@vk. . "Test above is quite scientific."

thanks enough said. science tests on art. and I get it, however, for my money I trust an artist over any science guy. I suppose that's why the writers can't state the names of the musicians that were tested along with the violin makers.. the adverts.lol. maybe the national enquirer could run this piece of garbage.

All I am saying is that in some cases, human perception matters, beyond "real sound".

But that's exactly what the study claims to reveal! That professed preferences have little to do with the actual sound the instruments are producing.

But, in this case, the musicians were converted by these tests: they wanted to know who made the instruments they actually preferred, so they could go out and buy one. So three cheers for rationalism. These people care more about the music than what appears to be a myth.

As for audiences -- some may be happier thinking the players are using Strads or Guarneris, but I doubt the few codgers who still go to classical music concerts will boycott them because the instruments are "only" worth $50K each and not $3 million. And most of these people are far too deaf -- high frequency roll-off with age -- to tell the difference between student violins and Strads.

I do not have any problems with this test and I think it is quite informative. All I am saying is that in some cases, human perception matters, beyond "real sound". When it comes to art, subjective human perception is what matters the most, not objectively measured data. And this perception is always influenced by all kinds of factors, such as context or external references.

I would suggest that to measure "real sound" it is best to do this with tools. But if you are considering which violin will please an audience the most, or even from which violin the performer will do there best, there can be factors that have nothing to do with the actual sound coming out of it.

Personally I don't care at all about violin brands and have no interest in Stradivarius or any such things. I think if you read carefully what I'm saying you'll see there is no contradiction here.

Controlled tests are difficult.

Test above is quite scientific. It is proper way to eliminate factors that can affect perception and focus on real sound.

@arnarfjodur I like that. Perception doesn't happen in blind test. This pianist is so good you can appreciate with the sound muted.

Well. Does not surprise me. But the human perception does not happen in a blind test. So I guess old and famous instruments can have an effect on how people perceive the music, just like people feel differently when they look at the "original" Mona Lisa, even though they have no idea if it is or if it is a copy. Clearly fetishism.

For those interested, more info about the study here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1323367111.abstract

The physics of violin sound are interesting too: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/violintro.html

It would seem that in addition to finding best wood type, famous luthiers knew how to design violin body so it resonates at frequencies relevant to music played on them. It's not unexpected that similar or better quality can be achieved with current high-tech measurements and manufacturing.

The outcome of this experiment is sooo not-surprising. Similar experiments have been done many times with similar results:

• "Audiophiles" ranking MP3 encoded audio files higher than 96kHz/24bit PCM in blind tests
• Sommeliers not being able to even tell wines from completely different regions and grape species apart
• "Modern art experts" not being able to tell apart children's paintings from those of "valued artists"
• ...

There's plenty of areas where "fandom" defines the price or "preference" only when the label is known.

BTW: The myths about Stradivari's violins have long been found: He used wood from trees that grew in a particulary cold era, and that caused the wood to be somewhat more rigid and the cells of the wood to be a little smaller than usual. Modern instrument builders can achieve the same effect by processing ordinary wood physically/chemically, with the same results on the sound. No magic involved.

@Cid LOL too funny

What is "plasticity in the more human notes"?