when they reach their 300th year or less? Is it something that has to be re-researched for another 300 years?

Before I saw the whole video, I liked the #5, which I assume is N5, of which Elmar said "feels a little bit like a Guadagnini." Of course, I don't know how it feels but I liked how it sounded. Then the woman wanted to buy that one. I feel a little bad for the makers, that one of them doesn't know their violin was the favorite of the bunch, although maybe they know the sound of it well enough to know. I read the paper online. Someone below gave the link. Thanks. It seems like a great test, except for one thing. It seems like a lot would hinge on the quality of the Strad selected. I assume the modern makers are submitting their very best work, whereas would this Strad -- the highest ranking old violin -- rank in the top 100 Strads in the world or lower. I'm sure they went out of their way to get the best they could find, but what did they end up with. It would be nice to know it was considered to be one of the great ones. Like Elmar said, there's plenty of old instruments that are not that great. Now, if I could just find one that sounds like N5, is made in China, and costs less than $1000.

What's the difference? Probably the tone of the wood. It's possible to make the same instruments from the same wood and still have variations.

top notch violinists are like top notch racing drivers. They race what they brung. In other words it is the mechanic or luthier who determines which machine performs better...

The odds for the NEW violin makers who made these to have their own secrets and for those secrets to be lost due to business/greed is >0.

How are they going to see the fingerboard tape with those glasses on?

The one variable that of course that we will never be able to test is whether or not a "New" violin made by long gone master maker would sound in relationship to other new violins. Treated delicately or not, a 300 year old instrument is going to face some factors that any new instrument is not. A 300 year old instrument may react very differently to vibration than it did when it was 20 years old. We'll never be able to compare a new Strad to other new Violins and because of that, we'll never know if there is perhaps an aging factor that has led to some of these results. One could assert that a a Strad made today might sound way better than other contemporary instruments; that the reason these test results are ambiguous is that time has resulted in some degradation of performance whether that be slight or more significant. And lastly, there is truth to the notion that no two instruments are created equal. Wood from a different tree, construction done at different times of the year with different weather factors, the age and health of the maker at the time of construction and a myriad of other factors can all result in instruments from the same maker being vastly different in terms of performance. I am glad that in fact the results suggest that new instruments can hold their own with these other pieces of living history. If it were not so, we would be condemmed to an ever decreasing pool of superior instruments because no matter how well treated an object is, one can't assume that it will last forever. Will these older instruments still be playable when they are 1000 years old? I don't know. The suggestion that newer instruments can compete well against them means that we will continue to enjoy wonderful sounding instruments as long as we are able to make and play them.

I liked N5.

MUST BE NOTED: These are not regular new violins. These are truly masterfully built violins, by builders who study the classic violins and make copies of them by hand, just like Stradivari and Guarneri. They are like apprentices who have learned from these older builders and recreating them to the level that the finest of violinist have a hard time distinguishing. This test doesn't show how wrong the violinist is, but how incredible "some" modern builders are. VALUE: The old ones are the originals and the modern ones are "replicas". There are only 500 Stradivari and 150 Guarneri violins left and an ocean of replicas. Which Mona Lisa would you rather own, indistinguishable copy? If someone finds a copy of a Da Vinci that's more valuable, it won't hurt the value or attraction of the original.

There is one final layer of testing that should have been done here... The Strad-Placebo: Tell the audience that they're listening to a Strad, and then see how it impacts their rating. I expect that the violinist could play a $60 Amazon Prime special, and it would unanimously get rated over an actual Strad that the audience was told was a 1980 violin. I suggest Round 3 to let "experts" know exactly how pretentious they have been for all these decades. For this 2012 test, my own analysis takes all of 30 seconds: The very fact that no one was sure which was which, or if they thought they were sure, they weren't right says that there is absolutely no way to justify the cost of a Strad based on sound quality. If you shell out 1000 times more money with the intent of buying an instrument that sounds better, it should be absolutely obvious that it is better. No one gets behind the wheel of a Honda Accord and thinks that they're driving a Lambo. This is clearly _not_ the situation when it comes to violins.

It look like one of the people running test at one point moved a bridge after one test.

Great movie, very interesting! Is the paper published already? If not, when will we know the outcome of this study??

they all say i dont know and im not sure. how can this be really accurate on the time that its your turn to choose. they all sound close to each other. note projection from these violins varies in each stroke.

Fascinating experiment! Thank you for making this available to us all. Also, can anyone tell me the name of the piece being performed at 25:30? It's beautiful!

The guy got it right when he stated the bleeding obvious, "it's either a terrific sounding fiddle or it's not a terrific sounding fiddle!" As a guitarist I've played the 'great names' - most of which were ok - but have picked up a couple of unknown instruments which are, to my feel and ear, near perfect. Instruments are in a way like actors - the big names are not necessarily the best actors - just the luckiest in terms of celebrity. The truly great actor might belong to some amateur outfit at the back of beyond and live and die unknown to all but a few other Thespians. Fiddles are screechy instruments just as trombones are farty instruments - I think both are an acquired taste - played badly or well.

Very interesting

I feel that this double blind experiment had a few major limitations -- with very good violins, there is a learning curve involved and players would need time to adapt their technique to a different instrument. The type of strings used and the amount of wear on them, the bow, player comfort, the acoustics of the hall, all these become huge variables - what if one violin was set up for gut and another with a synthetic? Strads and Guarnerius handle very differently and moderns are comparatively easy to play on and bring out the sound. The best moderns may in fact be better than several of the Strads or Guarneris and over time, with more and more players playing on them, may be right up there with the best of 'em -- in general a violin sound gets better and better the more it's played on. The sound under the ear is also very different from the sound heard by the audience. Even for violins with very a individual sound, it still depends much more on the player and their idea of the sound. But I think this is the best that anyone can do to test so many violins.

Anyone know the song at 4:24? I have been searching for that for a long time.

Just as in wine tasting and in many other aspects of human selection.

so where are the results?

Can any of the producers please give the name of the soloist playing the Sibelius at the end of the video?

I would love to hear ANY of these instruments compared against the Recamier once played by Mischa Elman and now played by Shoji Sayaka.

Where are the results?

what is the piece at 25:30? thanks

Great video ! A brain game !

so can we hear the test?

Fiddlershop/Fiddlerman shared a link regarding this study. And yes, for how many years it not impossible for improvement, the only problem is luthiers keep it secret.

I knew it!

Does anyone know what the name of the solo is starting at 25:30 is?

What you feel(like) is more prevalent to what is "best". I know musicians who are attached to their instruments because of the flaw they have and time they spend to learn it. On the other hand you like some Queen tune, next day Sonic youth sounds great. Giving random people random instruments proves nothing or very little.

Problem is - not *all* Strads sound great. Some better than others. So of course the question "which is old and which not" makes no sense, is impossible with all the variables involved. But what the players did do, as a group, is discern which fiddles were good, and which were not so good. Also, it's important not to overstate a test like this ability to actual find a correct result. Without even going into the hundreds of variables, we can't be sure this experiment is a sure way to know the answer to such subjective questions.

I heard that there was one violinist that spotted 100 percent right if it was old or new. Interested to know about that fact

The violin at 5:15 is incredible? Is that strad/guarneri or modern?

1. Did all the violins had the same kind of strings? 2. Were the forms - soundboxes of newly made violins a replica of Strad or were new designs? If new made violins soundboxes are replica of Strad proportions then we are all used to hearing a Strad sound out of a violin and this is the sound we expect to hear from a violin. 3. I would love to see a test comparing the same soundboxes design of old and new violins made by top luthier. Get 2 Strad violins that have superb sound and replicate them with the use of acoustics metrics equipment. Draw the equal frequencies curves in the boards. Get the acoustic finger print of the original model then try to replicate that in the new designs. Then do the blind test again.

where can i find the full documentary???

and...

I have always favored modern instruments over old. Old violins are way over-valued, as far as practicality goes. Old fiddles are antiques and collectibles. Modern violins SOUND as good as (if not better than) any Strad or Guarneri or Guadagnini, etc. Check out the stories on the fakes sold by Dietmar Machold - he fooled the experts. So did Vuillaume and many others.

Anyone know the name of the piece played at 25:30?

What violins were used in this test? Anyone know?

What they didn't realize is that violin is valued by the story behind it. The beauty of the music that violin can create underpins more the value of the violin & the story. It's not merely the sound it produce but it's the story behind. This is from psychology point of view

Old violins smell old...just saying.

LOL

See Strad Style today!!! www.stradstyle.com

Bathos

There is another variable when you test a violin. THE STICK ! (If you have a $20.00 bow hit a Stradivarius.. the result will be.. LESS THAN WORLD CLASS. If you have a fine 19th Century $15000+ bow .. The performance of the violin has only one other variable... THE SKILL OF THE PLAYER. If you are going to make a study of; ANY GIVEN OBJECT, anything that is in contact MUST be the same. ( Sick & Fiddler MUST be the same. Same tune as well.)