Content uploaded by Palmer Morrel-Samuels
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Palmer Morrel-Samuels
Content may be subject to copyright.
Player preferences among new and old violins
Claudia Fritz
a,1,2
, Joseph Curtin
b,1
, Jacques Poitevineau
a
, Palmer Morrel-Samuels
c
, and Fan-Chia Tao
d
a
Lutheries-Acoustique-Musique, Institut Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, Unité Mixte de Recherche 7190, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université
Paris 06, 75015 Paris, France;
b
Joseph Curtin Studios, Ann Arbor, MI 48103;
c
University of Michigan and Employee Motivation and Performance Assessment,
Chelsea, MI 48118; and
d
D‘Addario and Company, Farmingdale, NY 11735
Edited by Dale Purves, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, and approved December 5, 2011 (received for review September 12, 2011)
Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri
“del Gesu”are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins
in particular. Many mechanical and acoustical factors have been pro-
posed to account for this superiority; however, the fundamental
premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly investigated.
Player’s judgments about a Stradivari’ssoundmaybebiasedbythe
violin’s extraordinary monetary value and historical importance, but
no studies designed to preclude such biasing factors have yet been
published. We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by
Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments.
The resulting preferences were based on the violinists’individual
experiences of playing the instruments under double-blind condi-
tions in a room with relatively dry acoustics. We found that (i)the
most-preferred violin was new; (ii) the least-preferred was by Stra-
divari; (iii) there was scant correlation between an instrument’sage
and monetary value and its perceived quality; and (iv)mostplayers
seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was
new or old. These results present a striking challenge to conven-
tional wisdom. Differences in taste among individual players, along
with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments,
appear more important than any general differences between new
and old violins. Rather than searching for the “secret”of Stradivari,
future research might best focused on how violinists evaluate
instruments, on which specific playing qualities are most important
to them, and on how these qualities relate to measurable attributes
of the instruments, whether old or new.
tone quality
|
old Italian sound
|
subjective evaluation
|
music
|
perception
Almost all well-known violin soloists since the early 1800s have
chosen to play instruments by Antonio Stradivari or Giuseppe
Guarneri “del Gesu,”the two most celebrated craftsmen of the so-
called Golden Age of violin-making (ca. 1550 to ca. 1750). A long-
standing goal of violin research has been to correlate the playing
qualities of these instruments with specific attributes of their
physical structure and dynamic behavior, and yet “no [objectively
measurable] specification which successfully defines even coarse
divisions in instrument quality is known”(author’s italics) (1). Many
factors have been proposed and/or investigated to account for the
presumed tonal superiority of old Italian violins, including prop-
erties of the varnish (2, 3), effects of the Little Ice Age on violin
wood (4), differences in the relative densities of early- and late-
growth layers in wood (5), chemical treatments of the wood (6, 7),
plate-tuning methods (8), and the spectral balance of the radiated
sound (9–11). However, although correlations between violin
acoustics and perception have been attempted (12), the funda-
mental premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly in-
vestigated. Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu may well be the
greatest violin makersever, but it takes an expert opinion based on
visual and historical (rather than tonal) evidence to say whether a
particular example is genuine. Playing and listening tests never
enter the authentication process, suggesting the difficulty of re-
liably rating playing qualities—and that they may not correlatewell
with an instrument’s age and maker.
Weinreich (1) argues that any experienced player can classify
a violin as a “student,”“decent professional,”or “fine solo”in-
strument; furthermore, “the judgment would not take more than
about 30 s, and the opinions of different violinists would coincide
absolutely.”According to Langhoff (13), “any musician will tell
you immediately whether an instrument he is playing on is an
antique instrument or a modern one.”Neither of these hypo-
thetical statements has been tested, and, apart from recent pre-
liminary results (14), the research literature contains no well-
controlled studies on how violinists rate violins or whether they can
distinguish old Italian violins from old French or new American
violins by their playing qualities alone.
In a recent wine-tasting experiment (15), subjects were given
samples to taste while an MRI machine monitored brain activity. It
was found that increasing the stated price of a wine increased the
level of “flavor pleasantness”reported by subjects; it also increased
activity in an area of the brain believed to encode for “experienced
pleasantness.”Could a violinist’s preference for a Stradivari violin—
and, indeed, the pleasure he or she experiences in playing it—be in
part attributable to an awareness of its multimillion-dollar price tag
and historical importance, both of which may be signaled by its
distinctive appearance? Conversely, could the experience of playing
a new violin be negatively affected by the belief that it is still cen-
turies from tonal maturity? To avoid any such biases, we tested
player preferences under double-blind conditions by using high-
quality new violins together with distinguished “old Italians.”
Materials and Methods
The experiment took advantage of the fine violinists, violin-makers, and violins
gathered in September 2010 for the Eighth InternationalViolin Competition of
Indianapolis (IVCI), one of the most important international violin-playing
competitions. Six instruments were assembled: three new and three old. The
new violins (N1,N2, and N3) were each by a different makerand were between
several days and several years old. They were chosen from a pool of violins
assembled by theauthors, who then selected the three that theyfelt (i) had the
most impressive playing qualities and (ii) contrasted with each other in terms
of character of sound. One was a Stradivari model; two were Guarneri models.
The old violins consisted of one by Guarneri del Gesu (ca. 1740) and two by
Antonio Stradivari (ca. 1700 and ca. 1715). These violins were loaned with the
stipulation that they remain in the condition in which we received them
(precluding any tonal adjustments or even changing the strings) and that their
identities remain confidential (hence the very general descriptions that fol-
low). The earlier Stradivari (O1) was once the principal instrument of a well-
known 20th century violinist and currently belongs to an institution that loans
it to gifted violinists.It came to us from a soloist who had used it for numerous
concerts and several commercial recordings in recentyears. The later Stradivari
(O3) is from the maker’s“Golden Period”and has been used by a number of
well-known violinists for concerts and recordings.The Guarneri del Gesu (O2) is
from the maker’s late period, during which he made some of his most cele-
brated violins. The combined value of the old violins is approximately $10
million—roughly 100 times that of the new violins. Although the instruments
were not all set up with the same strings, all had the very typical combination
of a steel E with metal-wound, synthetic-core strings for the rest. All strings
appeared to be in good condition.
Author contributions: C.F., J.C., P.M.-S., and F.-C.T. designed research; C.F., J.C., and F.-C.T.
performed research; C.F., J.C., and J.P. analyzed data; and C.F., J.C., and J.P. wrote
the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
1
C.F. and J.C. contributed equally to this work.
2
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: claudia.fritz@upmc.fr.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
1073/pnas.1114999109/-/DCSupplemental.
760–763
|
PNAS
|
January 17, 2012
|
vol. 109
|
no. 3 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114999109
Numbers of subjects and instruments were small because it is difficult to
persuade theowners of fragile, enormously valuableold violins to release them
for extended periods into the hands of blindfolded strangers. Many of the 21
subjects were involved with the IVCI as contestants(four), jury members (two),
or members of the Indianapolis Symphony. Nineteen subjects described
themselves as professionals, 10 had advanced degrees in music, and 2 were
later chosen as competition laureates.The subjects ranged in age from 20 to65
y, had played violin for 15–61 y, and owned violins between 3 and 328 y old,
with approximate values ranging from $1,800 (US) to $10 million (SI Text).
Although we believe all subjects were sufficiently skilled for their preferences
to be meaningful, we are aware that players with different levels of expertise
may form their preferences on different grounds. This factor, however, is
outside the scope of our study.
To attract participants, potential subjects were told that they would have
the chance to play a number of fine violins, including at least one by Stradivari.
No other information about test instruments, including the number involved,
or whether they were old or new, was disclosed. Subjects were scheduled for
individual, 1-h sessions, before which they were given instructions to read (SI
Text) and a questionnaire and consent form to fill out. When trying out
instruments, violinists typically use their own bows, which through constant
use have become, in effect, extensions of their bow arms. In light of this
practice, we asked subjects to bring their own bows. Forthe four who did not,
a single good-quality bow was provided. 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 there-
fore 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.
Throughout the sessions, subjects wore modified welders’goggles, which,
together with much-reduced ambient lighting, made it impossible to identify
instruments by eye. To mask any distinctive smells, a dab of scent was put
under the chinrestof each violin. The hotel room was dividedinto two areas by
a cloth screen. To preserve double-blind conditions, violins were passed from
behind the screen to a researcher wearing goggles, who laid them on a bed in
the order received.
This study explores player preferences under two sets of conditions. One
set, designed to maximize ecological validity, emulated the way players
choose instruments at a violin shop, where they typically try a selection of
instruments before selecting one to take home for further testing. All six test
instruments were laid out in random order on the bed. Subjects were then
given 20 min to choose (i) the single instrument they would “most like to
take home with them”and (ii) the instruments they considered “best”and
“worst”in each of four categories: range of tone colors, projection, play-
ability, and response. These terms, all commonly used by players when
evaluating instruments, were left undefined. If a term lacked clear meaning
for a subject, he/she was told not to choose in that category. Although
projection can, by definition, be judged only at a distance by a listener,
players regularly estimate projection when testing a violin. They typically
acknowledge (as did many of our subjects) the provisional nature of such
estimates and the need to retest in a large hall with trusted listeners. Note,
however, that our experiment was designed to test not the objective qual-
ities of the instruments but rather the subjective preferences of the subjects
under a specific set of conditions.
When making the best/worst selections,equal ranking betweeninstruments
was permitted (i.e., several could tie for best or worst), as was refraining from
choosing. Subjects were free to play the instruments in any order and in any
manner they saw fit, including switching back and forth among them. They
were also encouraged to comment out loud about the instruments and se-
lection process. A researcher made notes of the subjects’comments but
responded to them only to confirm what had been said. At the end of the
session, subjectswere invited to guess the “making-school”of their take-home
instruments—an indirect way of assessing their ability to distinguish new
instruments from old ones.
Our second set of test conditions, designed with the statements of Wein-
reich and Langhoff in mind, asked subjects to assess instruments rather quickly.
Each subject was presented with a series of 10 pairs of violins. For each pair,
subjects were given 1 min to play whatever they liked on the first violin, then
another minute for the second violin, without switching back and forth be-
tween them. The minute began with the first played note, including any
tuning, and ended with the ringing of a bell. Subjects were then asked to state
which violin they preferred. Unbeknownst to them, each pair consisted of
a new and an old violin. Our set of three and three thus allowed for nine
possible pairings. The order of the pairs—and of the instruments within each
pair—was randomized to avoid presentation order effects. As a rudimentary
test for consistency, one of the nine pairs was presented twice. The retested
pair was positioned randomly but with at least one other pair-wise compari-
son separating test from retest. The pair-wise comparisons were conducted at
the beginning of each session and will thus be referred to as “part 1”of the
experiment and the take-home/best/worst selections as “part 2.”We believed
that (i) part 1 should not be conducted after the subjects had played the
violins for 20 min and (ii) part 1 was not likely to affect part 2 judgments
because subjects were given no information about any (possible) relationships
between the violins in parts 1 and 2.
Results and Discussion
When analyzing player preferences in part 1, we omitted the ret-
ests and considered only the primary nine pairs, where each in-
strument was played just once by each subject (SI Text). From
these nine pairs, the mean number of times an old violin was
chosen was 3.7. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI; all CIs
are two-sided 95% intervals through the article) is [2.8; 4.5]. Al-
though this interval leaves room for old and new to be equally
preferred, equality is in itself a radical notion given prevailing
opinions about old violins.
Table 1 shows the number of times each violin was chosen in
each of the nine new/old pairings. In the six pairings not involving
O1, the other five violins were chosen about equally often. By
contrast, whenever O1 was paired with a new violin, it was chosen
markedly less often. It seems that under these test conditions, only
a conspicuously least-preferred violin differentiates itself. That
violin happened to be a Stradivari (ca. 1700), and its consistent
rejection appears to drive the overall preference for new violins
seen above. We found no evidence that this preference was af-
fected by the age of the subjects’own violin (SI Text).
Considering now the retested pairs, just 11 of 21 subjects (52%)
made the same choice twice. The CI is [30%; 74%], meaning no
firm conclusions about player consistency can be drawn. Note,
however, that if subjects perform no better than chance in such
a test, two possible conclusions might be drawn: (i) the instruments
are about equal in overall quality (as suggested in Table 1), which
means that forcing subjects to choose among them (in effect)
forces random choices, where consistency cannot be expected, and
(ii) subjects cannot choose consistently under part 1 conditions,
which may therefore be unsuited to studying player preferences
(SI Text).
In part 2, subjects were free to play any violin against any other,
new or old, and to dividetime between the instruments as they saw
fit. Fig. 1 shows how often each violin was chosen as take-home
choice (dark gray bar) and then as best or worst in four categories.
Eight subjects voluntarily identified their least favorite instru-
ments; these are shown in black beneath the take-home bar. Eight
subjects had difficulty deciding which of two violins to take home:
the times a violinwas a close second is shown above the take-home
bar in lighter gray.
In contrast to part 1, where five violins were chosen about
equally, the violins now differentiate themselves more clearly. A
single new instrument, N2, stands out as the most preferred: it was
Table 1. Number of times each violin was chosen in each of the
new/old pairings
Pairs New violin chosen Old violin chosen CI for old, %
N1–O1 15 6 [11; 52]
N2–O1 18 3 [3; 36]
N3–O1 16 5 [8; 47]
N1–O2 10 11 [30; 74]
N2–O2 10 11 [30; 74]
N3–O2 11 10 [26; 70]
N1–O3 11 10 [26; 70]
N2–O3 11 10 [26; 70]
N3–O3 10 11 [30; 74]
Fritz et al. PNAS
|
January 17, 2012
|
vol. 109
|
no. 3
|
761
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
chosen eight times as take-home, three times as close second,
never as least-favorite, and just three times as worst-in-a-category.
By contrast, O1 (ca. 1700 Stradivari) was chosen once as take-
home, once as close second,six times as least-favorite, and 16
times as worst-in-a-category.
Although each violin was the take-home choice of at least one
subject, four violins were also the least-favorite for at least one
subject. This wide divergence in individual taste carries through
into the four categories: With the sole exception of N2’s pro-
jection, each instrument was chosen as best and worst at least once
in each category. Unsurprisingly, each subject rated their take-
home violin as best in at least one category (SI Text).
Just 8 of 21 subjects (38%) chose an old violin to take home.
Given the small sample size, this disinclination toward the old
cannot be confidently inferred to experienced violinists in general
(CI [18%; 62%]). Still, the upper limit for the CI is not high;
moreover, the fact that a new violin was chosen over examples by
Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu by 13 experienced violinists
(including both jury members, who compared N2 and N3 favorably
with their own Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu violins; SI Text)
stands as a bracing counterexample to conventional wisdom.
How consistent were the subjects? Of the 15 who chose new
violins more often than old ones in part 1, 7 later chose old violins
to take home. Against this, five subjects who chose old violins more
often in part 1 later chose new violins to take home (SI Text). By
this measure, just 9 of 21 were consistent—although this finding
seems unsurprising given the way preferences shifted as time was
spent with individual instruments (SI Text). What was consistent
through parts 1 and 2 was a preference for new violins and a
specific dislike for O1.
Can violinists tell new violins from old by their playing qualities
alone? In coding the best/worst selections in the four categories,
violins were given a score of +1 for “best”in a category, −1for
“worst,”and 0 for neither “best”nor “worst”. This coding allowed
us to accommodate subjects who selected as many as six violins as
“best”or “worst”(e.g., by saying “all are equally good”)orasfew
as none (e.g., by saying “none are bad”). Because the scores range
from −1 to +1, a difference of 0.50 is a huge effect and one of 0.33
is quite strong. Results are presented in Fig. 2.
Subjects rated new violins significantly more highly (P<0.02)
than old ones for playability and response, but no significant dif-
ference was seen for projection (P= 0.62) and tone colors (P=
0.08), so that uncertainty remains (SI Text). Asked about the
making-school of their take-home instruments, 17 subjects re-
sponded: 7 said they had no idea, 7 guessed wrongly (i.e., that
a new violin was old or vice-versa), and just 3 guessed correctly (SI
Text). In light of this result, Langhoff’s assertion (13) becomes
difficult to sustain, as does the case for special playing qualities
unique to old Italian violins.
This double-blind experiment is unique in studying player
(rather than listener) preferences using new violins alongside
distinguished old Italians. In a room chosen for its relatively dry
acoustics, a preference for new violins was seen under two dis-
tinctly different sets of conditions. Under both sets, one particular
Stradivari was the least-preferred instrument; under the second,
a single new violin emerged as most-preferred. Subjects seemed
not to distinguish between new violins and old but rather to choose
instruments whose playing qualities best fit their individual tastes.
It is worth noting that these preferences were based solely on the
Fig. 1. Number of times each violin was selected as take-home and then as best or worst in four categories. Also shown are volunteered selections for close
second and least-favorite (above and below take-home block, respectively).
Fig. 2. Averaged scores of the six violins for the four criteria. The error bars
correspond to ±1 SE of mean.
762
|
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114999109 Fritz et al.
experience of playing the instruments, meaning subjects heard
them ”under the ear”only and not at a distance.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the particular visual beauty
and historical importance of old Italian violins will no doubt
maintain their hold on the imagination of violinists and their
audiences for a long time to come. This prospect comes through
nicely in a comment by one of our subjects, an eventual competi-
tion laureate: When asked the making-school of the new instru-
ment he had just chosen to take home, he smiled and said only, “I
hope it’s an [old] Italian.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. This experiment was made possible by the gener-
osity and open-mindedness of Glen Kwok of the IVCI, our 21 subjects,
and the owners and makers of the test violins. We are also grateful to
Yung Chin as well as Gabriel Weinreich for their helpful suggestions. We
thank two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive
comments.
1. Weinreich G (1993) What science knows about violins—and what it does not know.
Am J Phys 61:1067–1077.
2. Hill WH, Hill AF, Hill AE (1902) Antonio Stradivari, His Life and Work (Dover Pub-
lications, New York).
3. Schelleng J (1968) Acoustical effects of violin varnish. J Acoust Soc Am 44:1175–1183.
4. Burckle L, Grissino-Mayer HD (2003) Stradivari, violins, tree rings, and the Maunder
Minimum: A hypothesis. Dendrochronologia 21:41–45.
5. Stoel BC, Borman TM (2008) A comparison of wood density between classical Cre-
monese and modern violins. PLoS ONE 3:e2554.
6. Barlow CY, Edwards PP, Millward GR, Raphael RA, Rubio DJ (1988) Wood treatment
used in Cremonese instruments. Nature 332:313.
7. Nagyvary J, DiVerdi JA, Owen NL, Tolley HD (2006) Wood used by Stradivari and
Guarneri. Nature 444:565.
8. Hutchins CM, Hopping AS, Saunders FA (1960) Subharmonics and plate tap tones in
violin acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 32:1443–1449.
9. Saunders FA (1953) Recent work on violins. J Acoust Soc Am 25:491–498.
10. Duennwald H (1990) Ein erweitertes Verfahren zur objektiven Bestimmung der
Klangqualität von Violinen. Acustica 71:269–276; modified English transl (1991) De-
duction of objective quality parameters of old and new violins. J Catgut Acoust Soc
1 No.7 (Series II):1–5.
11. Bissinger G (2008) Structural acoustics of good and bad violins. J Acoust Soc Am 124:
1764–1773.
12. Fritz C, et al. (2010) Perceptual studies of violin body damping and vibrato. J Acoust
Soc Am 127:513–524.
13. Langhoff A (1994) Measurement of acoustic violin spectra and their interpretation
using a 3D representation. Acustica 80:505–515.
14. Saitis C, Scavone GP, Fritz C, Giordano BL (2010) Evaluating violin quality: How con-
sistent are skilled players? J Acoust Soc Am 128:2284.
15. Plassmann H, O’Doherty J, Shiv B, Rangel A (2008) Marketing actions can modulate
neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:
1050–1054.
Fritz et al. PNAS
|
January 17, 2012
|
vol. 109
|
no. 3
|
763
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
