Expert Violinists Bad at Picking Strads
Ten violin soloists who played different instruments blindfolded then picked a Stradivarius over a modern instrument as being the superior violin at rates no better than chance. Karen Hopkin reports
By Karen Hopkin
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
[Violin plays] The Stradivarius is arguably the finest violin ever made. But could you tell one from a modern instrument? Was that a Strad? [Another violin plays] How about that?
Well, if you can’t tell the difference, don’t feel bad. Neither could a group of accomplished violinists. That surprising result appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Claudia Fritz et al, Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins]
Old Italian violins have a reputation for being superior in sound to newer models. But is their reputation deserved? To find out, researchers blindfolded 10 renowned violin soloists and had them play a dozen violins, six new and six old.
When asked to guess the age of the instruments, the musicians failed to distinguish classic from modern at levels better than chance. And the new violins received higher overall marks than the antiques. When asked which violin they would choose to take on tour, six out of the 10 went with a modern instrument. The others grabbed Strads.
The results suggest that modern violins perform as well as the classics. And that modern violinists are better at performing than at picking violins.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
[Take the Telegraph's Strad test.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
