TubeNet

I heard that story yesterday on the radio. I thought about quite a few tuba-related subjects as well.

What if they used the Stad bows on the new violins?

Let's do this again in another 300 years and see what happens then.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to look at graphs of the harmonics, overtones, and all that other science stuff?

bort wrote:Let's do this again in another 300 years and see what happens then.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to look at graphs of the harmonics, overtones, and all that other science stuff?

I talked with a guy about twenty years ago who had done some of that kind of research, as well as looking at the structure of the wood. He couldn't find anything that distinguished a Strad either. (The research into the structure of the wood strikes me as the kind of thing you shouldn't have to get a research grant to know, but anyway...)

One thing that comes to mind that we've discussed and could cut in the other direction is the difference between how the instrument sounds to the player and how it sounds out in the room. This study is all about the player's perspective.

Doc wrote:Don't forget about cryogenic treatment of tubas.

BTW, I chose the first violin sample as the one I liked.

Well, me too, but more to the point, the difference was not subtle, true? It would have been interesting to hear a couple more pairs - I guess it's safe to assume you wouldn't hear this same difference between old and new every time, or the experts wouldn't have had such a hard time.

A further confounding factor, I would have expected anyway, is that a violin player today uses steel strings and plays in bigger, louder ensembles and doesn't strictly want to sound like the violin players of Stradivarius' time. So - I would think violins would be intentionally built to sound different today, and the difference we hear isn't just the effects of aging.

The test presented to us is kind of digital, right or wrong, so it is hard to make statistics on. I knew what I would listen for, the optimal combination of aliveness and warmth, so my guess was right according to the last lines of this article/blog. Another TN poster is used to listen to amplified violin in environments, where cutting edge projection is desirable, so his preference is different from mine.

Decades ago I took part in 2-week long jazz summer camps for 5 years in a row. Jazz violin wasn’t very common, but one of the few players had a violin with an integrated pick-up system in a double case with a non-amplified violin also. The latter was a way better instrument, when it came to sounding full and alive on its own, which I commented on. The player then told that his luthier went directly for the more shrill instruments, when he sought candidates for having the pick-up system installed. They would project, whereas violins better fitting classic sound ideals often were disappointing after having the pick-up systems installed.

Klaus

What we call Stradivarius violins are not the instruments that left the old Italian shop. They have been heavily modified exactly to withstand the higher string tension of modern steel strings. It is long ago I read the details, but from what I remember the neck angle has been changed and the inner stay under the bridge (Bassbalken in German) has been made heavier.

Klaus

Klaus is absolutely right. Any violin built before about 1800 had a shorter neck which was set into the body of the instrument at a shallower angle. Most had lighter bass bars that were actually carved as part of the top rather than a seperate piece of spruce. Those instruments have been heavily modified in those respects not to mention bits and pieces of "new" wood that have been worked into them to replace pieces that have been damaged or worn away with use. It still stands clearly in my mind and experience as a former violin maker that those master-makers from Cremona had something special going for them that has yet to be duplicated.
I believe the same goes for the old York, Holton and King bells that I use.

http://divefree.net/poetry/masters.htm" target="_blank

Have to say.....I liked the first example better. Sounded fuller and smoother to my ears. Apparently, the Strad was the second example. Goes to show many people listen with their eyes and bias...

It would be VERY interesting to do a blind tuba/sousa test.....with all kinds of makes and models. Throw in some fiberglass sousas and Kelly mpcs and watch the surprised expressions on the faces AFTER hearing them played well against some expensive tubas, sousas and mpcs.

Update: I got Buh to listen to the examples. She preferred the second example - the Strad - even before knowing which one was which.

Different strokes for different folks

I lived in Austin once upon a time, and knew Charles Irvin, who is a master violin maker. He was trained in Cremona and spent some years in Italy learning the craft. He returned to the U.S. with a big hunk of Italian whatever-wood, which he says will last his lifetime.

He insists it is not the wood. He insists that it is the shape. He has carefully measured a number of original Strads, Amatis, and Guarneris, some of which have been modified for modern strings and some of which have not. He has measured the thickness of the belly and back all over several instruments that were in the shop and disassembled for repairs. He has also photographed several that are famous enough to be in museums or in the hands of high-end performers. He notes that all the violins of that era are asymmetrical in important ways, particularly with regard to the f holes, which don't usually line up exactly. For him, it's not the wood or the varnish that make them uniquely special (though these are important to making any good violin), but the "imperfections". He claimed that the modern Cremona teachers and violin makers tried to make violins perfectly symmetrical as a matter of craft and in the process undermined the outcome.

His violins include these imperfections. I've heard them demonstrated by master violinists, and was able to tell the difference between a Strad copy (more carrying and direct) and a Guarneri copy (warmer and more intimate), clearly enough to pick them out in a blind listening session.

At the time I knew him, he was getting real money for his violins and violas (which would require a year to make), and seemingly real respect, but I don't know what's become of him since those days. Of course, by "real money", I'm not thinking as many digits as an actual Strad.

I'd be interested to hear Sam's take on that story--I have only Charles's exposition of what he learned and have no way of verifying it on my own. But if it holds up, it says something about how we apply magical descriptions to physical things that can be measured, and it suggests that maybe we aren't measuring the right things in the right ways. Remember that modern York-o-phone makers are trying to improve intonation, in addition to other goals, which might be at odds with, say, Pop Johnson's objectives.

Rick "who doesn't believe in magic" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:I lived in Austin once upon a time, and knew Charles Irvin, who is a master violin maker. He was trained in Cremona and spent some years in Italy learning the craft. He returned to the U.S. with a big hunk of Italian whatever-wood, which he says will last his lifetime.

He insists it is not the wood. He insists that it is the shape. He has carefully measured a number of original Strads, Amatis, and Guarneris, some of which have been modified for modern strings and some of which have not. He has measured the thickness of the belly and back all over several instruments that were in the shop and disassembled for repairs. He has also photographed several that are famous enough to be in museums or in the hands of high-end performers. He notes that all the violins of that era are asymmetrical in important ways, particularly with regard to the f holes, which don't usually line up exactly. For him, it's not the wood or the varnish that make them uniquely special (though these are important to making any good violin), but the "imperfections". He claimed that the modern Cremona teachers and violin makers tried to make violins perfectly symmetrical as a matter of craft and in the process undermined the outcome.

His violins include these imperfections. I've heard them demonstrated by master violinists, and was able to tell the difference between a Strad copy (more carrying and direct) and a Guarneri copy (warmer and more intimate), clearly enough to pick them out in a blind listening session.

At the time I knew him, he was getting real money for his violins and violas (which would require a year to make), and seemingly real respect, but I don't know what's become of him since those days. Of course, by "real money", I'm not thinking as many digits as an actual Strad.

I'd be interested to hear Sam's take on that story--I have only Charles's exposition of what he learned and have no way of verifying it on my own. But if it holds up, it says something about how we apply magical descriptions to physical things that can be measured, and it suggests that maybe we aren't measuring the right things in the right ways. Remember that modern York-o-phone makers are trying to improve intonation, in addition to other goals, which might be at odds with, say, Pop Johnson's objectives.

Rick "who doesn't believe in magic" Denney

The asymmetry is expecially noticeable in Josef "del jesu" Guarneri's work. The interesting thing is that there seems to be no consistency in what he does. Each violin has different discrepencies. One violin may have a twisted scroll whilst the next one's F holes are misalligned or maybe the center bouts are just a little off. He didn't always use the best looking woods for his work either. Speculation is that maybe he couldn't afford the good stuff. Strads tend to be more 'perfect' as far as symmetry and material goes.

Obviously none of the horns that I put together are perfect either. Every part except for the 5th valve has typically had lots of knocks and use. We get the dents out and make them work well mechanically, but no two of them are quite the same. AND no two have quite the same voice either. I just try to put together instruments that make sense to me and make use of some great sounding old Eb bells and bottom bows on instruments that are more useful to modern players.

Rick Denney wrote:I lived in Austin once upon a time, and knew Charles Irvin, who is a master violin maker...
At the time I knew him, he was getting real money for his violins and violas (which would require a year to make), and seemingly real respect, but I don't know what's become of him since those days.

Charles Ervin seems to be alive and well:
http://www.ervinviolins.com/
I wonder if he would consider making wooden York copies?

MartyNeilan wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:I lived in Austin once upon a time, and knew Charles Irvin, who is a master violin maker...
At the time I knew him, he was getting real money for his violins and violas (which would require a year to make), and seemingly real respect, but I don't know what's become of him since those days.

Charles Ervin seems to be alive and well:
http://www.ervinviolins.com/
I wonder if he would consider making wooden York copies?

Yup, that's him. And that's why I could find anything about him, heh.

It's only been maybe 23 years since I talked to him. But he still lives in the same house he lived in then.

Rick "who played in the Community Symphony in Austin with him and a couple of his customers" Denney