A look at the "King" Cello, crafted by Andrea Amati around 1560 for King Charles IX of France, which remains playable today at the National Music Museum.
Is the mystique around Stradivarius instruments subjectively put on a pedestal like wine tasting or audiophiles or can someone actually tell the difference in a blind test?
Stradivarius instruments deserve being put on a pedestal for historical reasons. Stradivari basically defined the sound of the modern violin, using flatter arching and f holes with smaller hole areas than the Amatis, which resulted in a significantly more powerful instrument that was better suited to playing in a concert hall (vs. the chamber music of earlier times). Stradivarius violins are also noted for their extremely fine craftsmanship and attention to detail. The majority of modern violins are still modeled after Stradivarius examples (with a probably smaller number modeled after del Gesu instruments and some other makers). Most top soloists play on (heavily modified) Strads, and so it seems pretty clear that, at the very least, Strads are not holding any soloists back - and that is not the case for Amati instruments, for example, which despite being coveted for their age and history just don't have the same power and sound projection as Strads.
But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts. People have been studying and modeling after Strads for so long it would be pretty shocking if we couldn't make instruments that sounded as good. In my mind that doesn't make Strads any less valuable - an original Picasso is still valued so highly because it was created by the master that invented Cubism, but that doesn't mean that a modern painter couldn't create a Cubist painting that was "just as good", objectively.
Only a handful of controlled tests have been conducted and listeners failed to identify or prefer the Strads. None of the experiments were very big so there might be a perceptible difference that can be detected with more statistical power. Blinding the eyes and noses of top level musicians might bias the results.
It is very difficult to obtain access to the instruments. The general sentiment from musicians and collectors seems to be that they don't want a bunch of scientists to come into their world and tell them that what they are or are not hearing or they just don't understand why controlled tests are required.
Furthermore, there are many intangible qualities of the way an instrument resonates and feels while playing that often contributes more to the better playing than the raw sound itself. It’s strange to say but instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound
I understand what you're getting at, and I can appreciate it, but it's also kind of bullshit. You say "instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound" - well, if that's the case, then people should be able to hear the difference in that sound in blind tests, which so far they basically haven't.
A look at the "King" Cello, crafted by Andrea Amati around 1560 for King Charles IX of France, which remains playable today at the National Music Museum.
You don't hear things by that instrument maker every day.
The grandaddy of the guy that taught Stradivarius.
Is the mystique around Stradivarius instruments subjectively put on a pedestal like wine tasting or audiophiles or can someone actually tell the difference in a blind test?
Stradivarius instruments deserve being put on a pedestal for historical reasons. Stradivari basically defined the sound of the modern violin, using flatter arching and f holes with smaller hole areas than the Amatis, which resulted in a significantly more powerful instrument that was better suited to playing in a concert hall (vs. the chamber music of earlier times). Stradivarius violins are also noted for their extremely fine craftsmanship and attention to detail. The majority of modern violins are still modeled after Stradivarius examples (with a probably smaller number modeled after del Gesu instruments and some other makers). Most top soloists play on (heavily modified) Strads, and so it seems pretty clear that, at the very least, Strads are not holding any soloists back - and that is not the case for Amati instruments, for example, which despite being coveted for their age and history just don't have the same power and sound projection as Strads.
But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts. People have been studying and modeling after Strads for so long it would be pretty shocking if we couldn't make instruments that sounded as good. In my mind that doesn't make Strads any less valuable - an original Picasso is still valued so highly because it was created by the master that invented Cubism, but that doesn't mean that a modern painter couldn't create a Cubist painting that was "just as good", objectively.
Only a handful of controlled tests have been conducted and listeners failed to identify or prefer the Strads. None of the experiments were very big so there might be a perceptible difference that can be detected with more statistical power. Blinding the eyes and noses of top level musicians might bias the results.
It is very difficult to obtain access to the instruments. The general sentiment from musicians and collectors seems to be that they don't want a bunch of scientists to come into their world and tell them that what they are or are not hearing or they just don't understand why controlled tests are required.
Furthermore, there are many intangible qualities of the way an instrument resonates and feels while playing that often contributes more to the better playing than the raw sound itself. It’s strange to say but instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound
Sounds to me like a bunch of physical and therefore measurable (and tangible) properties and some placebo effect on top.
I understand what you're getting at, and I can appreciate it, but it's also kind of bullshit. You say "instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound" - well, if that's the case, then people should be able to hear the difference in that sound in blind tests, which so far they basically haven't.