Using CT scans to perfectly reproduce a Stradivarius violin

singemonkey

This kind of thing is 100% inevitable:

http://io9.com/5862912/ct-scanners-can-perfectly-recreate-the-legendary-stradivarius-violins

But people love using science to reinforce myths:

The Stradivarius violins are considered to have the most perfect and unique sound of any violins, and yet nobody knows exactly why they are so much better than any others.

This statement is an assumption not a fact.

However, the many blind tests from 1817[7][8] to the present (as of 2006) have never found any difference in sound between Stradivari's violins and high-quality violins in comparable style of other makers and periods

- Wikipedia

This ties in to our classic electric and acoustic guitars. It is quite conceivable that in the near future, replicating a 1959 Les Paul will be as simple as putting it through a scanner, adding matched pieces of wood (identified by density and weight, and style of cut in the scan) into a machine which then produces parts with every single nick and ding replicated to the micrometer, and you then glue them together using the original glues (identified in the scan for exact composition), and finish it using a an identical finish.

The result would be far closer to the original guitar than the guitar that was sitting on the production line next to it in 1959.

But this is essentially redundant. Even with human measurements there is almost certainly less variation between the guitars the highly skilled replica makers like Gil Yarron model for their replicas and others on the original production line. The only difference between a Gil Yarron "1959" Les Paul and one made by Gibson in 1959 is 52 years.

But as long as musicians continue to deny fair blind tests, we'll carry on rabbiting on about "mojo" and letting our imaginations make original instruments sound superior.

Bob-Dubery

I've heard tell of a luthier (no names mentioned) who tends to be very rude about other people's guitars and who went to blind listening and rubbished one of his own instruments.

It seems to me that eventually high quality machine manufacture must overtake small scale manufacture by hand, indeed Taylor and Larrivee are both about making high quality acoustic guitars with a high degree of mechanisation. What such practices will eliminate is the inconsistency that you get with working by hand or with low quality production lines with sloppy QC. There will, of course, still be a need to have good quality materials as inputs into the system.

VellaJ

singemonkey wrote: But as long as musicians continue to deny fair blind tests, we'll carry on rabbiting on about "mojo" and letting our imaginations make original instruments sound superior.

Fair enough, I tend to agree. However, in terms of sound and age, I do believe that the sound of a guitar (mostly acoustic guitars, haven't been able to tell with electrics) does change with age. I have a Cort with a mahogany body, and in the few years I've owned it I've noticed a change in the sound. Yes, I'm a better player than I was, but there's definitely a change in the bottom-end sound. More growly...

Of course, we get sentimental about the older instruments because of their appeal, and yes, sometimes imaginations play tricks. I personally am not entirely happy about the new abilities to replicate instruments exactly, mainly because I think there's a certain exclusivity about owning something like a Strad. Little Johnny who has just picked up the violin shouldn't have an instrument that is exactly the same as someone who has played for many years, reached the pinnacle of his career and paid millions for the original...

But yeah, that's just me I guess. The technology is fascinating, but I don't think they could replicate the sound exactly, without the aging process...

ezietsman

VellaJ wrote:
singemonkey wrote: But as long as musicians continue to deny fair blind tests, we'll carry on rabbiting on about "mojo" and letting our imaginations make original instruments sound superior.
Fair enough, I tend to agree. However, in terms of sound and age, I do believe that the sound of a guitar (mostly acoustic guitars, haven't been able to tell with electrics) does change with age. I have a Cort with a mahogany body, and in the few years I've owned it I've noticed a change in the sound. Yes, I'm a better player than I was, but there's definitely a change in the bottom-end sound. More growly...

Of course, we get sentimental about the older instruments because of their appeal, and yes, sometimes imaginations play tricks. I personally am not entirely happy about the new abilities to replicate instruments exactly, mainly because I think there's a certain exclusivity about owning something like a Strad. Little Johnny who has just picked up the violin shouldn't have an instrument that is exactly the same as someone who has played for many years, reached the pinnacle of his career and paid millions for the original...

But yeah, that's just me I guess. The technology is fascinating, but I don't think they could replicate the sound exactly, without the aging process...

Well little Johnny will maybe own an instrument as good as the original vintage model but because it doesn't carry the name it won't have the same status. Recreating the sound of one wooden instrument exactly with another in a reproducible way is going to take some doing. I don't think it'll happen soon and I don't think it will be cheap when it happens.

Besides all this, technology does cool things. Look at the Kemper, by all accounts its a fantastic piece of machinery. It can more or less reproduce sounds played into it nearly perfectly and can do a very good job of reproducing the nuances too, so it allows one to have at hand many cool sounds in one box. The other cool thing is the small mobile modelling devices, ipod, ipad et al. which will get better and better as software and hardware move forward. It will allow one to take a guitar to a gig and put your 'amp' inside the compartment in the case. Great. However, some of these things won't give the same sense of awe as a stack of marshalls (remember the fake stacks?) or knowing the artist is playing on a 300 year old instrument. Tech cannot reproduce this today, because most musicians still value those things. In 50 years however, most may not care anymore, just like today nobody (except some die-hard audiophiles maybe) will scoff at your solid state B&O sound system. The music world is still covered in a blanket of nostalgia and people like Chad is at the forefront of changing that. Things will change, they always do.

singemonkey

Yes. I agree that acoustic instruments almost certainly improve with age. And carved top instruments like violins and archtop acoustic guitars take a lot longer to reach their peaks than a flat top guitar.

Bob-Dubery

VellaJ wrote:
singemonkey wrote: But as long as musicians continue to deny fair blind tests, we'll carry on rabbiting on about "mojo" and letting our imaginations make original instruments sound superior.
Fair enough, I tend to agree. However, in terms of sound and age, I do believe that the sound of a guitar (mostly acoustic guitars, haven't been able to tell with electrics) does change with age. I have a Cort with a mahogany body, and in the few years I've owned it I've noticed a change in the sound. Yes, I'm a better player than I was, but there's definitely a change in the bottom-end sound. More growly...

That certainly does happen and it's hard to make that happen consistently across similar instruments (or is it?).

There's some dispute though about that curve. One school of thought has it that flat tops tend to improve over a number of years, peak and then go into decline. George Gruhn (who is worth listening to about guitars) thinks that arch tops might have a longer curve, taking longer to peak but lasting longer too (Singe will, I hope, correct me here if I have erred). As an aside, if you've listened to Gillian Welch and David Rawlins lately you might have noticed that Rawlins is getting quite some sound out of his 1930s Epiphone archtops.

Part of the problem with flat tops may be that they distort eventually. Most old Martins have either had a neck reset, need a reset, or have had work-arounds like the bridge being shaved down - which may effect the tone.

I'm also dubious about the claims of the superiority of Stradviarius violins because there aren't many surviving as they left the factory. I've seen an apparently very valuable example at the Ashmolean museum in Oxford, and that has had various bits replaced including the main tone bar. Indeed the original tone bar is still kept with that instrument and it seems the change was more about modification than repair. What are you really listening to when you hear such instruments?

In the meantime my Morgan and my Larrivee (Mahogany back and sides and also developing a tasty growl) are coming on quite nicely thank you.

Of course, we get sentimental about the older instruments because of their appeal, and yes, sometimes imaginations play tricks. I personally am not entirely happy about the new abilities to replicate instruments exactly, mainly because I think there's a certain exclusivity about owning something like a Strad. Little Johnny who has just picked up the violin shouldn't have an instrument that is exactly the same as someone who has played for many years, reached the pinnacle of his career and paid millions for the original...

Errrmmm.... why not? What Little Johnny and/or his parents can't buy is the years of practice and dedication that a top violinist has. And it will cost money to produce new instruments that sound like the old ones because materials will have to be well selected and manufacturing will have to be to a high standard.

It seems to me like a fine thing actually, because it will mean that the mojo will have to be in the player if the gap between new and "classic" instruments is reduced.

But yeah, that's just me I guess. The technology is fascinating, but I don't think they could replicate the sound exactly, without the aging process...

Nobody knows. Wood does continue to age and that brings changes, but maybe you can make good new guitars out of old wood. Maybe the vibrational techniques that some folks swear by actually can make guitars sound older/better.

Maybe (and I say this against myself) the aging effect is largely in the mind and it's a case of our own technique improving and our own ears getting more and more in tune with an instrument and getting sensitive to it's overtones and subtleties.

Some of the best sounding acoustics I've played or heard have been very new. A couple of Lowdens I played in Norwich a couple of years ago, and a "golden era" re-issue Martin dreadnought at Hugh's Fine Guitar. I didn't play the latter - Hugh is very fussy about who plays that guitar (which I respect as he didn't pay small change for it) - but I was there when it was played and it sounded amazing.