I posted this after seeing it early this morning and got back home a after a long day to see that, as Hesh predicted, this set off a storm of comments. I, like many here, have read of people claiming to have discovered Stradivari's 'secret'. Over time, invariably the discoveries fade away only to be replaced by new one's that fade away as well. But through it all, I still find myself intrigued.
Out of curiosity I carefully read the original study. I read a fair number of scientific studies in the course of my agriculture work and after many moons of doing so, I've become at least to some degree tuned in to seeing clues as to the general objectivity, the tools and methods and the parameters of the conclusions of studies. I don't know much about the science of this particular one but in general terms it looks to me to be well conducted, conservative in scope and conclusions that have a ring of truth.
When this report hit the wires - headline editors rightly figured that the word "Stradivarius" would would catch peoples attention and by implying that 'the' secret has been revealed they undoubted thought it would stir even more interest - after all it's what caught my eye. And along with most of you - my skepticism as well. Even though I've never been within a 1000 miles of a Strad as far as I know, I still like to pretend I know a little about 'em.
The study was not funded or sponsored, which undoubtedly had something to do with the small number of instruments measured - of the five Cremonese violins three were Gesù' violins (I don't imagine there would have been very many hits if the headlines had read 'Gesù's secrets revealed') and there were 8 contemporary
violins. The objective of the study could be roughly boiled down to this - to utilize high tech measuring tools in new ways to better understand the sound value of the older instruments and to see if the information might be of value to contemporary makers.
In fairness, the study itself is very interesting and worth taking a look at. While reading it I thought that it would be interesting to see Alan Carruth's comments. Rather than reporting that they had discovered 'the' secret, to the contrary, the authors are very up front about acknowledging that they were measuring a limited set of proportions- namely what they call the differential density (which is roughly the variation in density within each growth ring attributed to season growth) and the median density.
When these measurements were plotted out, what they found was that, although all instruments measured, old and new, had similar median densities but the older instruments tended to have more consistent and uniform differential densities. They clearly state that this is nothing more than a characteristic clustering and that there are many other factors that could lend themselves to the tone of the classic violins.
I think they would completely agree with what Colin has posted above that the old makers were extraordinarily
talented makers who above all were masters of their art.
I was a little curious about who's violins those contemporary ones might have been, so I googled the first maker's name -Terry M. Borman, from Arkansas. Well, that opened up a whole new can of worms. I was hoping that they hadn't compared a Cremonese violins with some Ozark Fiddles whittled out of a tree stumps. They didn't. Terry M. Borman also one of the researchers, is a builder of exquisite artistry and craftsmanship
and deserves a look.
http://www.bormanviolins.com Also look at his article from the magazine 'The Strad' Sept 2005 - "Passing Through the Woods"
where he uses CT scanning to measure 45 Gesù' violins with 4500 measurements.
http://www.bormanviolins.com/Articles/Strad%20Article.pdfAnd one more closer to the ground that I ended up reading that might interest some -
"Photography for Instrument Makers"
http://www.bormanviolins.com/Articles/VSAP%20Borman%20145-62.pdfBuenos noches,
john