|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
88.97.21.18
In Reply to: RE: Is this the Cremonese secret? posted by jec01 on December 21, 2016 at 14:02:19
The abstract of the research notes a chemical difference in the wood used by Stradivari compared to modern tonewoods. However it offers no connection between this and the sound of the violins which, therefore, may or may not have any relationship to this particular difference.
Follow Ups:
This actually is not how science works. The hypothesis needs to be testsed.
I enjoy many of your posts, Scott. But why do you make silly and snarky comments like this? These scientists have observed, or so they say, unusual thermooxidation patterns in maple in Stradivari violins, which were treated with complex mineral preservatives. Later violins do not have these characteristics, or so they say.
That is their factual data. To conclude that these findings reveal the "secret" behind the superiority of Strad violins would be a big leap that these scientists understandably do not make. But the theory that Strad violins are superior because of special treatment of the maple does "predict" their data, and that puts their theory in play as a possibility. There are still competing theories based on other data. Strads were also made with a kind of alpine spruce that is no longer available. The varnish formula Stradivari used is not entirely known.
Competing scientists might find data to shoot their theory down, or data that further supports a competing theory. Or both. And the process continues until one theory beats out the others almost conclusively, though philosophers will say there is no such thing as perfect certainty.
Each time new relevant data is discovered, one or more of the existing hypotheses are tested, or a new one arises. And so it goes.
"I enjoy many of your posts, Scott. But why do you make silly and snarky comments like this?"
My comments are IMO simply accurate. If they come off as snarky I am sorry about that. but they are hardly "silly" as I will demonstrate.
"These scientists have observed, or so they say, unusual thermooxidation patterns in maple in Stradivari violins, which were treated with complex mineral preservatives. Later violins do not have these characteristics, or so they say."
Yes but it was not an arbitrary choice to examine the chemical makeup of the wood of Cremona violins. They were clearly looking for an actual connection between the chemical makeup of the wood of Cremona violins and their famed superior subjective sound qualities. Look at what the article says. "
Violins made by Antonio Stradivari are renowned for having been the preferred instruments of many leading violinists for over two centuries. There have been long-standing questions about whether wood used by Stradivari possessed unique properties compared with modern tonewood for violin making." You do see the connection they are making in their abstract between wood composition and the subjective "prefference" for Cremona violins no? I see it clear as day. So finding a chemical difference between Cremona violins and modern violins tells us nothing other than there is a chemical difference between Cremona violins and modern violins. And clearly that is not an arbitrary curiosity. This is about the alleged unique prefferable sound qualities of Cremona violins. And that is where they totally drop the ball scientifically speaking. They do nothing to test the connection between the unique chemical composition of the Cremona violins and the percieved unique superior sound quality. Given that there is no question that *that* is the point of interest and that *that* is clearly talked about in the abstract I think it is pretty clear that they dropped the ball and failed to test the most important part of the abstract and the real reason anyone would have an interest in the subject at all. That's bad science. All they have really done is *part* of the first step. Gathering *some* data. And as a data gathering investigation I do give them credit for finding some new data. But that's it.
"That is their factual data. To conclude that these findings reveal the "secret" behind the superiority of Strad violins would be a big leap that these scientists understandably do not make."
"But the theory that Strad violins are superior because of special treatment of the maple does "predict" their data, and that puts their theory in play as a possibility."
This is kind of problematic actually. Their "data" is woefully inadequate for it to be "predicted." Sampling three sources of violins for data points hardly does the trick of suggesting a pattern of a correlation between the data and the clear statement in the abstract that this is about the unique preffered sound quality of these particular violins. The fact that they did not find this unique chemical composition in the Cremona cello is kind a huge point too.
"There are still competing theories based on other data. Strads were also made with a kind of alpine spruce that is no longer available. The varnish formula Stradivari used is not entirely known."
Not sure these "theories" really rise to the level of "theory" in the world of science. in fact I am sure they don't. They are hypotheses not theories. And they are all testable hypotheses and that is what is lacking in all of this. Using such woefully limited data points that do not even suggest a pattern is a big issue. They really needed more samples from a broader range of instruments that would better establish patterns between chemical composition and percieved sound quality. It is certainly a valid piece of data that they found unique chemical somposition in the wood of two Cremona violins that they did not find in the modern violins. But this is just a couple data points in what needs to be a substantially larger sampling. Especially in light of the fact that they did not find this same unique chemical composition in the Strad cello which are also very much preffered for their alleged unique sound quality. And then they need to actually start the real work! Testing the hypothesis!
"Competing scientists might find data to shoot their theory down, or data that further supports a competing theory."
They don't have a theory here. They have some long standing anecdotal speculation and a little bit of data. Not nearly enough data to even suggest a correlation. The little bit of data they did gather is great but that's all it is, a little bit of data. Their hypothesis that is at the heart of the interest in these musical instruments was never even remotely put to any test in this study. They don't have a theory yet.
"And the process continues until one theory beats out the others almost conclusively, though philosophers will say there is no such thing as perfect certainty."
Due to the complete absence of actual testing for correlation between data, and in this case quite limited data, and the abstract there are no actual scientific theories even present here. It's the same old speculation and a little bit more physical evidence that could be of use should anyone try to actually test the abstract which does draw a correlation between chemical composition and percieves unique prefferable sound quality of Cremona instruments vs. all other instruments of the same kind.
sorry if my post seemed snarky but what I mostly see here is a complete lack of meaningful testing. All I see is a few *possibly* useful pieces of data. It's great that they are gathering data. I think they need a lot more data on the chemical composition of various string instruments to see if there is any statistically significant correlation between chemical composition of the wood of these instruments and the percieved sound quality of them. As of right now they don't even have that. Not even close. And only until then can they actually test the hypothesis.
Most major advances don't just fall out of trees like Newton's apple. And yes, these findings may not turn out to be very relevant in the end. At least these authors don't make the common mistake of pronouncing grandiose and dramatic conclusions not even remotely supported by their data.
I was playing with a violinist the other day who had a violin that (he said) was a "composite" with a back by Guarneri. It was clearly a good instrument. Or maybe he was just a good player. Or maybe I had too much coffee and was getting too enthusiastic about everything.
I guess I should have listened for the sound of complex mineral preservatives. ;-)
Just about every string instrument musician I know says that it's not as much that the different instruments have better or worse sound as it is easier to get good sound out of a good instrument and harder to get good sound out of an inferior instrument and this affects how they play.
The theory that best explains or is most consistent with the available data wins out. These scientists have found some data that support (or so they claim) a theory of what sets the old Cremonese violins apart. Of course, there are competing theories supported by other data, so it will take a lot more data supporting this particular theory before it wins out over the others, or future theories that may arise.
I've read a number of books and articles about the old Cremonese violins, and I think we're far from a single "eureka" discovery, if there ever is one.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: