Stradivarius Fails Sound Test versus Newbie Violins

Experienced violinists were unable to tell the difference between rare, old instruments and new ones. Sophie Bushwick 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!

Can you tell the difference between modern violins and antiques crafted by Italian masters? Don’t feel too bad—expert players can’t do it either. In a double-blind test, 21 experienced violinists were unable to tell the difference between rare, old instruments and new ones. The study is in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Claudia Fritz et al., "Player preferences among new and old violins"]

Researchers provided violinists with six high-quality instruments: three modern and three crafted by the legendary Stradivari or Guarneri in the 18th century—and worth a hundred times as much as the new ones.

To prevent bias, everyone who handled the violins did so without knowing which instrument was which, in a darkened room while wearing vision-modifying goggles. A dab of perfume under the chin rests even masked the instruments’ scents. After playing each violin, the subjects rated them and selected their favorite one.


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.


When it came to instrument quality, the old and new violins earned similar scores, and fewer than half of the participants chose old violins as their favorites. Apparently, a violin by any other craftsman can sound as sweet.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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