Exactly.
In fact you need to eliminate the slightest attempt to vibrato and hammer on the string as if you want to strike a nail with your finger, in order to attempt to get a dry and cold tone. Yet then you are still left with the differences in respond between a variety of strings and with the impact of the bow. Many people don’t seem to know what you can do with sthat strange haired stick 
Salaam. A
I suggest an experiment: Every day at a specified time, you leave the house for a while. Someone in your house flips a coin. If heads, they play on your piano for a while, if tails, they don’t, and they write down the outcome. (Clues like fingerprints and stool position must be carefully eliminated!) You come home, play your piano and guess the result of the coin flip. After 10 days, if you have got all 10 right, you may be onto something. (You would expect to get 5 right). After 100 days, if you have got more than, say, 80 right, you are amost certainly onto something.
Like I said, there are no mechanisms I can think of in which simply playing an instrument changes its structural and musical characteristics.
They can apply vibrato, they can play louder or softer notes, they can do various other tricks, but they cannot alter the structural properties of the plates which are amplifying the string output: for example, they cannot ‘will’ more bass into a note. The frequency distribution of a given tone is not user dependent.
Caveat: there are no mechanisms I can think of in which simply playing an instrument changes its structural and musical characteristics…
…other than those which clearly affect the structure or the strings, of course! (eg. mass accretion from finder skin etc.: I suppose some alighting dust could be being shaken off Alde’s piano strings, but I would have thought that this effect would be infinitessimal - I may be wrong.)
They can vary the position of bow on string, they can vary the bow speed & pressure while maintaining constant volume, they can use different attacks, they can use different contact points with the left hand (a crucial aspect in Grappelli’s sound), etc etc, all of which affect the structural properties of the system as a whole (there’s more to the timbre than the front & back of the body).
SentientMeat, thank you for addressing my questions. It sounds like your research was carefully thought out. While I still don’t totally dismiss the possibility that there may be some truth in the common perceptions (hedge-hedge-hedge), it seems clear that the evidence fails to support them at all. I have to agree with adjudging them myths.
I’m reminded of blind listening tests to different brands of guitar, played by the same person. Sometimes the listeners rated an inexpensive Yamaha as sounding better than an expensive Martin. Often the judgments were different if the listeners knew what brand they were hearing. Those humans and their preconceptions…
I don’t even talk directly about the strings when talking about a piano. (Clavecin =Harpsischord?) is a whole other thing).
Like I said, it is subtle although you discover it instantly, and you need to know your instrument and how you fine-tuned it yourself and by playing it.
That has not only to do with pitching the strings. You can for example also influence the harshness of each seperate hammerhead (the white cover, don’t nkow how to call that in English) and by this the way it touches the strings, to add a personal subtlety to that part of the mechanism. Especially when you had your piano in restauration and that covering was renewed (which can lead to unwished harshness) this technique is useful. All you need is a very sharp, long and extreme fine needle.
However: do this at your own risk. It is not something I would recommend for doing when you don’t know your instrument or have no clue what the outcome of your new hobby shall be. You can’t just go plugging a needle in your hammerheads fi you don’t know what you are doing.
Shortly said: An other way of approach then yours in playing the instrument provokes an alteration in the hammerheads and then finally of course also in how the strings resonate accordingly. You feel that as if there is an alteration in the keyboard’s reaction on your play, while the real cause is a bit further away, in the hammerheads.
Salaam. A
We are explaining you for two days all the mechanisms that alter an instrument’s charateristic when it is played. Of course you alter nothing on a silent instrument.
[quote]
They can apply vibrato, they can play louder or softer notes, they can do various other tricks, but they cannot alter the structural properties of the plates which are amplifying the string output (quote]
The problem here is that you look at it as a few pieces of wood with each their own structure, or if you like “characteristics”, while the assembling of these pieces of wood is an instrument that not only needs strings (many differnet ones available) a bridge (very important and much depending on adjustment for functioning correctly) a bow (equally important) pitching and finally the human intervention of the player influencing the whole set.
An other string, an other bridge, an other bow gives already a significant other effect.
[QUOTE The frequency distribution of a given tone is not user dependent.[/QUOTE]
See above and add once again all what is aid about it already.
Salaam. A
Only the string output: they cannot affect the ‘amplifier’ (the body and air cavity) which provides the timbre - the article by Colin Gough I referenced explains all of this.
You are telling me what you are doing to the string, not the body or sound-plates. I appreciate the complex coupling between all of the elements of a violin (indeed, I programmed a Finite Element Analysis of one which took me several months).
Of course, but you cannot change the structural properties of the amplifier. Whatever CD you put in, your speakers still have the same frequency response.
How about that experiment? Are you assuming you’ll pass?
Gary: Glad to be of help, and yes, there’s always a little ‘wiggle room’ - all one can do is try and minimise such.
Depends on the quality of the CD player (which seems to adequately represent the strings & bridge in your metaphor). If the sound reaching the air cavity is changed, then the sound is changed. And as we’re repeating over and over, many characteristics of the violin as a whole (necessarily including the body, partuclarly when physical feedback is acknowledged) affect the way in which the string is excited, and so affect the sound reaching the air cavity.
You still seem to me to be missing the point. Surely if the instrument allows the musician to play better but the output (in terms of tone or sound or music or however you want to describe it) is not better then the instrument is not in any useful way better?
Sorry, do I understand you to be arguing that a violin can be better even though listeners can’t detect any difference in what it produces? What is your definition of better?
Well, GM, it’s got to the point where I’m not sure quite where we disagree now, which is usually the signal to draw things to a close in General Questions.
The answer to the direct OP is No: Stradivarius violins are of very high quality however you look at it. ralph also asked whether modern violins were just as good, and there is evidence which suggests so (or, at least, they are as good as Strads were, and will become as good).
Most of this thread has been an attempt to explain the perceived quality of Cremonese violins. The brief answer is that they were constructed by master craftsmen from the stiffest, lightest wooden plates available, and that later modifications and aging might have made them even ‘better’.
But while the reputed high quality is not a myth, there most certainly are myths floating around in musical acoustics, and I have merely attempted to pop some of them here. The varnish is an utter red herring. And I must admit that, whenever I hear of the museum fellow who removes the antique violin from its glass case, plays it for a while and puts it back in, I smirk and roll my eyes as much as when I hear that a football manager has hired an astrologer or shaman to banish bad luck from the stadium.
What I’m suggesting is that the physical responses of the violin while being played (not the acoustics) allow the musician to play better, musically. This is the crucial point - ‘better sound’ and ‘better music’ aren’t the same.
Yes, I’ll agree there’s myriad myths about Strads that have no sound (arf) basis. And I’ll accept that no tests have shown anything especially unique about them. But I’m confident there is something unique, that we can’t yet identify. I’ll also accept that it’s perfectly possible for a violin to be made that well in the future.
Sorry, but I still don’t get it. For your concept of “better music” to mean anything, it must be detectable by someone listening to it being played. Can we agree that much?
Princh, I think GM is referring to the issue of playability having as much importance to the quality perceived by the player as tone has to the quality perceived by the listener, and that there is a feedback element between the two. (Both are determined by the structural properties of the instrument).
Yes, and I’m saying it is audible - but it cannot be reduced to quantifiable properties of the individual sounds.
Of course their is feedback, a concept that is not easy to describe to someone who is not a musician, or in this case: not familiar with playing on a violin.
Every violin is unique in sound, quality and ability to adapt at the impact of a player’s character, personality and technique. This is not a question of “perception”, but of cold reality.
You can do more with a violin that listens to your commands = gives the feedback (read: result) you want to provoke with your technique, your musicality, your knowledge of the music you play etc…
You can’t do this when you have an instrument that lacks these qualities. Hence the endresult is enterely different.
That is one of the reasons these old instruments are so sought after. They give a feedback (read: result) you don’t have with an other one.
If you want to gain a real insight and understanding of this process, you must learn to play the violin upto a level of technique, musicality and knowledge that permits you to make the difference between the result you provoke by playing one instrument against an other, and in every single little detail of that process.
Read back my post where I describe how my professional relative can transform the sound of my Guarnerius. Simply because she can provoke reactions I can’t make him give back to me, and I am really no beginner and I play on him since I was 5 years old.
Testing wood on its reactions - like you describe you have done - is very useful to understand “dry” processes and try to describe them.
It fails when it comes to give a conclusive explanation for what happens when a violin comes in action and responds to what the violinist provokes it to give as reaction.
Hence it fails also to give - as I think you propose here - an indisputable defenition and a conclusion.
Salaam. A
I’m not assuming anything. I’m 100% sure I would pass any such “test”.
Nobody touches my instruments when I’m not there or without my permission. Hence the children have to invent tricks to get where the piano is (that is of course the exitement of the whole game). I am never wrong in knowing when they have done that. It is not such a big deal either, they don’t risk up to now to use it as some sort of drumming instrument or come down on it with a hammer.
When someone else has played and I don’t play for a longer period, there is no other difference to tell then what always is telling when I don’t play for an amount of time. That is also the only occasions the children can play their little game unnoticed by my radar.
I am really not the only one on this globe who “feels” it when someone else has played on his instrument, hence it has also no direct relation with my habit to do pitching and hammerheads-adapting myself.
Salaam. A
Alde, you’re stretching the word ‘feedback’ a little, but acousticians often have trouble translating the musician’s “inuition” into useful language! I meant the coupled oscillations of plates, cavity, string and bow, as evidenced most clearly in the Wolf note, where the string fundamental coincides with that of the top plate. Feedback occurs in all instruments, just as sound emanates from all instruments. We are discussing what might explain ‘desirable’ feedback just as we might explain ‘desirable’ sounds.
I am a semi-professional guitarist, and appreciate all such techniques. I can still explain why some guitars are often judged to be of better quality than others in terms of the structural mass and stiffness properties of the plates.
Explanation of the music was not what the OP asked for, nor would I attempt to supply one.
Incidentally, how do you think you’d do at my suggested experiment? 100% correct? Why not try it? You might be surprised!
I’m not talking about superficial evidence like fingerprints and stool positions, but a careful test of whether normal playing of it affected it noticeably. The test would be that the only variable you are testing is “whether it has been played today”, with no other clues than those which your fingers tell you. My bet is that it doesn’t - if you could pass such a careful test, that yould be a very interesting datum.
Explanation of the music is crucial to answering the OP. Strads are highly prized because they are percieved to be the best violins with which to make music. If they had a beautiful tone but felt like mud while playing, they wouldn’t be on that podium.
[/QUOTE]