Scientific proof for an instrument "opening up"?

[Jstring]

Yes, I know this is one of the most beaten-to-death topics on the Cafe...but a new study was just released about the great violin makers. The following snippet is from today's NYT article about the research:

Dr. Tai’s team also found a property in the Stradivari violin samples but not the cellos: When they heated the wood shavings of the violins, they found an extra peak in oxidation, which implies a detachment between wood fibers.
This detachment, possibly the result of centuries of vibrations from playing, may give the instruments greater expressiveness, Dr. Tai said, adding, “Top violinists often feel like these old violins vibrate more freely, which allows them to express a wider set of emotions.”

Here's a link to the whole article:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/20...olin-wood.html

[Mark Gunter]

Bummer, I can't read it - not subscribed, and I guess I've already read ten articles there this month (NYT free limit is 10/mo.)

But the way you've described it makes it sound a bit like hogwash. Not the science, the musical 'conclusions'.

"possibly the result ... may give the instruments ... violinists often feel like ..."

IOW, that ain't about nothin' LOL

[fscotte]

I'm a firm believer than instruments change in time. There are some indisputable facts we have to consider.

Wood bends and deforms with time stress. This may be the reason why the tone changes as well. Guitars bulge up at the bridge, mando tops sink. That mando when new, wasn't sinking a bit below the f-holes like it is now. Ebony bridge saddles will sometimes display a curve due to the stress of the strings, the list of facts about wood changing its shape with time and stress are there for all to see.

It's very likely the combination of all the changes contribute to a change in tone.

[Shelagh Moore]

As someone who's postgraduate research was in comparative wood microstructure I'll be interested to read this paper. As Mark says above it's hardly scientific "proof" but it may yield some interesting observations.

[Jstring]

IOW, that ain't about nothin' LOL

I guess I found it important because many musicians "hear" the opening-up phenomenon, but there's never been empirical proof.

A rigorous study that observes "detachment in the wood fibers" of played-in violins would thus be pretty significant...

[sblock]

I hate to burst the bubble, but the basic logic here is confused and flawed. No one, to my knowledge -- not even the strongest skeptic about the "opening up" phenomenon -- has ever claimed that the properties of wood don't change over time! Of course wood properties change. Aged wood is different from new wood, and we all agree about that. Almost everything changes, in fact, and eventually turns to dust.

The question to ask is whether any long-term changes that appear on a centuries-long timescale -- such as the change in the microstructure in violins reported here -- have anything whatsoever to do with any tonal improvements, or with "opening up." Most people who believe in "opening up" argue that it occurs through playing, and that it happens on a time scale of months to years, NOT slowly over decades and centuries. There are also others who believe in the phenomena of "waking up," which can occur within minutes to hours of playing an instrument that has lain dormant for a period. If the wood changes described in this report don't jibe with the timescale of opening up, there can be little reason to believe that they might somehow correlated with the "Strad sound." And no such correlation has been pursued. In a phrase, one needs to demonstrate (1) some type of cause-and-effect, in addition to demonstrating (2) a temporal correlation between the change in wood and the change in tone. We have neither, here.

Another critically important question to answer is whether violins of similar age but lesser quality, or those that many not have been played as much, show similar changes in their wood structure. If this structural change is simply a trivial consequence of ageing, and not some unique feature asscoaited with great violins (or with well-played violins), then there is little reason to believe some of the stories, either.

In short, there is nothing in this study that links microstructural wood changes with improvements in tone, or with any form of "opening up," for that matter.

Believers will keep on believing, skeptics will keep on questioning. But let's all of us try, for the sake of science, to keep the standards of evidence high, and to get the logic right.

[Bertram Henze]

[Tom C]

Sounds like they need a humidifier

[FLATROCK HILL]

This detachment, possibly the result of centuries of vibrations from playing, may give the instruments greater expressiveness, Dr. Tai said, adding, “Top violinists often feel like these old violins vibrate more freely, which allows them to express a wider set of emotions.”

It that ain't proof, I don't know what is!

[june39]

The last sentence in the NYT article was interesting. Apparently, instruments open up and then they die.

"With their continued decomposition, many Stradivari and Guarneri instruments will lose their acoustics in the next 100 years, he said, adding, “These instruments will not last forever.”

[Tobin]

And here I was hoping for a Festivus miracle, to get through the holiday season without another raging "opening up" debate. Sadly, it was not to be. Let the airing of grievances begin!

[sblock]

The last sentence in the NYT article was interesting. Apparently, instruments open up and then they die.

"With their continued decomposition, many Stradivari and Guarneri instruments will lose their acoustics in the next 100 years, he said, adding, “These instruments will not last forever.”

Well, nothing lasts forever. Except, perhaps, this debate...

[brunello97]

Well, nothing lasts forever. Except, perhaps, this debate...

I know that's right. And this thread has only begun. The real chest thumpers around here have yet to show.

Mick

[Ky Slim]

In short, there is nothing in this study that links microstructural changes with improvements in tone, or with any form of "opening up", for that matter.

I agree. The study makes no claims about tone at all. It isn't about instruments "opening up." It is about Chemical distinctions between Stradivari’s maple and modern tonewood.

The last sentence from the conclusion section: "Stradivari’s maple may represent a singular case in the history of wooden musical instruments, but its implications and impact may be far-reaching.

[Mandolin Cafe]

[Br1ck]

I think the mind can trick the ears very easily, so when I think I hear a change, that is what it is. I think I hear a change. It doesn't change the enjoyment of the perception though.

[Jstring]

Uh...my apologies for starting this thread...

I'm not particularly passionate about this issue one way or the other, but I do enjoy reading about these things...

Wasn't trying to re-ignite an irritating debate...

My bad.

[Astro]

One things for sure, nothing.

[gtani7]

One factor is torrefaction, "evaporation of hemicellulose from wood over time ": http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...ime-quot/page4 , which I've also seen described as the tubes carrying sap in the tree emptying out slowly over decades of time

Martin and Bourgeouis guitars use this technique, also Yamaha for violins and cellos.

[HonketyHank]

I agree. The study ...

Thanks for posting the link to the actual journal article. I now suspect that the good Dr. actually practices science.

[Jim Garber]

This seems to be the crux of the study:

Mineral treatments, followed by centuries of aging and transformation from playing, might give these instruments unique tonal qualities.

“If you compare Stradivari’s maple with modern, high-quality maple wood that is almost the same, the two woods are very different,” said Hwan-Ching Tai, a professor of chemistry at National Taiwan University and an author of the paper.
<snip>
First, they found evidence of chemical treatments containing aluminum, calcium, copper and other elements — a practice lost to later generations of violin makers.

As noted, this may account for the quality of those old violins or it may not and the other hypotheses could be equally correct.... or not.

In the meantime, there are probably hundred of blind sound tests of new violins vs. old ones being scheduled as we speak. This will probably never end.

On the other hand, will anyone do chemical analysis of the wood that is in a Loar F-5?

[Spruce]

As someone who's postgraduate research was in comparative wood microstructure I'll be interested to read this paper.

...don't bother...
...lots of debatable statements in that there article....ugh.

"With their continued decomposition, many Stradivari and Guarneri instruments will lose their acoustics in the next 100 years..."

"For a while, people suggested that luthiers had simply used trees that have since gone extinct..."

“Modern luthiers don’t do this...”

"Since then, luthiers have tirelessly tried to imitate Stradivari’s and Guarneri’s craftsmanship, copying their wood choice, geometry and construction methods. But their efforts have met with little success."


...all BS, IMHO...

These people who write articles like this are creating their own set of "problems", and then set out to arrogantly "solve" them...

Scheech, go build a fiddle already...

On the other hand, will anyone do chemical analysis of the wood that is in a Loar F-5?

Please NO!!

Happy Holidays, all!

[sblock]

On the other hand, will anyone do chemical analysis of the wood that is in a Loar F-5?

But Jim, there is simply no evidence (that I am aware of) that the wood used to make the Loar-signed F5's in 1922-1924 was special in any way, or subjected to any special chemical treatments, for that matter. It was just like other Gibson tonewoods of the time, and made from red spruce and maple. So, what would one hope to gain from such a chemical analysis?

[Spruce]

But Jim, there is simply no evidence (that I am aware of) that the wood used to make the Loar-signed F5's in 1922-1924 was special in any way, or subjected to any special chemical treatments, for that matter. It was just like other Gibson tonewoods of the time, and made from red spruce and maple. So, what would one hope to gain from such a chemical analysis?

Tenure...

[s1m0n]

Bummer, I can't read it - not subscribed, and I guess I've already read ten articles there this month (NYT free limit is 10/mo.)

Clear your cookies to reset the clock.