New violins beat Stradivarius in blind test

[StumbleFingers]

This is an interesting one for the vintage gear enthusiasts. Original Stradivarius violins are the most prized musical instruments in the world, yet in a blind comparison violinists preferred new violins. This is actually a follow-up to a previous study that had the same results.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... w/7383707/

[MistValkyrie]

wow...very interesting. I've always had a feeling that some violinists would choose an older violin, like a Strad, over a newer one based on status rather than musical aesthetics despite many top end new violins being as structurally impressive as violins hand-made hundreds of years ago. I just chalked it up to my lack of ability to hear the difference for myself and especially to feel the difference in playing (because who would ever let me handle an old violin, let alone play it?) and figured it was like working with a wok or a pizza stone...the age and wear made a difference in the sound. But I guess I was correct in my original hypothesis.
This being a musician's community, I'd be interested to know everyone's opinions on other types of instruments that they've personally played, whether or not they think the age plays a difference, for good or ill, in the tonal qualities of the instrument independent of any monetary value or electronic idiosynchrasies it may otherwise possess?

[bassist_25]

But I guess I was correct in my original hypothesis.
This being a musician's community, I'd be interested to know everyone's opinions on other types of instruments that they've personally played, whether or not they think the age plays a difference, for good or ill, in the tonal qualities of the instrument independent of any monetary value or electronic idiosynchrasies it may otherwise possess?

There is a belief that older wood settles and becomes more "open" the longer it's been played. I have no idea if that's actually true. Even some luthiers have beliefs about things that may not necessarily be based in fact. With that said, one of the best sounding basses I've ever played was a '72 Fender Jazz. It's blown away every modern MIA Fender J that I've touched.

Some of the vintage instrument market is rooted in true mojo. Some of it's rooted in snake oil. A lot of it has nothing to do with working musicians. I watch a lot of Fretted Americana videos with Phil X demoing vintage guitars. Some of them sound absolutely amazing. Some of them sound meh. There are even some that suck so bad that you can tell that Phil doesn't dig 'em.

A lot of the drummers in the national country acts I've opened for have vintage kits with them on the road - old Singerlands and Gretches. I like a good DW or Tama kit as much as the next guy, but those old kits sound out of this world. I know that old Gretch kits are highly coveted by many recording studios.

When it comes down to it, the important thing is finding an instrument that you bond with and helps you make the music you want to make, regardless if it's 30 years old or 3 months old. Even though I own a number of basses, my main player to this day still remains my 2000 Carvin LB75. It doesn't have a lot of vintage snob collector appeal, but it always sounds good, no matter what I play it through; just about every bass player who's tried it digs it, and; sound engineers are always very happy with it. It's reliced - not from the factory, but from being on stage countless times.

And while good gear is important, remember that it's always possible to make the best gear sound like crap, as evidenced by Henry Kaiser playing one of the most coveted guitar amps ever built through (what was at the time) a state of the art effects processor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76nU5Ghq5Wo

[MeYatch]

I doubt there are any instruments that sound good now, that didn't sound good when they were first constructed.

I don't personally believe that they could sound any better now than they ever did, but I don't think anyone could ever prove it.

I had a '78 jazz that sounded good. I don't remember ever weighing it, but I'd say it was at least 13 lbs. I had to sell it, because I couldn't justify holding that thing up, when it was worth so much money, and sounded worse in every way to my '97 jazz (which sound amazing.)

There's a belief some people have that the old stuff was always better. I think its a combination of several factors, none of which is any pseudo-science about wood molecules aligning.

Old recordings really do sound better than newer recordings, because newer recordings use too much compression.

People compare the cream of the crop of recordings from 50 years ago with every recording today. (this is the same reason everyone under the sun thinks music was objectively better)

instruments that sounded like dog shit in 1965 got thrown away, or modded to hell and back. If it sounded good in 1965 people left it alone. Now people think that every instrument made back then was gold, when its really just all (or a high percentage of) the surviving instruments that are high quality.

People think that if something is expensive, its good. People will go to great lengths to justify their expensive purchase. People will actually believe something is better than it is, so they don't feel stupid for spending lots of money on it. (there are real scientific studies on this kind of thing)



I love the looks of a vintage fender bass. Give me a 1966 jazz bass with dots and binding and oval tuners, and I'm sure I'll convince myself it sounds like the best thing under the sun, but I doubt any double blind study would confirm it.