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

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe