For tonewoodheads - It's the density!!

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

By Matt McGrath

Science correspondent, BBC News

 

The unique sounds of a Stradivarius violin may come down to the density of the wood it is made from.

 

Scientists say the patterns of the grain are markedly different from modern instruments.

 

It is believed that the seasonal growth of trees in the early seventeenth century was affected by a mini-Ice Age.

 

Stradivarius had the benefit of wood that was produced in conditions that have not been repeated since then, the journal Plos One reports.

 

 

It could be a difference in climate when the trees were harvested, or it could also be that the masters used some secret treatment on the wood

Dr Berend Stoel, Leiden University

The work by a team from the Netherlands represents the latest finding in ongoing efforts to understand the sound quality of these violins.

 

The musical instruments created in Cremona, Italy, by Antonio Stradivari in the early 1700s have acquired a matchless reputation for tone and clarity down the centuries.

 

Around six hundred of the violins, violas, guitars and cellos made by the Italian master survive; on the rare occasion they come up for auction they sell for millions.

 

There have been several suggestions as to why these instruments sound so good and why the modern world has thoroughly failed to replicate their quality.

 

It was once argued that Stradivari and others used wood from ancient churches or that they added a mysterious ingredient to the wood or used techniques that have since been lost.

 

But modern technology first developed to help people suffering from emphysema may have unlocked the riddle of these fiddles.

 

'Even growth'

 

Researchers at the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands had developed a computer programme that analysed Computed Tomographic (CT) scans to see how effective certain treatments were in patients with emphysema.

 

One of the scientists involved was Dr Berend Stoel, a violinist with a keen interest in the secrets of the Stradivarius.

 

He adapted his program to work with violins and scanned five of the priceless instruments from Cremona as well as seven modern violins.

 

They show that while the overall density of the different instruments was similar, the 300-year-old instruments showed evidence of more even growth in the summer and winter. Dr Stoel explained its importance: "If you look at any piece of wood, as long as it's not tropical, you have these year rings.

 

"The differences between these rings are the density - the wood is more dense during the winter than it is during the faster growing period of the summer. That pattern is influencing the resonating quality of the wood."

 

The modern violins, according to Dr Stoel, show greater differences in their seasonal growth patterns. The older ones had more even grain, reflecting similar growth periods in winter and summer.

 

Climate question

 

Since differentials in wood density impact factors such as "vibrational efficacy" and the production of sound, this discovery may explain the superiority of the violins produced by Stradivari and his contemporaries.

 

Other researchers who have studied the activity of the Sun have pointed to a mini-Ice Age that occurred in the early 1700s.

 

Experts say that this reduced solar activity, called the Maunder Minimum, could have hampered the regular growth of trees.

 

Temperatures in Western Europe dropped by between 0.5C to 2C. When trees grow in cold conditions like this their wood is denser.

 

However Dr Stoel is not entirely convinced that the magic of the Stradivarius is down to climatic conditions.

 

"We found these differences. But where do they come from? It could be a difference in climate when the trees were harvested, or it could also be that the masters used some secret treatment on the wood, or it could be that over the course of three hundred years the violins just gets better in tone," he explained.

 

"It's possible that you could use this CT technique to select different types of wood that would be more like the wood that Stradivarius used. But if you are a lousy violin maker and use the best wood, you will still end up with a very bad violin."

[Matheau]

This isn't a new theory and it isn't the only one out there. More than likely it is a combination of all the factors rather than just one.

 

Also one thing to keep in mind is that Stradivarius violins in a few blind tests have lost or been pretty much even with modern copies using both people with and without ear training. The notion that Stradivarius violins are superbly unmatchable instruments the likes of which will never be seen again is grossly exaggerated.

 

Considering the number of blind tests where that it happened, it actually strongly supports the theory that Stradivarius sound better because people think they sound better.

[lukeswall]

tone is in the picking hand.

discuss.

[vcnyls]

[Kneel Diamynd]

From a scientific perspective: does this suggest that a laboratory environment creating an exacting polymer or composite engineered to have the exact same density and 99.999% uniformity would be able to replicate a Stradivarian tone in a blind comparison?

[BlackHatHunter]

ooops, I see now this had already been posted... I'll erase my thread

[FatsoForgotso]

tone is in the picking hand. discuss.

 

 

No its not, get over yourself.

[rock-lobster]

i thought density was always a factor?

[metallica_00]

i thought density was always a factor?

 

 

I think the idea here is the uniformity of density if I'm not mistaken

[johanneswiberg]

Considering the number of blind tests where that it happened, it actually strongly supports the theory that Stradivarius sound better because people think they sound better.

 

 

Try saying something similar about different guitar woods to some guys around here. :poke:

 

But I wholeheartedly agree that the power of belief/placebo/mind trick/whatever you call it is too great for most people to realize. You might remember the cable blind test debate that raged on one of these forums way back...

 

(Not saying wood means nothing. Just saying people hear less than they make themselves believe they hear.)

[belief bone]

I agree it is the density of tonewoodheads that makes them annoying.

[metalheadUK]

It's all bloody fashion...thats all it is.

Back in the '70s everybody wanted heavy as {censored} guitars for the tone. They then fitted Dimarzio pickups with the highest output possible and a Brass nut "for the tone"

Now we want Light guitars and lower power vintage style pickups and a bone nut "for the tone"

I always maintain thatn guitars either sound good, middling or crap.

I try and obtain the good sounding ones...I dunno why they sound better than others, but when they do, they're the ones I want.

[scampi]

wood selections are a big factor, but even the best seasoned woods can easily be made to sound horrid under the hands of an amateur luthier - the posted article has a lot more to do with traditional stringed instruments...with electric guitars...not so much - one can obtain modern day stringed instruments that are roughly comparable to strad, montagnana, gofriller, etc for a hefty price - the reason these makers are often referenced is that they represented the golden age of craftsmanship in traditional stringed instruments, literally a piece of history

I'm willing to bet not every strad was infinitely exceptional however, and some that became museum pieces and collector's items were probably not among the best examples of his craftsmanship from the standpoint of tone and resonance - they exist now as bragging rights for the wealthy, but no world class musicians are still playing some of these instruments - there are some rare examples that persist however, such as the monty I saw ma playing on monday night for the saens concerto - that cello did indeed have a sound worthy of its pedigree, and it will live on so long as the wood remains stable and repairable

craftsman of the 1700's had some really fine wood selections and some of those forests have been over-harvested these days - that's part of why you see so many instruments in lower price ranges coming from china now...in short, they have vast wood supplies available for making instruments - the older european woods were preferable, but now you have to be wary of some euro instruments as some makers use kilns to dry the wood faster, and artificially dried woods can quickly become unstable in the early years of an instrument - ideally the woods should be dried naturally, at least 10-15 years (bear in mind we're talking violins and such, not guitars)

all in all, wood selection and proper aging is but one part of an exceptional instrument - the craftsman is a huge part of this as well, and each instrument is literally like a unique individual (when talking about violins, cellos, etc) - last, never underestimate the importance of a good setup, nut cut, bridge cut, string selection, fingerboard planing, etc. - a good setup can make a cheap instrument outplay its pedigree even if it doesn't sound divine, and a poor setup can make a priceless instrument a real chore to play

[GibsonQC]

 

It is believed that the seasonal growth of trees in the early seventeenth century was affected by a mini-Ice Age.. Other researchers who have studied the activity of the Sun have pointed to a mini-Ice Age that occurred in the early 1700s

 

 

 

Did this happen in the 17th century or the 1700s? If it happened in the 1700s, then it probably didn't affect any of A. Stradivari's instruments, as his entire stockpile of wood was probably already cut and drying in a pile outside his workshop. He was born c. 1644 and died in 1737. Most violin makers don't use fresh wood to build instruments, and most (good) makers basically have a lifetime supply of wood by the time they reach their prime production years.

 

I think this has more to do with his (family secret) varnishing "recipe", skill, talent, his own design, and perhaps his use of chisels/planes. I've seen people take very bad sounding violins made from good wood that was cut too thick, regrade the tops and backs, put them back together, and you have a very different, much better-sounding instrument. I'm not disputing the claim that there may have been something special about Stradivari's wood pile, but I'm sure his maple trees weren't all that different from those of his Cremonese neighbors. Something had to set him apart, or a combination of things. I'm not sure why it's so hard for everyone to understand that Stradivari was a genius with talent. Look at the guy's output...there's something that comes from the skill/talent AND the practice of making thousands of instruments in a lifetime. The guy had amazing skills and honed that talent over the course of his entire life.

 

Simply put, he is the Bach or Mozart of violin-making. Sure, there were many other people writing music in the Baroque and Classical periods, but why do these two stand out? Genius, amazing talent, skill, and the ability to bring it all together. Violin making is an art, and Stradivari is now recognized as the foremost artist of his time.

[Exocaster]

From a scientific perspective: does this suggest that a laboratory environment creating an exacting polymer or composite engineered to have the exact same density and 99.999% uniformity would be able to replicate a Stradivarian tone in a blind comparison?

 

 

Wouldn't the resonant properties of the composite be completely different, though, regardless of the density? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not an engineer.

[axegrinder]

[YOUTUBE]w8B-Nokm9K0[/YOUTUBE]

[GibsonQC]

Exact same thing that came to mind when I saw this thread title. Hilarious!

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

Did this happen in the 17th century or the 1700s? If it happened in the 1700s, then it probably didn't affect any of A. Stradivari's instruments, as his entire stockpile of wood was probably already cut and drying in a pile outside his workshop. He was born c. 1644 and died in 1737. Most violin makers don't use fresh wood to build instruments, and most (good) makers basically have a lifetime supply of wood by the time they reach their prime production years.

 

 

The LIA in N. Europe is dated roughly as from the17th to 19th century

[Kap'n]

Every five years somebody comes up with "THE STRADAVARIUS SECRET"

It's the varnish

It's the result of 'the mini ice age'

It's wood soaked in water

It's ash from Vesuvius

blah, blah, blah.

It's probably the same bozo every time with a different theory.

And the media picks it up as 'news.'

[golias]

I once saw a professional clarinetist and instrument-maker, in order to debunk the myth that only a wood clarinet can sound good, make a clarinet body out of an ordinary garden hose. He attached a bell and a mouthpiece to it, played it, and it sounded beautiful.

 

Does tonewood matter? Perhaps, but quality craftsmanship matters way more, and the musicianship of the performer matters more beyond that.

[guitarcapo]

First off I should mention that if Stradivarius were alive today and he picked up and played one of his own violins, he'd have a tough time recognizing it as something he built. The sound that the violin made would be so different from what he intended it would be like the difference between a classical and and electric guitar.

 

For one thing, almost all existing Strad violins have necks that are longer than what Stradivarius intended. This is typically done in one of two ways:

1. Replacing the neck entirely...2. or elongating the existing neck and keeping the original scroll. This was done to allow for the high flights into the upper register that virtuoso violinists need to do. In Stradivarius day everyone played in the first position...and a short neck handled that job fine.

Changing the scale length changes dramatically the tone of any instrument...probably more so than other more popular factors like the woods used. It alters the string tension and load on the soundboard...especially when the pitch the violin is tuned to remains constant.

 

Secondly: Strad violins were built to be used with GUT STRINGS...far removed from the steel and nylon core strings used today. If some luthier built classical guitars, and the public discovered that they sounded fantastic strung with steel strings a century later, how much credit would you give that original luthier for their amazing tone?

 

Thirdly. Almost all strad violins have been worked on over the years by the world's top master luthiers. Sometimes the 80% of the entire soundboard is replaced. Patches and cleats everywhere. It can be said for a lot of them that Strad's original workmanship is only a small fraction of the resulting instrument you see today. A lot of that great tone isn't the result of some secret formula, but the result of a committee of many luthiers over centuries perfecting the instrument like an assembly line.

 

Of course there's also the obvious notion that Stradivarius could have no idea of how instruments would age...and that aging istelf has effects that have nothing to do with a secret formula. Some "happy accident" theories have been associated with the varnish and the salt water the logs were stored in...also the mineral wash used at the time by lumber suppliers to combat insect infestations in wood (calcium silicate)

 

And at the end of the day there's that element of expectation on the part of the listener that colors their interpretation of the tone they hear. Knowing they are hearing a Strad biases them into thinking the tone is better than other violins.

 

 

One final note I'll leave you with: If Strad violins were so fantastic sounding to the public when he built them, why weren't they popular? In his day Strad was confounded by another violin maker that was running rings around him in popularity. The violin maker was named Stainer.

__________________

[GibsonQC]

And at the end of the day there's that element of expectation on the part of the listener that colors their interpretation of the tone they hear. Knowing they are hearing a Strad biases them into thinking the tone is better than other violins.

Definitely some good info in there. Guitarists do this all the time, even to me. The other guitarist in my group has killer tone, but if he's using his music man or Fender, I'm the one who always gets complimented for my tone...because I have a Gibson LP.


Also, Stainer lived in Stradivari's early years, but died almost 60 years before Stradivari. He was already legendary when Stradivarius was building his reputation. It's kind of like comparing Jimi Hendrix to Nuno Bettencourt. Plus, Stainer's design was very different from Stradivari's. In any case, Mozart was also not the most popular composer of his time...during his lifetime.

Personally, I credit all the factors you cited above with the Strad success story. He had talent, skill, great materials, the varnish "secret formula", but the culmination of all of these items plus 300 years of playing by the best players in the world somehow cause his instruments to become sweeter with age. I think this is one of the factors everyone seems to miss (just to throw another theory out there).

Some of these instruments have been played for literally hours a day for over 300 years by the best players in the world. I think some scientist should look into the "resonance/vibration" factor and how playing these instruments for so many years have affected their tone. They could pull one of the less-frequently played (and presumably more "stock" sounding) instruments out of a museum and compare it to the frequently owned/played/gigged instruments, and I'm sure there would be a huge difference.

[ilovemystrat]

density makes sense scientifically.

best agruement i've heard so far.