Scientists Dispel The Mystery Surrounding Stradivarius Violins

[Caution]

Antonius Stradivarius violins are shrouded in more myths than any other instruments in world history. At Mid Sweden University, researchers are using modern technology to uncover his secrets. At the international acoustics conference ICSV12, taking place in Lisbon on July 11-14, 2005, Associate Professor Mats Tinnsten will be presenting the latest research findings in the field.

"It's not possible to copy Stradivarius violins exactly, since wood is a living material with great natural variations. The results of new research indicate, however, that we will be able to overcome such difficulties with the aid of advanced computer support," says Mats Tinnsten.

The Italian Antonius Stradivarius, 1644-1737, introduced a geometry and design that became the exemplar for all violin-makers. Of the 1,100 instruments he built, some 650 still survive. The extremely high value of these instruments was demonstrated at an auction at Christie's in London in April. The 'Lady Tennant' Stradivarius violin sold for more than SEK 14 million, the auction record for a musical instrument.

"His craftsmanship is still unexcelled. Few after the death of Stradivarius have managed to produce anything that even approaches his best work," says Mats Tinnsten, who, together with Associate Professor Peter Carlsson, is researching whether it is possible to copy Stradivarius violins with the aid of modern technology and powerful computers.

<snip>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712233805.htm

[AX10]

1. kick

[donco6]

2. Art, meet Science.

I wonder if science has a chance in this match.

[Caution]

4. Where is the "match?" here?

Is the question whether or not someone will be able to replicate the remarkable engineering of Stradivarius? The article clearly states that research indicates that the answer to this question is yes and that a big part of the "magic" behind the violins was the actual wood used.

I don't understand why anyone would think that art and science are somehow at odds here or anywhere else. On the contrary, you'll find that most scientists have a deep appreciation of art. Most artists I know apply scientific principles in their art as well.

[donco6]

6. I think art and science are at odds quite often,

but not in a bad sort of way - more like a playful contest.

I'm a science teacher and love art. But most scientists I know just can't help trying to break a piece down and tell you why it's beautiful. It's in their blood. So, it would make sense for them to take a Strad and try to analyze why it produces such beautiful music. Maybe it *is* the wood. And maybe there is a way to identify the best type of wood using science. But my bet is that Mr. Stradivarius just "knew." Perhaps he did do all kinds of analysis to determine which block would produce a better violin. But I think he could just tell by looking at it and gauging the progress as we worked on it.

If they're right, more power to them. But I just think there's gestalt involved here.

[Caution]

9. I don't see that as being at odds though

Why would trying to determine why something is beautiful to us be contrary to art? Art at its heart is meant to evoke emotion or provoke thought, science when applied to art is simply trying to determine why a given piece is able to do this.

Certainly I would agree that Stradivarius just "knew" because there is no other way he could have created so many masterpieces, however science is trying to help to create more of them and make them accessible to those who wish to play on this type of violin where right now only the wealthy have that opportunity.

I think here the case is more of science trying to further art and enable artists.

[donco6]

10. You and I know it shouldn't be competitive, but . . .

. . . maybe it's just human nature. Scientists (speaking very generally here) don't like gestalt - they think if you break something down into its elemental pieces, you should be able to know the true nature of it. (Never mind the fact that those "elemental" pieces just keep getting smaller and smaller). Artists are more content to believe that a piece is always going to be more than the sum of its parts, and leave it at that. It's a balancing game and I think both sides poke fun at each other over the eternal debate.

I applaud their effort and hope it moves us along toward making Strad-quality instruments available.

[smoogatz]

3. People have been trying to copy Stradivarii for centuries

They've been measured and analyzed in excruciating detail. Fact is, a Stradivarius in 1730 probably sounded a lot different from a Stradivarius today. Wood changes as it ages; so do varnishes. Any instrument maker or musician could tell you this.

[jody]

5. I've long believed part of his genius was in selecting wood that had

unique qualities, qualities that are no longer available unless someone finds very old growth trees.

[Tux]

7. Sad in a way

That we need computers to help design copies of a violin that a man several centuries ago could make with simple measurements. It's also great since it shows the skill a person can have.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. From what I've read it wasn't just that he chose the right wood,

but that the wood he chose was particularly dense and fine-grained because of an extended cold spell - the mini-ice age of the 17th century. So choosing wood of the same species of tree wouldn't replicate the sound of a Strad unless it had grown under the same circumstances.

[donco6]

11. At $14,000,000 a pop, I'd bet someone

would try to replicate that tree growth in an artificial environment. When profit is involved, you never know what people will do.

[punpirate]

12. The first thing these guys should do is a literature search...

... because I remember an intriguing article from about twenty years ago, where the author postulated that the key to the tone of Stradivarius instruments lay in the method of manufacture. He was perplexed by the fact that most Stradivarii were made inferior to the original by restoration, even when the varnish composition was exactly duplicated.

He postulated that regardless of method--either sanding off the original varnish or by swelling due to chemical stripping, the wood grain thickness and density was changed, and he said there were some vague references in the extant literature which suggested a process he translated as "imprinting." Eventually, he said, he came to believe that this "imprinting" was actually a method of using bright sunlight as a means of determining the density of the wood, and that thin wood slabs were placed against a window in bright sun where the denser and darker areas were marked and selectively sanded down until they matched the less dense areas, so that the piece was of uniform density, as least as could be judged by its appearance in strong light.

This hypothesis may have been disproved in the intervening years, but I found it a fascinating explanation for the degradation of quality after restoration, and it might still be on the right track to the explanation for the unique acoustics of the instrument.

Cheers.