Chemistry in concert !

http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html031705110425.html

Giuseppe Scardamaglia

Or maybe it was the artistry of the maker, what a concept

There are many modern violin makers producing beautiful instruments.
Every few years someone comes up with a new Strad secret thet makes the news and then fades away.

The fungus may well be a contributing factor but a mediocre maker will make a mediocre violin no matter what "secrets" he employs.

Daman is considered by some to be the Stradivarius of classical guitar makers.
He makes a double top guitar (2 very thin top layers with nomex in between).

Many makers now make double top guitars. only a handful are as good as Daman.

So many factors go into making a great instrument that it is impossible to trace the sound to one single element. Part of the artistry of the maker is his ability to balance all these factors to produce a truly great sounding instrument.

Of course, great sounding is also a matter of opinion.

Gee, it's beginning to sound like audio

"I see another potentially informative thread has been turned into a Kait-derailed thread."

It's been 10 days since you last posted on this thread. I'm sure you've been very busy but you could have at least regaled us with some more anisotropic theory....

>>> "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/science/04strad.html?_r=1&hpw

Or maybe it wasn't the chemicals.
Fun mystery." <<<

Interesting, Buddha. Partway to becoming some sort of reasonable and interesting discussion !!!

The latest research findings (as reported in that NYT article) concentrates on the varnishes used on Stradivari violins and you have extrapolated, from that, that "maybe it wasn't the chemicals" !! You are right, a 'fun mystery' - but also a serious mystery !!!!!!!!!

The NYT article says :-

>>> "a detailed analysis of the varnish on five instruments made by Antonio Stradivari reveals that he coated the wood with a rather humdrum mix of oil and resin. Those looking to the varnish as the secret to the master Italian violin maker's renown, the study suggests, had best look elsewhere." <<<

And YOU have concluded, (suggested, inferred ?) from that, that any 'cracking of some of the secrets behind why Stradivari violins sound so good' can't be because of 'chemicals' !!!!

Science does not work like that, Buddha, merely as dismissive as that. Scientists explore all avenues, what I call "using stepping stones to explore". If one is (hypothetically) on stepping stone number 7, and working on one specific aspect of something, one does not dismiss all other previous work and all other findings and all other theories. If other findings, and other theories do not quite fit at any particular time, one does what I describe as 'putting them on a shelf' - to be taken down later, dusted off, looked at again, in the light of further findings, in the light of further theories. I have argued constantly, one DOES NOT either dismiss other findings and other theories 'out of hand' and one DOES NOT stay blinkered wholly with such theories as "it's the anisotropy that does it" !! Or "it is the geometry that does it". Or "it is the specific wood that does it". It is those attitudes that I have been challenging all along.

The New York Times article makes reference to Joseph Nagyvary's research in the context ONLY of his work on varnishes !!
As in :-
>>> "Joseph Nagyvary, a retired professor at Texas A&M University who created an outcry several decades ago when he suggested that there were minerals in the varnish of old Italian instruments, used samples from cellos by other makers. "We never had the privilege of getting a sample from a Strad," he said. "I tried that for 30 years and got nothing but insults."

Dr. Nagyvary, who has experimented with varnishes of his own, using ingredients like shrimp shells to add protein, said the new findings were "something of great interest."
"We have to take them seriously, but there are many other claims," he said." <<<

BUT, when you look further at Nagyvary's (and others) research you find that as well as looking at the subject of various varnishes Nagyvary (and others) also looked at the WOOD itself and what might be in the WOOD:-

>>> "Joseph Nagyvary, a professor emeritus of biochemistry, first theorized in 1976 that chemicals used on the instruments

Quote:
You dismiss chemicals far too simply and easily Buddha !!!

Not so, May.

I merely wish to go beyond, "It must be the flouride!" level of discourse where others would stop.

For me, your sort of limited answer does disservice the Mr. Stradivarius. Much like assessing a Bouillabaisse and saying, "You know, it's the flouride that is what makes this dish what it is."

There are interesting studies of the quality of the growing seasons in Stradivarius' time; his selective application of lacquer, described as "painterish"; how the wood was stored, etc...

A zealot with an agenda may wish to appear 'expert' by proclaiming a decades-long insight into the flouride content of the master's work as being what sets him apart, but hitching your wagon to such a limited view diminishes his masterworks in serving your agenda.

Quote:

Quote:
You dismiss chemicals far too simply and easily Buddha !!!

Not so, May.

I merely wish to go beyond, "It must be the flouride!" level of discourse where others would stop.

For me, your sort of limited answer does disservice the Mr. Stradivarius. Much like assessing a Bouillabaisse and saying, "You know, it's the flouride that is what makes this dish what it is."

There are interesting studies of the quality of the growing seasons in Stradivarius' time; his selective application of lacquer, described as "painterish"; how the wood was stored, etc...

A zealot with an agenda may wish to appear 'expert' by proclaiming a decades-long insight into the flouride content of the master's work as being what sets him apart, but hitching your wagon to such a limited view diminishes his masterworks in serving your agenda.

Exactly, buddha, the artist (maker) is a part of the equation that shouldn't be dismissed.
May is being too simplistic.

"Exactly, buddha, the artist (maker) is a part of the equation that shouldn't be dismissed.

May is being too simplistic."

>> Unfortunately for your argument, the Strad was compared to violins that were also made by master craftsman. Thus, your argument is, dare I say it, a Strawman.

Cheerio

Quote:
"Exactly, buddha, the artist (maker) is a part of the equation that shouldn't be dismissed.

May is being too simplistic."

>> Unfortunately for your argument, the Strad was compared to violins that were also made by master craftsman. Thus, your argument is, dare I say it, a Strawman.

Cheerio

Yes, no way the violins could have otherwise differed. Definitely proof that it is the flouride.

"It's the cans! He must hate cans!"

No other explanation!

"Die, run of the mill Bastard!" (is the next line in the film, from the sniper across for the station on the hill) ("Nathan R. Johnson, typical run of the mill bastard"- says the sniper as he randomly picks Nathan's name out of the phone book)

Maybe we could whip the Violins with chains, like they was a cheap wooden table from Thailand or sumpthin'?

New theory - The secret is in the glue. I'll bet the "experts" who examined the Strad never thought to take one apart.

Quote:
New theory - The secret is in the glue. I'll bet the "experts" who examined the Strad never thought to take one apart.

Yes, it must be reduceable to only one factor!

Don't let May hear you say it's not the flouride.

But, I'm not reducing it to one factor - I just pointed out that the, uh, experts overlooked an obvious possibility. What else did they overlook?

Reminds me of the nitwits that took an Intellichip to a metallurgy lab to examine the surfaces of the tiny metal dots inside the chip with an electron microscope. When quantum material was not observed they proclaimed that there is no quantum material there! But the quantum material is >inside< the dot, sandwiched between the top and bottom layers, where it cannot be seen by the electron microscope. Even if they could take the dot apart, there are only several thousand atoms of the quantum stuff in there -- It would take years to find them!

"People sure are dumb" - Gomer Pyle

Quote:
But, I'm not reducing it to one factor - I just pointed out that the, uh, experts overlooked an obvious possibility. What else did they overlook?

Reminds me of the nitwits that took an Intellichip to a metallurgy lab to examine the surfaces of the tiny metal dots inside the chip with an electron microscope. When quantum material was not observed they proclaimed that there is no quantum material there! But the quantum material is >inside< the dot, sandwiched between the top and bottom layers, where it cannot be seen by the electron microscope. Even if they could take the dot apart, there are only several thousand atoms of the quantum stuff in there -- It would take years to find them!

"People sure are dumb" - Gomer Pyle

Thus begins our weekly commercial plug.

Check the forum rules about that sort of thing.

Who died and made you the Chief of Ethical Standards?

The original chip was not my product. Duh! Do I need to quote Gomer Plyle again?

Quote:
Who died and made you the Chief of Ethical Standards?

The original chip was not my product. Duh! Do I need to quote Gomer Plyle again?

So, you are not marketing an "Intelligent Chip?"

Not my rule.

Check the rule for "manufacturers" and get in line with the policy, P.T.

"The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products...

Thanks in advance for following the forum rules!

Dude, now you're just being silly. Get real.

For anyone reading this thread who hasn't heard of the Intelligent Chip, it will be our little secret, OK?

Quote:
Dude, now you're just being silly. Get real.

For anyone reading this thread who hasn't heard of the Intelligent Chip, it will be our little secret, OK?

Marketing is marketing.

Not that I'd expect otherwise from you.

Maybe move down to a music forum and start with your commercials, eh?

Quote:

Marketing is marketing.

Yup.

And a potentially interesting thread is lost to a bunch of phantasmagorical floobydust introduced by a griefer whose only intentions are to sell his faux-panaceas and to stifle any other kind of conversation.

That's what it's all about you know, with Kait, he picks arguments so he has excuses to SELL SELL SELL his panacea du jour.

Quote:
"Exactly, buddha, the artist (maker) is a part of the equation that shouldn't be dismissed.

May is being too simplistic."

>> Unfortunately for your argument, the Strad was compared to violins that were also made by master craftsman. Thus, your argument is, dare I say it, a Strawman.

Cheerio

Surely you are more intelligent than that, Geoff.

Even with the same maker each instrument will be at least subtly different.
This is due to many differing factors but one is the maker himself and what he does to coax the best sound out of each instrument.

Makers tap the raw wood listening to tap tones and adjust ,eg., the thickness of a top in different areas.

The maker is one of the most important factors in the equation.

I know a number of professional violinists who think that the Strad is not the only great instrument and that there are modern instruments that sound as good. And not all those instruments were treated with a magic fungus.

Take ten different violin makers and you will have ten different sounding violins. You could put them in a workshop with the same materials and you would still have different sounding instruments.

Same goes for classical guitar.

"Even with the same maker each instrument will be at least subtly different. This is due to many differing factors but one is the maker himself and what he does to coax the best sound out of each instrument."

Another Strawman Argument. Surprise, surprise. Apparently you didn't read the article.

"Makers tap the raw wood listening to tap tones and adjust ,eg., the thickness of a top in different areas."

Duh!

"The maker is one of the most important factors in the equation.
I know a number of professional violinists who think that the Strad is not the only great instrument and that there are modern instruments that sound as good. And not all those instruments were treated with a magic fungus.

Here we go again. Apparently you didn't read the article. The violin treated with the fungus was judged better in tone than the Strad. It was also judged better than the untreaded violin by the same maker as the treated one. Is any of this sinking in?

"Take ten different violin makers and you will have ten different sounding violins. You could put them in a workshop with the same materials and you would still have different sounding instruments."

Another Strawman argument. Didn't you read the article?

Hey, you forgot the marketing spiel.

Are you tossing off flouride in favor of fungus now?

I think you mistake his comment on the complexity of violin variability for strawman arguments. That must be a new buzzword for ya?

Hanging on every one of my posts, again, eh? I like that.

Quote:
floobydust?

i love that fucking word

thats my word of the week!

Yeah - it works better than "woo woo" in my humble opinion.

I do not know if it originated with National Semiconductor or not, but the first time I ever saw the term "floobydust" was in a reference manual on integrated circuit audio amplifier chips published by them in the early 1970s. I forget how it was used exactly, but I certainly remember that it was indeed in one of the data sheets somewhere ...lol.

>>> "I merely wish to go beyond, "It must be the flouride!" level of discourse where others would stop." <<<

I would argue that it is I and not you who is constantly wishing to "go beyond" where others would stop !!!! I have wanted constantly to "go beyond" such as "it's the anisotropy that does it", "go beyond" such as "If it can be heard, it can be measured", "go beyond" such as Ethan's four parameters concerning matters audio, "go beyond" 'this is bullshit', that is 'bullshit' !!!

>>> "A zealot with an agenda may wish to appear 'expert' by proclaiming a decades-long insight into the flouride content of the master's work as being what sets him apart, but hitching your wagon to such a limited view diminishes his masterworks in serving your agenda." <<<

By looking at the possibility of chemicals being involved with the 'sound' of things is actually broadening the subject out, away from "it must be the anisotropy that does it", or "it must be the geometry used", or "it must be the specially selected wood". And I would not describe my approach as that of a 'Zealot with an agenda' any more than the scientists approach looking at maybe 'fungus' is involved, or Nagyvary's research stretching 30 years, nor theirs or mine as a limited view diminishing Stradivarius's achievements !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, tomjtx, how can it be ME who is being "too simplistic" ???????? Your quote :-

>>> "Exactly, buddha, the artist (maker) is a part of the equation that shouldn't be dismissed.
May is being too simplistic." <<<

When my ACTUAL comments earlier were:-

>>> "Let me make myself clear before people start reacting yet again. I am NOT saying that 'geometry (shape) or anisotropy or even specially selected woods do NOT have ANY part to play in producing a good sounding violin, I am suggesting that, in the light of further and recent findings, they might not have the huge percentage of importance previously attributed to them. That it might not, any longer, be wholly "it's the anisotropy that does it" !!!" <<<

What part of "can we please take the blinkers off and stop seeing it as solely "it's the anisotropy that does it" don't you understand ?

And, I even went to the trouble of emphasising with "Let me make myself clear before people start reacting yet again" !!!!!!!!!

<<< "So many factors go into making a great instrument that it is impossible to trace the sound to one single element. Part of the artistry of the maker is his ability to balance all these factors to produce a truly great sounding instrument." <<<

Of course, why would anyone think differently ?
And THAT is why I challenged the 'definiteness' of the sentence "it's the anisotropy that does it" much earlier in this thread !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

It has been fairly well documented that the wood Stradivarius used for most of his instruments was immersed in seawater for many months; I read an article about this in Science (or Nature..?) magazine 20 or 30 years ago.

Apparently the logs were harvested inland and floated down the river, and then stored in the seawater of the harbor for quite some time before they were taken out and sawn into planks or other sections. This was apparently a common practice of the time, rather than some special treatment (the logs may have been stored in the water to avoid storing large numbers of logs where they could catch on fire...).

An attempt was made at that time to make instruments by duplicating this wood treatment, and I do not remember what the results were.

There is intersting information about Edison and his hearing that may also come into play.

Edison was quite hearing impared, yet he was said to be exquisitely sensitive to certain harmonic distortions, making him actually quite good at noting sonic problems that other people with 'normal' hearing were not so bothered by.

I wonder with instruments makers if some are better than others (or more easily bothered than others) at identifying certain sonic characteristics that they inherently design around, making for the unique voicing of their instruments.

It would have been neat to hear Stradivarius talk about his process.

"It has been fairly well documented that the wood Stradivarius used for most of his instruments was immersed in seawater for many months; I read an article about this in Science (or Nature..?) magazine 20 or 30 years ago."

Nope. The wood used by Stradavari was from the Little Ice Age, last part of 17th and early 18th century - when he was making violins! - as pointed out in the article provided in the OP of this thread. It was not submerged wood.

The "submerged wood" is old growth wood found today and is left from logging operations way back when. "Old growth" refers to the longer winters, cooler summers way back when which produced tighter grain patterns in the wood.

Quote:
I'll bet the "experts" who examined the Strad never thought to take one apart.

How much are you willing to bet? Maybe you should Google Carleen Hutchins and track down her 1980 article from Scientific American before you commit to a dollar amount.

Ethan Winer
RealTraps

Quote:
Edison was quite hearing impared, yet he was said to be exquisitely sensitive to certain harmonic distortions, making him actually quite good at noting sonic problems that other people with 'normal' hearing were not so bothered by.

This is a classical example of what's called "recruitment", most likely.

When somebody has an elevated threshold, and there is noise or distortion around, it may (and often does in offices, etc) go up and down above and below the threshold of hearing for the person with elevated hearing thresholds.

This creates two problems, the first cognative, in that it's not constant, and so it's an "alert" kind of reaction. This makes noise a lot more distracting to such a person.

The second is due to something called "loudness ratio". In order to simplify this, I'll use a 1kHz tone (since that's what loudness is keyed to in the literature). If your threshold is at 0dB, you'll hear something at 10dB as though it has the loudness of 10dB. If you have a threshold at 20dB, you do not hear the 10dB signal at all. Say you have a 40dB threshold (typical of some kinds of hearing impairment).

That means at 39dB you don't hear the tone. It is the same as below 0dB SPL to you.

HOWEVER, the growth in loudness over the 40dB threshold is very fast, which means that at 45dB SPL the effective loudness is in the 20dB range, and at 50dB the effective loudness is the same as somebody who has normal hearing, or very close to it.

This means that for small changes in intensity, such a person experiences large changes in loudness. This creates a whole set of problems and surprises for people with substantial hearing impairment.

"How much are you willing to bet? Maybe you should Google Carleen Hutchins and track down her 1980 article from Scientific American before you commit to a dollar amount."

Interesting. Did she examine the glue?

Quote:

Quote:
I'll bet the "experts" who examined the Strad never thought to take one apart.

How much are you willing to bet? Maybe you should Google Carleen Hutchins and track down her 1980 article from Scientific American before you commit to a dollar amount.

Ethan Winer
RealTraps

Well, given what violin repair requires, I'd be more than a bit surprised if they did not take it apart.

One could also look up the ceramic violin saga, I suppose, to see how anisotropy really does matter, despite some quacks dismissing it as "theory".

Quote:
"How much are you willing to bet? Maybe you should Google Carleen Hutchins and track down her 1980 article from Scientific American before you commit to a dollar amount."

Interesting. Did she examine the glue?

It is quite telling how this article does not use the standard quote function, so as to appear to represent one individual's words as another's.

Shameful, really.

What are you going on about, now, Mr. Bluster?

Quote:
Hey, you forgot the marketing spiel.

Are you tossing off flouride in favor of fungus now?

I think you mistake his comment on the complexity of violin variability for strawman arguments. That must be a new buzzword for ya?

Thank you , Buddha, that is exactly what I meant.

Re. glue, one of my favorite guitar makers uses only animal glue. He is convinced synthetic glue doesn't sound as good. One of my other favorite makers uses synthetic glue.

This seeming contradiction should be familiar to any audiophile

Quote:
Well, given what violin repair requires, I'd be more than a bit surprised if they did not take it apart.

Yes, that was the entire point of Carleen's experiments. She dismantled several Strad violins and analyzed the mode locations and frequencies of the top and bottom plates. This was groundbreaking at the time! And it spawned a new way of thinking by modern luthiers. One of Carleen's students regraduated my cello when he was studying violin making with her many years ago. Another of Carleen's students, Bob Spear, is a successful luthier using her methods. He sold a cello to Rostropovich, and to many other high profile players. I've known Bob since he was one of my software company customers in the 1980s. This article from The Strad shows some of his work:

From Sawdust to Sine Waves

--Ethan

>>> "Re. glue, one of my favorite guitar makers uses only animal glue. He is convinced synthetic glue doesn't sound as good. One of my other favorite makers uses synthetic glue." <<<

And, has anyone asked WHY ???

Regarding the subject of the synthetic glue. Does your other 'favorite maker' have a reason as to why he prefers to use synthetic glue ? Does he have an actual preference amongst the synthetic glues ? If so WHY ?

You say your other 'favorite guitar maker' only uses animal glue because he does not think the synthetic glue sounds as good. WHICH synthetic glue does not sound as good as the animal glue he prefers to use and WHY ?

>>> "This seeming contradiction should be familiar to any audiophile" <<<

Yes. Of course. It is WHAT you do with that contradiction you are faced with, whether you ask WHY or not !!!!!

Back to one of your favorite guitar makers - i.e a 'master craftsman'. Even if he used the method of "anisotropy" as a part of his technique, once he was aware that a particular glue 'sounded' better than another, then he would never go back to using just whatever glue might be 'to hand'. He might, with the further knowledge, even develop his own, personal, (glue) mixture !! In other words, once 'aware' of other factors affecting the 'sound', then "anisotropy" would no longer be "the thing that does it" !!!!!!!!

So, your favorite guitar maker would no longer be able to say the DEFINITE and rigid sentence "it's the anisotropy that does it". Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make !! If such as a particular glue is also a 'factor' regarding the 'sound' of an instrument, then anisotropy "does NOT do it all !!! And yet, j j is still on that theme with:-

>>> " One could also look up the ceramic violin saga, I suppose, to see how anisotropy really does matter, despite some quacks dismissing it as "theory"." <<<

Although NOW he has changed it slightly by suggesting it (anisotrophy) "really does matter" rather than his previous DEFINITE statement "it's the anisotropy that does it" !!! Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever said that anisotropy does NOT matter !! Had j j said earlier 'anisotrophy can be a relevant factor' in the design, then there would have been no challenge from me, because I fully understand that that, and certain specific woods are also relevant factors as are varnishes as is geometrical shape.

But, woe betide your guitar 'master craftsman' if he ever chose to introduce a 'good sounding' glue to the world of audio as a 'good sounding' glue !!! There he will invoke wrath and ire !! WHY would that be - he is a 'master craftsman' after all ?? Why would he be 'shouted down' ??
Especially if he was relying on his own expertise and experience as a 'master craftsman' and not on measurements !!!!!

I would suggest that if he was involved in the audio industry (and recognised as a 'master craftsman') and introduced a 'glue' which, by his own expertise and listening experiences, knew was a 'good sounding' glue he would never use the sentence "If it can be heard, it can be measured". He would be far too aware and knowledgeable to want to say such a DEFINITE and rigid statement - he would have to give a qualifying response such as "there are some things which can be heard, but which cannot be measured".

Knowing your favorite guitar makers well, as you obviously do, then I don't understand why YOU also never challenged j j's statement "it's the anisotropy that does it", if you and they are aware that anisotropy does NOT do it ALL !!!!

Or maybe you DO believe that "it's the anisotropy that does it", and therefore are prepared to disregard your favorite guitar maker's experience of animal glue sounding better than synthetic glue. But, once someone has experienced one glue sounding better than another glue, they cannot go back to believing "all glues sound the same" !!!!

You say :-
>>> "The maker is one of the most important factors in the equation." <<<

Precisely, but if you believe THAT then, again, why did YOU not challenge the sentence "it's the anisotropy that does it" ? You can't believe both simultaneously !

>>> "So many factors go into making a great instrument that it is impossible to trace the sound to one single element. Part of the artistry of the maker is his ability to balance all these factors to produce a truly great sounding instrument." <<<

Exactly, so if you believe THAT then, again, why did YOU not challenge the sentence "it's the anisotropy that does it" ? You can't believe both simultaneously !

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

>>> " One could also look up the ceramic violin saga, I suppose, to see how anisotropy really does matter, despite some quacks dismissing it as "theory"." <<<

I wonder why you would make that comment j j ? I don't know anyone who has dismissed it (anisotropy) as only a 'theory' !!!!! I DO know someone, however, who has challenged it as "the be all and end all' of violin (and other instrument) making.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

Does he have an actual preference amongst the synthetic glues ? If so WHY ?

You say your other 'favorite guitar maker' only uses animal glue because he does not think the synthetic glue sounds as good. WHICH synthetic glue does not sound as good as the animal glue he prefers to use and WHY ?

He can't tell you. It's like cremes that harm sound - if he told you, it would give it all away.

D'uh, May.

You, of all people should know better.

J_J stated one factor of many that affect the sound, not that anisotropy is the sole reason for all differences. Don't dissimulate. Did you pick on Geoff for being fixated on glue?

Quote:
>>> "So many factors go into making a great instrument that it is impossible to trace the sound to one single element. Part of the artistry of the maker is his ability to balance all these factors to produce a truly great sounding instrument." <<<

Exactly, so if you believe THAT then, again, why did YOU not challenge the sentence "it's the anisotropy that does it" ? You can't believe both simultaneously !

It's this kind of profoundly misconduct that makes me suspicious. What we see here are two kinds of rhetorical cheating, first the extraction from context in the statement regarding anisotropy, and then the attempt to exercise the fallacy of the excluded middle in arguing that "if not A, then ONLY B". Both of these actions are pure rhetorical misconduct.

First, we have an extraction from context. The anisotropy of the wood due to lignin removal or aging is a very important part of the property of the wood. And in the context of "the wood" that is in fact one of the most telling properties. This property and its importance have been, and continue to be, scientifically verified. The statement is not supposition or "theory" but in fact supported observation, surrounded by accepted theory and understanding.

Of course, there is more than wood to a violin design, but here we see a classically misleading attempt to portray the idea that someone, in this case either me or buddha, has argued that ALL that is involved in a violin is the properties of the wood. And therein lies an attempt at the fallacy of the excluded middle, the second kind of rhetorical misconduct clearly in evidence here.

Of course, it is misleading to say or even suggest this, if one has read the entire thread, which we know to be the case here.

One must wonder why this misconduct is happening.

It is time for this misconduct to cease.

"J_J stated one factor of many that affect the sound, not that anisotropy is the sole reason for all differences. Don't dissimulate. Did you pick on Geoff for being fixated on glue?"

Good try, better luck next time, Buddha...

I was suggesting that the experts in the case of the fungus blind test presented in the OP didn't consider all the possibilities. Glue is only one of them. Pretty sure Nathan will vouch for me on the glue thing.

Now, let's review what jj actually said regarding anisotropy. Note j_j's dismay at the very suggestion that anisotropy could not be the definitive culprit.

Quote from May:

"It is this 'definiteness' which puzzles me, j j. I.e. Your - "it's the anisotropy that does it.".
So definite, no doubts !!"

Here j_j responds to May: "Yep, testable, verifiable, and verified via laser inferometery on the various wood panels of a violin.

Something people can measure, model, and test. You know, science...

P.S. Your question was appallingly rude and insulting."

Quote:
J_J stated one factor of many that affect the sound, not that anisotropy is the sole reason for all differences. Don't dissimulate. Did you pick on Geoff for being fixated on glue?

That kind of misconduct and false representation of anothers' professional opinion is a classic method used by some proponents of high-end tweaks.

So, while it is deplorable that May has taken such an action, I can't say I'm at all surprised by it.

Quote:

P.S. Your question was appallingly rude and insulting."

Not half as rude as entering into the thread proclaiming that it must somehow be the flouride!

Quote:

Quote:

P.S. Your question was appallingly rude and insulting."

Not half as rude as entering into the thread proclaiming that it must somehow be the flouride!

Well, where would lignin be without flouride?

Good thing, no Fluoride. At least our manhood would not be threatened, thus no conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

May,
I don't have an opinion re animal v synthetic glue. I said 2 of my favorite makers have opposing opinions. 1 uses animal glue the other uses synthetic.

I like both guitars.
The glue, if it makes a difference at all , pales in comparison to the diff made by the bracing of the top, which makes the largest differences in sound to my perception. Bracing is more easily identifiable for me than even different wood tops: spruce or cedar.

BTW, one of my animal glue guitars had the bridge come off. When it was re-attached using a synthetic glue the guitar sounded better to me.

To me this is only an illustration of the infinite complexity of the listening experience. I have no problem with the idea that there are multiple" right" answers which may be contradictory.

Mystery to the sound of the Stradivarius solved!

Mystery Solved

Quote:
Mystery to the sound of the Stradivarius solved!

Mystery Solved

This article has the same problem as the other: there are a number of string players who hold the opinion that some modern instruments sound just as good.

I am not saying that fungus or chemicals don't play a role, but that they are just several factors in a multitude of factors in the equation.

Re. listening tests.

I wouldn't rely on a non violinist's opinion of the "better" instrument.
This means I wouldn't rely on my own opinion even though I did study violin for a year..
To have enough experience to judge the quality of an instrument (at a high level) one needs many years of playing that type of instrument on a professional level.

I can sit with violinist friends, they can teach me what to listen for and I can improve my perceptive abilities re good or great violin sound. But, that won't put me on the same evaluative level of the violinists themselves.

Nor would they deem themselves expert evaluators of the sound of a guitar.

So the blind test of the 1st article doesn't hold much meaning for me.

BTW, violinists can disagree on which violin is better just as much as guitarists.

Like audio gear, this is so subjective that coming to a consensus is about as hard as coming to a consensus on AGW