Bruce Tai

Secrets in the wood (Stradivari's maple)

Recommended Posts

The analysis of the wood chemicals, hemicellulose degradation, EMC, and all that looks like pretty good science from here, and I certainly appreciate that.  However, when the researcher says they "wanted to disprove" or prove anything... then that opens the door for experimenter bias.  And the conclusions about what they did, why they did it, and what effects they might have on acoustic performance are all speculations, with many other alternative speculations appearing to be equally  viable.

The same goes for the formant analysis, and jumping to a conclusion about what tone was trying to be achieved.  We certainly don't know what the instruments sounded like new, and it seems highly unlikely that their sound today is the same as it was then.  However, I will wait to see what this new paper is about before saying much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Tai said:

 

Interesting point.

I guess my motivation is to disprove that Stradivari did not possess any secret. The null hypothesis is that his wood is nothing special, just wild maple. But its elemental composition is so strange that the null hypothesis has to be rejected. The hard evidence suggests that he treated his wood chemically, and we did not know about it. The fact that we did not recognize chemical preservatives as an integral part of the Cremonese method makes it a lost secret, only to be recovered by modern science. 

I then wanted to disprove that Stradivari did this trivial trick out of the blue. So I checked Girolamo Amati's wood and it was chemically treated, front and back. Amati had a simpler chemical recipe and Stradivari and Guarneri expanded it by adding more chemical substances. Since we all agree that Amati, Stradivari, and Guarneri were genius makers, this chemical formulation must have mattered a lot for them. So I disproved that (in my next paper) the Cremonese invented violin making based on natural, air-dried wood. They were never into using natural wood, and insisted on applying chemical treatments. I cannot prove its acoustic influence right now, but no one can disprove it either. We don't know exactly how they did it and how things are affected hundreds of years later.  

Technically we cannot prove anything but only falsify something which is the opposite. But there is no need to get into logical games. In experimental science, we present measured facts and offer logical explanations.   

Cremonese masters never intended to build their violins using natural wood. This is a historical fact and the proof will be presented in my next paper. Whether or not this new discovery matters entirely depends on each person's perspective. 

Oh, by the way, I am writing a new paper to show that Andrea Amati and Gasparo da Salo were mimicking the baritone voice with their newly invented violins. Stradivari was able to push it to the alto voice. This is based on formant analysis and it will hopefully be published soon. Geminiani wrote in 1751 that the ideal tone of the violin shall "rival the most perfect human voice." I think Amati and Stradivari were trying to do exactly that.   

I wonder whether it is still too early to develop strong views on the reasons behind the unusual elemental composition that you have found.

Targeted wood treatments may have been involved.  However there are possibly other potential explanations that should be eliminated before accepting this as the most likely scenario.  Could it be that the unusual elemental composition had something to do with creating a certain visual result as opposed to it being a wood preservative or deliberate acoustic enhancing strategy?  What does your co-author Brigitte Brandmair think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Tai’s research is pseudoscience by definition: Extraordinary claims backed-up by unverifiable, unreproducible, and incomplete data and presented with phony statistical analyses.  

As Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Tai’s work has plenty of the former and none of the later. It fails the Sagan Standard.

This has all been discussed in an earlier thread, and I don’t plan to rehash it here.

What is your Doctorate in and please show us your published papers or CV.

Science and research is more than Sagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce, Don, et al., I see the problem being, as always with these "Strad" discussions, that we are ostensibly concentrating on pure, glorious, unbiased scientific investigation, while supposedly ignoring the small herd of socioeconomic elephants (including the "unfair market value" of "Golden Cremonese", "whither luthiery?", the current relationship of grants to grandstanding, how much might funding sources influence the results, etc.) hiding under the conference table.  It ain't gonna work.  It never does.  :lol:

I would favor breaking the "fuzzy subject" discussions out into other threads, where we can all go to the mat about our most favored illusions, and letting Bruce post his data without having to dodge politically inspired questions.  For "peer review" quibbles about his experiment construction and his math, however, let it be "open season". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's avoid bogus appeals to Sagan (and he simply restated Marcello Truzzi), who was attacking something he didn't like at the time, and the connotations are vile.  Bruce isn't practicing or promoting pseudoscience. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Bruce isn't practicing or promoting pseudoscience.

Really? Did you even read his last post? Even more nonsense such as:

"Cremonese masters never intended to build their violins using natural wood. This is a historical fact..."

That is an extraordinary claim. And the so-called science he has presented in the past to support nonsensical claims such as this is unverifiable, unreproducible, and incomplete.  And he uses phony statistical analyses to try to convince people into believing it has validity. But it does not.

And his statements such as:

"I cannot prove its acoustic influence right now, but no one can disprove it either."

are just more pseudoscientific  bamboozlement such as:

"I cannot prove there are aliens visiting earth right now, but no one can disprove it either."

His grandiose conclusions are classic pseudoscience. (Both of those statement above are true, by the way. And both are ridiculous.)

3 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Let's avoid bogus appeals to Sagan (who was simply restating Marcello Truzzi), who was attacking something he didn't like at the time, and the connotations are vile.

My reference to Sagan was not bogus. Sagan was indeed restating Truzzi, but Sagan is better known for the phrase. Sagan was a brilliant scientist and a wonderful teacher. You might read Sagan's last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark to understand that Sagan's battle against pseudoscience was a lifelong passion. Pay special attention to the "Baloney Detection Kit." It is quite applicable to detecting the baloney in Tai's claims.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever.  Sagan was a rare piece of work on several levels. Amuse yourselves. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Really? Did you even read his last post? Even more nonsense such as:

"Cremonese masters never intended to build their violins using natural wood. This is a historical fact..."

That is an extraordinary claim. And the so-called science he has presented in the past to support nonsensical claims such as this is unverifiable, unreproducible, and incomplete.  And he uses phony statistical analyses to try to convince people into believing it has validity. But it does not.

And his statements such as:

"I cannot prove its acoustic influence right now, but no one can disprove it either."

are just more pseudoscientific  bamboozlement such as:

"I cannot prove there are aliens visiting earth right now, but no one can disprove it either."

His grandiose conclusions are classic pseudoscience. (Both of those statement above are true, by the way. And both are ridiculous.)

My reference to Sagan were not bogus. Sagan was indeed restating Truzzi, but Sagan is better known for the phrase. Sagan was a brilliant scientist and a wonderful teacher. You might read Sagan's last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark to understand that Sagan's battle against pseudoscience was a lifelong passion. Pay special attention to the "Baloney Detection Kit." It is quite applicable to detecting the baloney in Tai's claims.

 

 

 

I think it would be more informative if you specifically critiqued Bruce's writing detailing what is lacking or incorrect.  Saying it is "pseudoscience" is not informative.  For example if the statistics Bruce used was inappropriate for the data, say why.  Was the sample size insufficient?  Did the data not meet the assumptions of the test?  What would be a better statistical approach to answer the question asked?  A statistical approach provides a mathematical answer that we call the result.  The result must then be discussed.  This is the authors conclusion.   Was the conclusion not supported by the results?  A critical review of someones work is appropriate and is a fundamental process in the scientific community.  In part, this is why we publish our work.  Yes I'm a scientist (Biologist). 

However, criticizing the person is unprofessional at best, and playing the part of a troll at worst.

Respectfully,

Jim 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I might as well waste some breath, too.

One thing that I haven't seen considered is the nature of the highest level of human beings: those who succeed so well at something that they remain the gold standard for 300+ years.  The few most celebrated makers had to have been serious,  studious, and scientific to the extent their era allowed, to advance violins from the nice but weak early Andreas Amati to the best of Stradivari and del Gesu in less than two hundred years.  These most noted Cremonese makers made small as well as more substantial changes over a good 150 years.  Since they didn't have electronic equipment to record or measure sound, they must have relied on their ears and sense of feel.  They didn't make and keep changes that didn't improve things.  Slowly the instruments changed,  and for the better, or generally in the right direction.  All we have to do is observe ourselves to know that if we have an incredible drive to make fine instruments, so did they.  And if we have successes and sometimes setbacks, so did they.  If we hear something and like it we go all out to find out what was done.  If some idiot does some oddball thing and his violin sucks, we avoid that.  But if it has merit we grab the guy by the throat and make him talk. 

If wood was processed for preservation—or for appearance— why in the world wouldn't those makers establish whether it helped or hurt tone and function.  I can't even imagine a shop like Strad's just blindly (or deafly) making and only by sheer luck falling into their greatness because of some common treatment of wood.  (Yet no less a pro than Karl Roy was willing to offer that, and excuse Stainer for not living near a river capable of delivering floating logs.)  They weren't, apparently, fools, in spite of recent arguments that they weren't really all that good and some of us are making even better instruments.  I think if there ARE any fools in this continuing saga, it ain't them, but might be us.  They made their bones a long time ago, and their instruments have withstood countless tests of time under all sorts of physical and musical conditions.  We will never be exactly sure what our generation of makers has really done, unless someone comes up with better vitamins or the perfection of cryogenics.  We might be laughed at 100 years from now.

But I thought Brandmair/Greiner found very little minerals in the wood of Strad's instruments.  Am I wrong on that?  I don't feel like re-reading it any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Harte said:

I wonder whether it is still too early to develop strong views on the reasons behind the unusual elemental composition that you have found.

Targeted wood treatments may have been involved.  However there are possibly other potential explanations that should be eliminated before accepting this as the most likely scenario.  Could it be that the unusual elemental composition had something to do with creating a certain visual result as opposed to it being a wood preservative or deliberate acoustic enhancing strategy?  What does your co-author Brigitte Brandmair think? 

Absolutely. To take one of the assertions Bruce makes above, please could he clarify how he reaches the conclusion that "Cremonese masters never intended to build their violins using natural wood"?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jim Bress said:

For example if the statistics Bruce used was inappropriate for the data, say why. 

Jim,

The inappropriate use of Welch's t-test to claim statistical significance been discussed in the thread listed below. As I wrote earlier, I do not intend to rehash all this in this thread.

I disagree that "Saying it is 'pseudoscience' is not informative' when I have also provided a definition of the term. And I stand by my assertion that Tai's extraordinary claims about Cremonese violin makers are not supported by data that is verifiable, reproducible, or complete, and therefore meets my definition of pseudoscience.

George

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Will L said:

If wood was processed for preservation—or for appearance— why in the world wouldn't those makers establish whether it helped or hurt tone and function. 

The answer that makes most sense to me is that they did pretty much the same things I do, although without any objective measurements:

Does the wood change much in taptone or ring after processing?  If it's not any worse, then make an instrument from it, and if it's OK, then the processing is OK.

Assuming (my best guess) is that the added chemicals were entirely for preservation, and assuming (also my best guess) that there was no significant performance effect, then why not?  It is exactly  what I do with small amounts of chemicals added for preservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't noticed the Brigitte Brandmair co-author before.

 

Again, thanks Bruce for doing this work. 

 

I guess any of us actually making an instrument are forced to place bets on methods.   One is forced to somehow employ a complete system, but for the most part we are not really in a position to fully confirm if our choices are consistent with historical examples.    And the way we each handle this aspect of uncertainty is individual.    Unfortunately, when independent research challenges the bets we've invested in, sometimes our responses aren't the best.

It takes some bravery and thick skin to enter into the work you're doing.  A certain amount of ridicule is invited by tackling this research.

 

Like John Harte suggested in an earlier post, the motive for individual makers using 'chemical treatments' might not directly line up with the outcomes.   Even if there was a preserving effect, or an acoustic effect, those wouldn't necessarily be the motive for individual work methods or variations in the methods.

Also, there certainly is the possibility that somethings were done by a wood supplier, and other things by makers.    The idea that related billets of wood are found in instruments of different makers, and sometimes in different towns, helps lend support to the idea of specialized wood suppliers.   I would tend to think that wood preservation wood tend to be more the province of the wood supplier.   

I take it that your main reason to suggest individual makers applied treatments and experimented and cared about them is because the balance of chemicals varies?  This seems sensible.   But there might be other explanations possible.  Remember, these makers were artisans, not scientists.   There is no cause to assume their methods step out of the general stamp of prevailing artisan/craftsman methods.    Materials for recipes at that time generally came from one common materia shared by all crafts and industries, and even medicine.   The materia were not like modern purified lab supplies.   The materia tended to be only a few or no steps removed from a natural source.   Something like 'white grounds' can have highly varied composition, and yet be used as a 'constant' within the materia.   So. a certain amount of variation of chemical balance might arise using even an unchanging recipe.   That doesn't mean there couldn't also be deliberate more meaningful variations, but it needs to kept in mind.

So let's consider the possibility that individual makers might have normally applied some chemicals, and deliberately varied the methods.  What might this look like?  What might be the motive?  To assume they applied additional preservative methods seems odd, unless the maker is retaining wood stock on premises and refreshing the preservative for the stored wood.   Otherwise, direct motive is lacking.   And, if you're having immediate quick problems with wood damage, wouldn't you just complain to your supplier?  Admittedly, there's no way to eliminate this possibility entirely, but I have trouble seeing any particular merit in favoring the idea of the individual maker being motivated to experiment with wood preservation methods.    Acoustic results are obviously another potential motive.  And, as John Harte suggested, appearance could also provide motive.  Would the variations from these motives look the same?   I suspect not.    Acoustic results would take much longer time frames to evaluate.  Visual results evaluate immediately for the maker.    If the variations are motivated for acoustic results, I would expect long time stretches of consistency.   If the variations are more instrument to instrument, then I would suspect that more immediately rewarded visual aims were the motive.

But before any of that, I would suspect natural variations of the materia in a consistent recipe.

Common craftsman/artisan methods of the time frequently involved treating the substrata of a work in various ways.   These would seem to be plausible first suspects in trying to understand the chemical signatures you find.     Washings, scrubbings,  bleachings/whitenings, and mordants all have the potential to be used with wood.  Alum wash, lime milk, and lye washings are examples that find broad use in the Italian arts.

Anyway, kudos!  And good luck in the ongoing work.

-- Be very careful with assumptions.  And don't sweat the naysaying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still puzzled about what Bruce et al. are testing.  I may have overlooked this in their paper, but to what confidence level can they claim that the samples are not contaminated by varnish preparation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Will L said:

 But I thought Brandmair/Greiner found very little minerals in the wood of Strad's instruments.  Am I wrong on that?  I don't feel like re-reading it any time soon.

By minerals are you referring to particulates?  If so, that may relate more to ground material.  As in Bruce's study, Brandmair did find trace elements within the wood structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cracked record here. Notwithstanding George H's objections, if we assume that Bruce's identification of trace elements is correct, how can it be concluded that they were introduced deliberately, let alone with the specific aim of enhancing acoustic properties? And we can completely rule out the possibility (which seems much more likely to me) that the Cremonese were using inorganic wood stains?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26. 9. 2017 at 9:13 PM, carl stross said:

What on Earth is The Sagan Standard ??? Who's Sagan ???? :lol:

Sagan standard = winning every cycling world champion title for few years in a row?

But back to topic. Assuming that the research results are correct and there is something in the wood doesn't prove that Stradivari did something. Even comparison with other makers of the era will not answer why there are the minerals. When we look into historical context, back then the guilds had pretty strict rules and perhaps the luthiers got their wood from woodcutters who did some treatments to their wood supplied to luthiers. Another possibility is that cremonese guild of luthiers had their own method of treating the wood against pests (with their output one can guess they had quite a stash of wood...), of course there is possibility that they did this for tone but it is one of many hypotheses that cannot be proved no matter how you try. There are countless other possibilities like water from Cremonese well (or just Strads own if he had it) was contaminated (minerals-rich) and during build the minerals from water got into the wood with glue and cleaning off the glue etc. So even if other makers from across the town or from other towns from the same era won't have similar results there is no proof of any theory how it got there and whether it was intentional in the first place.

It's interesting to see what IS in there, but I doubt chemical or physical analysis can answer WHY and WHEN it got there and HOW (or WHETHER) it influences tone. Any such claim is pure hypothesis... Perhaps historical research could bring more valid insight.

I don't remember exactly, but I think there are no such claims in the paper, just bunch of numbers, and what is Bruce's own personal opinion here on MN (or in the Strad article) is not part of the paper so ther eis no reason to quastion it's scientific merits.

PS: I'm math and IT graduate and did PhD in math analysis so I understand scientific approach and statistics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoGo said:

 

1. It's interesting to see what IS in there, but I doubt chemical or physical analysis can answer WHY and WHEN it got there and HOW (or WHETHER) it influences tone. Any such claim is pure hypothesis... Perhaps historical research could bring more valid insight.

2. I don't remember exactly, but I think there are no such claims in the paper, just bunch of numbers, and what is Bruce's own personal opinion here on MN (or in the Strad article) is not part of the paper so ther eis no reason to quastion it's scientific merits.

3. PS: I'm math and IT graduate and did PhD in math analysis so I understand scientific approach and statistics.

 

1. Very true. But the results Bruce got might eventually point towards new directions. Without Bruce's results there isn't much else. It's not like I can carry those tests in my kitchen.

2. Good point. Researchers don't work in a vacuum and in particular researchers who chose their own question will speculate. No speculation, why do anything ? :)

3. Good to know. Most people who rant about statistics here couldn't prove elementary stuff like Weierstrass' 2nd approximation theorem. Just titles of chapters and hot air. 

Bruce's work is brilliant and of potential benefit to us all and trolling him is not productive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, carl stross said:

2. Good point. Researchers don't work in a vacuum and in particular researchers who chose their own question will speculate. No speculation, why do anything ? :)

I would add to number 2 that sometimes the speculations they state "too publicly" and assertively can work against them and their real results. Remember Nagyvary? While his measurements and chemical analyses may be correct, he publicly claimed he found the secret and can replicate the Strad sound too many times on public sites/ magazines which killed his reputation among serious (read: critical thinking) violin makers.

I consider this "problem" way too wide just for one scientific field, we need multi-science approach just to define the problem axactly.

When I read one paper on violin acoustics (I can't remember which right now) in the very first paragraph author boldly states something in the lines of that "Strads and Guarneris have not been equaled or surpassed ....", and that we need to find out what makes them so special.... etc. (now I think that prase was in the Hill book as well). That makes me think how can he base his research on unverified (or even unverifiable) statements. Status of Strads is influenced not only by measurable merits and can hardly be evaluated in such strict manner. What we need ot find is if there really is significant difference in "Cremonese" and other quality violins other than historical significance. Until we have clear and widely accepted (of course there will always be group of folks who will not agree) answer to this question any other search for "secrets" stands on thin ice especially if author expresses that he found THE secret... (not pointing at Bruce here, but there were numerous others who did it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HoGo said:

...of course there is possibility that they did this (chemical treatments) for tone but it is one of many hypotheses that cannot be proved no matter how you try. 

If you assume that treatments were intentionally done for tonal reasons, then there are some branches to consider:

1) The intent was there, but the treatments didn't actually do anything.  This intent could never be proven unless you found some documentation by the makers stating what they were trying to do.

2) The treatment actually did something tonally.  This can not happen unless the treatment alters the relevant properties of the wood in some way, and I'll assert that these changes must be measurably significant enough in order to rise to the level that can be sensed by players or listeners.  Finding THAT result would be a huge step toward proving tonal intent, and without that step, all we have is wild speculation.  If we assume the Cremonese did their treatments for tone, then presumably the results would be observable in the short term... otherwise, why would they do it if it only was effective after they're dead?

I'll put on my broken record again... we have documented evidence that the relevant acoustic properties of Cremonese wood are significantly different from modern wood, i.e. the reduced EMC level due to the degradation of hemicellulose.  But that's boring fact when we can dream about the magical properties of the lost Cremonese secrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HoGo said:

I would add to number 2 that sometimes the speculations they state "too publicly" and assertively can work against them and their real results. Remember Nagyvary? While his measurements and chemical analyses may be correct, he publicly claimed he found the secret and can replicate the Strad sound too many times on public sites/ magazines which killed his reputation among serious (read: critical thinking) violin makers.

I consider this "problem" way too wide just for one scientific field, we need multi-science approach just to define the problem axactly.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. But in the end it's all due to great passion and enthusiasm and it's easy to forgive some excesses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed this but did the analyzed samples come from the inside of instruments or from the outside?    That would make a difference in some of the speculations regarding probable  origin and purpose.  Significantly, these are all just speculations.   Finding of facts is one thing,  jumping to conclusions is another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HoGo said:

>>>

When I read one paper on violin acoustics (I can't remember which right now) in the very first paragraph author boldly states something in the lines of that "Strads and Guarneris have not been equaled or surpassed ....", and that we need to find out what makes them so special.... etc. (now I think that prase was in the Hill book as well). That makes me think how can he base his research on unverified (or even unverifiable) statements. Status of Strads is influenced not only by measurable merits and can hardly be evaluated in such strict manner. What we need ot find is if there really is significant difference in "Cremonese" and other quality violins other than historical significance. Until we have clear and widely accepted (of course there will always be group of folks who will not agree) answer to this question any other search for "secrets" stands on thin ice especially if author expresses that he found THE secret... (not pointing at Bruce here, but there were numerous others who did it)

Violin acoustics always have to follow fundamental laws of physics one of which says:

For every Phd there is an equal and opposite Phd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, HoGo said:

 

1. I consider this "problem" way too wide just for one scientific field, we need multi-science approach just to define the problem axactly.

2. When I read one paper on violin acoustics (I can't remember which right now) in the very first paragraph author boldly states something in the lines of that "Strads and Guarneris have not been equaled or surpassed ....", and that we need to find out what makes them so special.... etc. (now I think that prase was in the Hill book as well). That makes me think how can he base his research on unverified (or even unverifiable) statements. Status of Strads is influenced not only by measurable merits and can hardly be evaluated in such strict manner.

3. What we need ot find is if there really is significant difference in "Cremonese" and other quality violins other than historical significance. 

4. Until we have clear and widely accepted (of course there will always be group of folks who will not agree) answer to this question any other search for "secrets" stands on thin ice especially if author expresses that he found THE secret... (not pointing at Bruce here, but there were numerous others who did it)

1. Sure. More than one science is needed here. Psychology is one of them. Worth mentioning that various branches of psychology were/are not considered "sciences" by ...other branches. What's a science is not a scientific problem - it's a philosophical one. Of course, you could define science circuitously by being that which uses scientific method. But that's nonsensical as most science did not advance that way.

2. Well, goodness of violins is a matter of perception. I perceive one violin to be better than another one and I may or may not be able to articulate the differences. Auditory ability varies a great deal in humans and the differences get much larger with training. The recognized experts in violin playing have found Cremonese instruments to be superior to others and used them exclusively give or take 2-3 exceptions. The statements have been verified by generations of Top Players. There is no other way to verify them for the moment. Clever people are searching for ways to do that. Cleverer people have better things to do. The informed opinion of a group of people of proven competency is in itself proof. It's the kind of proof which can get one sentenced. :)  Arm-chair scientists would like to think that every problem is reducible to a number of Volts. That's simply not the case. Take as an example the question of 3 manifolds being homeomorphic to 3 spheres ( Poincare conjecture ). In order to verify it you will have to rely on the informed opinion of other people. Short of looking inside their heads, that's all you have. There are many similar examples where informed opinion is all we can possibly hope for and either we work with that or we keep chasing our tail.

3. Well, we did find that one. We keep finding it for 200 and some years. I don't think we should stop doing anything because we can't put a Voltmeter to it.

4. We have a "clear and widely accepted answer to this question". I've never heard anybody of consequence having a different opinion. This of course changes once the opinions come from people of no consequence. All experts agree on Cremonese instruments being as a group, superior. What else is needed ???    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.