Fungivarius

[danb]

Here's a fun read for the builders, a piece about wood treated with fungus (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111418.htm) used in violin making, and blind strad tests etc

[Dan Gunderson]

Very interesting, but they don't really mention in what way the wood is "treated" with the fungus. I assume they mean the dried wood is treated prior to building? Or maybe the finished "in the white" instrument is treated in some form or fashion?
Also, as has been discussed so many times previously, there are just so many factors that go into producing an instrument with great tone that it's hard to say with a straight face that in this case it was the fungus treatment that was the key to producing the great instrument. Perhaps the builder just got hold of some great wood and did everything just right. I suppose if they had some before/after treatment tests, and those came out noticeably different then that would really be something.~o)
Still it's a cool story anyway, thanks for posting it!

[MikeEdgerton]

Can it be added retroactively? I can see if now, spray on the fungus, let it grow and your $49.00 Rogue will sound like a signed Lloyd Loar in a matter of months.

[Bob Borzelleri]

Interesting. However, for those who play with their toes, I'd advise keeping a can of "Fast Actin'" Tinactin handy.

[Tom Smart]

You only need to read through the Related Articles listed in the sidebar to begin to get a sense for how silly all this "Secrets of Stradivarius" stuff gets. All of them propose a different "secret." The common threads that run through all the articles are self-promotion and complete lack of any true scientific method.

Stradivari was a great craftsman, innovator and, in his own right, an effective self-promoter. Those were his "secrets." Why the relentless, media-driven need to "prove" there's any more to his success than that?

[JeffD]

You only need to read through the Related Articles listed in the sidebar to begin to get a sense for how silly all this "Secrets of Stradivarius" stuff gets. All of them propose a different "secret." The common threads that run through all the articles are self-promotion and complete lack of any true scientific method.

Stradivari was a great craftsman, innovator and, in his own right, an effective self-promoter. Those were his "secrets." Why the relentless, media-driven need to "prove" there's any more to his success than that?

I have read many times that there are more than a few recently made violins out there every bit as great as a Strad in blind tests, perhaps not identical, and perhaps different to the player as well, but every bit as good and would be as acceptable but for the legend.


We might perhaps be climbing in the same boat regarding our devoted Loar. Great as a signed F5 might be, I am sure there are luthiers who can and are producing as great an instrument, in all ways measureable except mojo and the legend.

I am glad in mandolin luthiery there isn't (as much) the slavish attempts to reproduce the legendary instrument, as there is in the violin world.

Most every fiddle looks like most every other fiddle, while any give jam or ensemble that has more than one mandolin will have more than one kind of mandolin.

[mrmando]

So, if I get Berend Stoel to help me choose the ideal wood, and Joe Nagyvary to treat it chemically, and Schwarze to treat it with fungus, and I carve it to match the thicknesses in a Strad and get Peter Zaret to put a bass bar in it ... the resulting violin should sound five times as good as a Strad, right?

Note that this blind test was conducted in front of 180 attendees at a forest-husbandry conference ... a large group of non-experts, in other words; I don't think anyone expects tree scientists and lumberjacks to have the final word on violin tone. Only half of them thought the fungolin sounded the best, even though 113 thought it was the Strad. The article also mentions a "jury of experts," but avoids saying what the experts thought -- the only numbers we get refer to the group en masse.

[mrmando]

Most every fiddle looks like most every other fiddle, while any give jam or ensemble that has more than one mandolin will have more than one kind of mandolin.

I dunno ... put a Hopf next to a Strad and you might notice a few differences. There are lots of different violin patterns, although the variances are perhaps more subtle.

[JeffD]

I dunno ... put a Hopf next to a Strad and you might notice a few differences. There are lots of different violin patterns, although the variances are perhaps more subtle.

I'll give you that. But basically, from several feet away, you need to be a specialist to see the differences.

You won't see differences as between an A and an F, or a flat top versus an arch top, a pancake versus a tear drop, not to even mention a bowlback.


There are a few violin makers (http://www.timsviolins.co.uk/)pushing the envelope, but it will be many years before we see the acceptable diversity as we see in mandolins.

[barry k]

I still prefer rolling my chicken bones at the mandolin, has a mezmerizing effect and makes em sound just like a................. On a serious note, I have used a lot of Spalted curly maple and had wonderful tonal results Vs. standard maple billets, and I believe the Spalt is (was) a type of fungus , right??

[Tom C]

I read about this about a year ago. Here is thread different folks though>
http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45415&highlight=fungus

[Rick Turner]

The fungus basically digests hemicellulose at an advanced rate. Hemicellulose is one of the components of wood that does slowly disappear with age, leaving cellulose and lignen behind. The loss of the material seems to lessen density faster than it affects stiffness or strength, and that may mean that old spruce has a better stiffness to weight ratio than that same wood had when it was new. And this MAY account for some of the changes most of us agree happen to stringed instruments over time.

You can scoff all you want, but in doing so, you may blind yourself to some underlying truths which may be masked by marketing baloney or deliberate obfuscation.

I agree that most of the "secrets of Strad revealed" are likely a bunch of cr.p, but don't just dismiss everything without at least an informed critical look.

[Tom Smart]

Rick, I have no beef with people who apply legitimate science or even sprinkle magical fairy dust in pursuit of better instruments. My complaint is against pseudo-science with the goal of self-promotion, and the media "journalists" who eat it up like candy.

If there's something real in the fungus theory, great. But there's no need to link it to Stradivari, and especially to sully his reputation by implying his instruments were only great by accident.

[Bernie Daniel]

Tom Smart: If there's something real in the fungus theory, great. But there's no need to link it to Stradivari, and especially to sully his reputation by implying his instruments were only great by accident.


How on earth do you come up with that statement? Aren't you creating a strawman to beat on?

As far as I know no one claims that Strads are good by accident.

If that were the case, then randomly, all other violins made in the same time period as the Strads would be as good or better because probability says not all the "accidents" could occur to the same person. The premise would be illogical as Spock would say

Most realize that Stradovari was an outstanding luthier and that fact, combined with a few centuries of natural aging to the woods seem to have lead to outstanding violins.

All this experiment of fungus suggests is that is that it a competent, present day luthier makes a quality violin and then treats the wood to simulate the aging that you arrive at an insturment comparable to the Strad.

[Tom Smart]

Bernie,

Actually, if you read much of the research on the so-called "Secrets of Stradivari," you'll find a lot of "scientists" postulating that Strad just got lucky. One example is the theory that he had access to superior wood that grew during the Maunder Minimum, or "Little Ice Age." Another is the theory that he bought his varnish from the local pharmacist and it contained compounds that Strad couldn't possibly have known about but that somehow contributed to a tone no other varnish could match. Another theory is that the logs he used spent a lot of time floating in saltwater, which somehow made the wood better. Another is that he used something like ground glass in the varnish to improve the luster of the finish, and it inadvertently improved the tone.

Yet another recent theory is that the wood was treated with a borax-based fungicide that somehow altered its properties. And now we have exactly the opposite idea--that it's actually some kind of fungus that does the trick. Even if there's some validity to this latest research, the media and the popular imagination are likely to jump all over it as the reason Strad's instruments are great, even though according to the article, "Stradivarius himself knew nothing of fungi which attack wood."

This isn't a straw man; it's virtually a cottage industry in self-promotion and media hype built on undermining the reputation of history's most innovative, prolific and successful violin maker.

P.S., Stradivari's genius was recognized and handsomely rewarded in his own lifetime. It didn't take several centuries for the violins to finally come into their own. That's just another "he got lucky" theory. And I believe there are makers today who are making comparable instruments following in his footsteps (and those of Guarneri and others). But it takes more than merely being a "competent" maker with some kind of secret formula.

[Rick Turner]

Tom, I believe that one of the chief "rediscoverers of Strad's secrets" lives in your very town. He seems to pop up about every four years with yet another discovery for which he gets incredible coverage in the gullible media. You certainly hit on most of his theories that I've read about!

No luthier "get lucky" with the kind of percentage that Strad seems to have had. And of course another interesting issue is that kind of like Loar mandolins were not built for Bluegrass, neither were Strad's violins made for a lot of the music being played on them. And to top it off, there are only a handful of Strad violins that have not received major modifications over the years, with a number of them even being done in the maestro's lifetime, according to the now departed Hans Weisshaar who in his day was probably the number one Strad restoration expert on the West Coast.

But this process for hastening the exit of hemi-cellulose is interesting. Luthier Al Carruth has written a bit on this whole issue of wood literally changing and losing mass over a long period of time, and that not being moisture loss, and it's pretty fascinating.

[barney 59]

So with the fungus they are able to artficially age the instrument? Did they try a Tone Rite?
I think these attempts at finding a trick of science to explain Stradivarius's brilliance is somehow an unconsious attempt to diminish him in some way. With all our understanding and technology no one it seems can consistantly achieve what he was able to do. He apparently was batting a thousand and even when someone makes something as good and,some might argue, even better they can't seem to do it as consistantly as he did. It is possible that he was just that good ... or
Maybe we just equate the sound of a Strad ( Which is often the sound of our greatest musicians) as "Good" everything else gets defined by our training. Kind of like what we have done with the Loar sound....it's the barometer by which everything else is judged. I think many builders today are building mandolins that are as good as Loars and many are better--but if the sound strays too far away from that sound we tend to find it unpleasing.

[Paul Hostetter]

Tom, I'm very much with you on this. I'm willing to wait a few decades to see if there's anything of value to this, but I really have my doubts. Nagyvary's posturing over the last 40 years or so is plenty of evidence that even scientists can't do this sort of thing scientifically.

There was a technique common in the late 19th C for acid-fuming wood to make it look a certain way. It indeed looked great, but what was not anticipated was that the degradation wasn't really controlled: the wood continued to degrade until it turned to dust as the tops collapsed. But it seemed like The Next Big Thing for awhile there.

[Rick Turner]

Paul, I believe that the ozone treatments have also had that effect. Sure, the wood looks great, but the degradation is not understood well.

[Gail Hester]

As I understand, strong ammonia fumes stop the action of ozone.

[man dough nollij]

So with the fungus they are able to artficially age the instrument? Did they try a Tone Rite?
I

NEVER use both! The Tone Rite will make the mycelium dizzy, rendering it toxic to Tone Fairies!!

[Ivan Kelsall]

A few years ago,i saw a similar experiment (on TV) carried out with Violins that had an added compound in the varnish of one of them - i think it was volcanic dust,or something very similar. There were 3 Violins being played against a well know & revered Strad. They'd be varnished with different varnishes & only one had the 'magic' ingredient,which was which,was unknown to the Violinist. In a blind listening test the one with the 'magic' ingredient came out top - in fact to my ears ALL the Violins sounded better than the Strad.,which seemed to be very harsh & strident. The one with the 'magic' ingredient,did indeed sound incredibly good,& i've attended enough Classical music concerts & solo performances to recognise a 'good sounding' Violin. But it's all a matter of personal taste anyway,
Ivan;)

[Patrick Gunning]

The thing about this experiment that's different than the previous "Strad secrets" that I've seen is they can actually show the cellulose in the wood before and after in a microscope and see the cell walls are measurably thinner, and also compare the before and after strength-to-weight ratios using plate deflection. It seems to me that a process for eliminating non-tone-producing weight from tonewood without sacrificing strength sounds a whole lot more rational than mystical varnish, salt water absorption or borax (though the borax fungicide idea is interesting, it could imply that fungus was present on the wood and needed to be killed before building, leaving trace elements on the tonewood).

Another thing to look at in this study is the statistical element. Because there were four violins by the new maker (2 fungus, 2 normal) and only one strad, completely random guessing would have produced 20% votes for each as the breakdown, with 80% of the votes going to a new violin by default. The fact that fungus violin Opus 58 got 50% of the vote means it outperformed this margin by a statistically significant amount (+30%). The Strad only outperformed random guessing by 1.6% (21.6% total), which is unlikely to be statistically significant (though I can't say for sure without the rest of the data to calculate standard deviations). To account for the additional votes for Opus 58, at least two of the other three modern violins must have performed at significantly lower margins than random guessing.

I would have liked to see two Strads in the mix to make "random" Strad guessing the same likelihood as random guessing towards the modern violins. The way it was actually performed, people with no clue were twice as likely to randomly guess one of the fungus fiddles than the strad, which could have slightly biased the test towards a particular fungus example.

Another question is whether the audience was allowed to confer with eachother before voting. Audience members conferring with their neighbors could have influenced a trend towards Opus 58. The article doesn't specify this.

I hope these guys allow more research by other parties into this, though I believe they have applied for a patent on the fungus, which could make testing by other luthiers an expensive proposition.

[Paul Hostetter]

The one favorable thing I could say about Nagyvary is his eventual focus on the cell structure and how that was amended by various factors, including time and oxygen, infusions of chemicals and salts, and so on. So in this regard, there's no new territory being covered here except the use of a fungus to hasten a process that would happen anyway. I mean, these guys didn't invent a fungus. But somehow they think they own it and can control it.

:disbelief:

There are some interesting and appropriate comments here (http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=004164) from a couple of people I have great respect for.

[Tom Smart]

Tom, I believe that one of the chief "rediscoverers of Strad's secrets" lives in your very town.

If you mean Nagyvary, I believe he lives in Texas. He did visit SLC last winter to promote his latest theory. While he was here, he went skiing with Peter Prier, head of the violin-making school. In the news article, Prier said Nagyvary was a good skier but gently suggested that his theories were nonsense. It was refreshing to read something like that, for once, in an article about Nagyvary. Usually it's all just breathless praise at the foot of the master.

Of course, Salt Lake does have more than its share of violin makers, and no doubt there are a few other theories floating around out there. So maybe you were referring to someone else.