Here is a documentary of the process at YouTube.
The meta-data from YouTube on this video says:
- Published on Mar 19, 2014
The Paris Experiment: Stradivari violins, new violins, and what players really want.
In September of 2012, a historic test took place in Paris, France, involving some of the worlds finest violins and violinists; a double blind comparison of old vs new violins in concert hall settings.
This is a 28 minute version of a longer documentary about the proceedings.
Document of Paris double blind test in September 2012
Essentially, two of the new instruments won by a large margin. The least preferred were an old Strad and a new instrument. In the middle were a Strad from the Golden Period, and the Guarneri ‘del Gesù’.
- 1. Modern
2. Modern
3. Stradivarius Golden Period
4. Guarneri ‘del Gesù’
5. Modern
6. Stradivarius
Once again, myths built up over years — centuries, in this case — tumble down at the feet of empirical evidence. Of course the investment firms that have made Stradivarius Violins a diversification branch of the portfolios of the super-rich would argue vehemently that there were all kinds of shortcomings in the study. First and foremost, Jascha Heifetz did not participate, being rather longly late for such occasions, as in the late Heifetz, so how can you make a study without the greatest violinist ever? All the greats whose playing built up the reputation of the Strads and Guarneris are pretty much 6-feet-under, passed on, not-breathing-anymore, late fiddlers. Naturally, investors saw bucks if they could make a transference from the fiddlers to the fiddles, as if it were the fiddles whose magic qualities created Heifetz, Oistrakh, Menuhin, Szeryng, Milstein, Stern, etc., and not the other way around. The deflation of the myth could mean the deflation of the value of the instruments, so they will do everything in their power to keep the myth alive.
Once again I'm reminded of all the similar myths I've seen deflated. Monster Cables and beyond, as well as just about everything in the high-end audiophile stereo system world would collapse if similar tests were run. In fact, someone connected theirs with wire clothes-hangers, and people could tell no difference between them and Monster Cables (or something like that). From ice cream to steam locomotives, there are myths that elevate certain brands, models, designs to the status of legendary icons of civilization.
And yet... I still leave room for doubt. I know of at least one "myth" that is quite true. The Selmer Mark VI saxophone had a particular tone that players love. You can do so much with it. It's gorgeous, malleable, and the instrument was amazing, technically. The Mark VIs were made between the late 1950s up to about 1976. Mark VI bari saxes and sopranos were made till the 1980s. But the best were made in the early-mid 1960s. I hear people saying now that it's just a myth, but i've owned a dozen saxes of a wide range of brands, and I've played on literally hundreds of saxes of just about every brand known, until the recent ones of the past 15 years. Coming back to the Mark VI of each size of sax is an experience of ecstasy. But I know this, because I have played so many, so much, and I've exploited that sound for my own purposes. Other saxes just don't have the same sound. Ask an audience which they prefer, and they'll probably pick a fairly random sampling, but if you showed them the sax behind some of their favorite recordings, with its familiar sound, then they might realize what the particular sound of the Mark VI is, and they might look for it in future comparisons.
Could the Stradivarius comparison be of similar parameters? Many of the greats, like Heifetz, Perlman, Szeryng, and others prefer their Guarneri del Gesù over their Strads. There must be a reason. If there's a reason why the greatest of the greats prefer a certain instrument, might it just be possible that lesser players and listeners just don't get it? I can sure hear a difference in their playing, as compared to other violinists.
Then there are compressors that we all use in audio recording, some of which are legendary. Others may say "but you couldn't pick them out in a double-blind study," but there's a reason people like them, and it can't always be just because George Martin used on on the Abbey Road album. I'm a believer that the things that cannot be perceived or noticed by a listener are therefore not important. Is it really important to use a Juno synth? Or can I get close enough with Polysynth (MOTU's bundled Juno emulator) to satisfy 99.999% of all listeners? So, are some myths true, and others aren't? Is each myth true for certain people with the training to perceive it? (Still a myth to the blind followers who CLAIM to perceive it, but can't.) Or are we ALL just fooling ourselves?
In the 1980s, I could listen to a radio station playing classical music and tell you the piece, the composer, the conductor and orchestra, and even some of the players, as well as what kind of oboe the oboist was playing, even if I hadn't heard the recording before. My ears were very attuned to those particular details. Anyone who dared challenge me, then call the radio station, then do the research on the players and instruments, would be frustrated to find that I was right. (If I didn't know for sure, I'd say so.) Now, I can't do that well at all. But then I could. That tells me that there are subtle cues that a very highly trained individual may pick up that even other trained listeners won't hear. I know for a fact, because I was that person, and now I'm not. What I once could hear, now I cannot, because i've let go of staying on top of those recordings and sounds. I no longer study the players for their techniques, and so I no longer am really aware of everyone's technical pedigree. But once I was, and what I heard was fact, not conjecture.
So is there yet something to the mythology, perceptible to certain individuals, but not to most? That's going to be a tough double-blind study to devise, but I'd like to be a part of it when they figure it out.
Shooshie
