Effects of “playing in”.

[violins88]

The conclusion is that playing in has no effect
 

https://www.academia.edu/22724398/Measurement_of_the_effect_on_violins_of_ageing_and_playing?email_work_card=title

 

[A432]

You're going to get the usual dogmas and gospel messages on this from people conditioned to regard every practical question as an abstract proposition subject to logical deducti9n. 

FWIW, Sacconi was one such, insisting that "playing in" a repaired/disused  fiddle was a kind of musical urban legend. 

(His student) Hans N, on the other hand, approached it empirically, back before he stopped acceoting repair/restoration work from private clients. He had a neighbor, an excellent violinist, who worked steadily in Broadway pit orchestras. Whenever a restoration job was finished, his neighbor played it at work until it was back up to snuff. Only then, at its best, was it returned to its owner.

The reputation Hans enjoyed among musicians for doing repair work that never needed playing back in again bordered on awe.

[GeorgeH]

If violins did change simply due to "playing in" then there is a 50% or greater probability that their tone would deteriorate over time instead of improve. Random unpredictable changes don't move in a single direction that can be measured and proven by a subjective evaluation.

6 hours ago, A432 said:

Whenever a restoration job was finished, his neighbor played it at work until it was back up to snuff.

If true, it is likely that Hans was making adjustments to these instruments during this period rather than some magic due to simply his neighbor playing it. 

Aside from this, I am leery of the propriety of Hans N risking his customers' violins by sending them out of his shop to be played in Broadway pit orchestras. 

[Don Noon]

12 hours ago, violins88 said:

The conclusion is that playing in has no effect
 

https://www.academia.edu/22724398/Measurement_of_the_effect_on_violins_of_ageing_and_playing?email_work_card=title

 

If you don't want to sign up for academia.edu, there's a direct way to read the paper at: https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/reprints/IntaViolin.pdf  This paper is 20 years old now. 

If you carefully investigate and find that there are no ghosts, it likely won't do much to sway the firm believers.

 

[outofnames]

Is there a view on humidity and it’s affect on a violin?  I always felt the tone on my instrument was better in the summer when humidity levels are high.

Perhaps playing in and weather conditions are related in some way…

[Don Noon]

9 hours ago, A432 said:

Whenever a restoration job was finished, his neighbor played it at work until it was back up to snuff. Only then, at its best, was it returned to its owner.

The reputation Hans enjoyed among musicians for doing repair work that never needed playing back in again bordered on awe.

Not too long ago Bill Sloan's ex-Jackson Strad underwent a major restoration.  When he got it back, he was rather upset that the sound was not up to its former self.  I played it, and agreed with him, and then I took some acoustic measurements to confirm that the higher frequencies were significantly weaker that earlier measurements, although the frequencies and general shape of the response hadn't changed.  A few weeks later, he reported that it was back to normal.

This all fits with the documented effect of static stress on damping as shown in Bucur's book on the acoustics of wood, where it is TIME that causes the damping to fall after application of stress.

7 minutes ago, outofnames said:

Is there a view on humidity and it’s affect on a violin?  I always felt the tone on my instrument was better in the summer when humidity levels are high.

It is also known that wood gains moisture and increases in damping when humidity is high, and vice versa, which definitely can be heard as a change in tone.  Some might like the bright/lively effect of dry weather, some might like the more sedate tone when humid.  It also depends on what the violin starts with for tone.

[Victor Roman]

4 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

If violins did change simply due to "playing in" then there is a 50% or greater probability that their tone would deteriorate over time instead of improve.

Random unpredictable changes don't move in a single direction that can be measured and proven by a subjective evaluation.

As to your first sentence above I noticed both things happening. But why would you say the changes are "random unpredictable" ? 

[Victor Roman]

55 minutes ago, outofnames said:

Is there a view on humidity and it’s affect on a violin?  I always felt the tone on my instrument was better in the summer when humidity levels are high.

I noticed the same for maybe, some six decades by now.

[GeorgeH]

50 minutes ago, Victor Roman said:

As to your first sentence above I noticed both things happening. But why would you say the changes are "random unpredictable" ? 

If changes in tone were real and therefore could be objectively measured, then they would have to occur due to physical changes in the instrument. Because each violin is different (wood, stress points, joints, etc.) and the playing and player causing the changes would also be different, then the changes in each violin would also be random and unpredictable.

[Don Noon]

1 hour ago, GeorgeH said:

If changes in tone were real and therefore could be objectively measured, then they would have to occur due to physical changes in the instrument. Because each violin is different (wood, stress points, joints, etc.) and the playing and player causing the changes would also be different, then the changes in each violin would also be random and unpredictable.

Not so if the play-in caused changes in acoustic parameters (like damping) of the wood itself, which could well be a consistent effect and result in a recognizable tone change.  Similar to (and probably confused with) the effects of age.

[David Burgess]

7 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

If violins did change simply due to "playing in" then there is a 50% or greater probability that their tone would deteriorate over time instead of improve. Random unpredictable changes don't move in a single direction that can be measured and proven by a subjective evaluation.

Agreed.

7 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Aside from this, I am leery of the propriety of Hans N risking his customers' violins by sending them out of his shop to be played in Broadway pit orchestras. 

Also agreed. Amongst high-end luthiers, one would not expect such a thing to happen, unless the owner or dealer was trying to sell the instrument.

 

3 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Not too long ago Bill Sloan's ex-Jackson Strad underwent a major restoration.  When he got it back, he was rather upset that the sound was not up to its former self.  I played it, and agreed with him,

Same here.

3 hours ago, Don Noon said:

A few weeks later, he reported that it was back to normal.

Which do you think might be more plausible? That the very adaptable neural network of the human brain adjusted to the change, or that the fiddle itself changed?

I am not denying that when a fiddle is first put under string tension, major changes in sound and playability occur from day to day, and even hour to hour.

 

[violins88]

Don, and everyone, I apologize for not noticing the paper is 20 years old. Really sorry.

[Shunyata]

Karl Flesh recommends detensioning the strings for a few days to revive a “tired” instrument.  I have seen myself that this makes a difference.

Yamaha puts their higher end guitars in an accoustic chamber and bomards them with sound to play them in before they are sold.

Wood aging, varnish aging, gradual body deformation under load, etc.  I think the null hypothesis has to be that the instrument does change.

[David Burgess]

6 minutes ago, violins88 said:

Don, and everyone, I apologize for not noticing the paper is 20 years old. Really sorry.

Would the age of the paper invalidate it? Are there more recent and better studies?

I think the Oberlin Acoustics group has been working on something having to do with this, so maybe something more recent will come from that?

[Don Noon]

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

Which do you think might be more plausible? That the very adaptable neural network of the human brain adjusted to the change, or that the fiddle itself changed?

Although I didn't get to play or measure the Ex-Jackson in the "recovered" state, I trust the owner's ability to know... in this case.  He has lived with this fiddle for a very long time, and has other nice violins for comparison.  Also, there is a plausable physical explanation, in that the restoration involved significant stresses and could take time to "settle it" (the vernacular for reduction in damping over time after imposition of new static stresses).  While the Bucur book only mentions the effect due to external stress, I think it is reasonable that the effect would extend to internal residual stresses as well.

[Victor Roman]

4 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

If changes in tone were real and therefore could be objectively measured, then they would have to occur due to physical changes in the instrument. Because each violin is different (wood, stress points, joints, etc.) and the playing and player causing the changes would also be different, then the changes in each violin would also be random and unpredictable.

My thought was that while the changes might be random they might also generally go in the same direction. I do not know if changes can not be measured or why. I suppose that if I can hear a change there must be a way to measure it, somewhere, somehow. Something similar happens with high end HI-FI amplifiers and the like.

[Victor Roman]

6 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Not too long ago Bill Sloan's ex-Jackson Strad underwent a major restoration.  When he got it back, he was rather upset that the sound was not up to its former self.  I played it, and agreed with him, and then I took some acoustic measurements to confirm that the higher frequencies were significantly weaker that earlier measurements, although the frequencies and general shape of the response hadn't changed.  A few weeks later, he reported that it was back to normal.

Did Mr. Sloan expect that the tone after a major restoration will be the same as before ? Is it possible the tone was actually better but he simply either didn't quite like it or it took time to adjust to it ? In general an effective concert violin does not sound at all as many enthusiasts imagine it should.  

[David Beard]

*)  Obviously, if you don't understand how something works or is, then that thing simply can not be.

*) Who among us knows any capable able player that doesn't tell of occasion having had experiences that seem like 'play in'.

*)  Do shoes not soften when worn?  Do trails not clear by walking?  Do cracks not grow with vibration?  Do gullies and rivers not deepen with water flow?  Does gravity not pull things down and compact cavities with time?

*)  Can you not entertain that the vibrations of playing might somehow clear the paths for the propagation, resonance, and radiation of sounds from a violin?  Or that time might improve the balance and settling tensions or imbalances after an instrument is disturbed?  

 

Why must you conclude that 'play in' isn't real when we actually don't know.

 

[Will Turner]

This company is disappointed in the statement play in has no impact.

https://www.tonerite.com/products/violin-tonerite

Personally practice, practice and practice (the three Ps) will do this.  

However perhaps one can strap one on each instrument waiting for purchase?  Bzzzzzzzzz.  

[GeorgeH]

2 hours ago, Victor Roman said:

My thought was that while the changes might be random they might also generally go in the same direction. I do not know if changes can not be measured or why. I suppose that if I can hear a change there must be a way to measure it, somewhere, somehow. Something similar happens with high end HI-FI amplifiers and the like.

A "direction" requires a frame of reference which does not exist in this case. 

3 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Although I didn't get to play or measure the Ex-Jackson in the "recovered" state, I trust the owner's ability to know... in this case.  He has lived with this fiddle for a very long time, and has other nice violins for comparison. 

Same thing can happen with moving a sound post. We get used to things after a while.

8 hours ago, Don Noon said:

It is also known that wood gains moisture and increases in damping when humidity is high, and vice versa, which definitely can be heard as a change in tone. 

Sure, but "change" does not mean improvement. It may cause subjective "improvement" some violins, but not in others, and I don't think it is predictable.

5 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Which do you think might be more plausible? That the very adaptable neural network of the human brain adjusted to the change, or that the fiddle itself changed?

Yes, the very adaptable neural network. It happens to me many times. I'll pick up a violin to play and then think it sounds better (never worse) after playing for 30 minutes. My very adaptable neural network has likely modified my technique for that violin and bow and my ear has become accustomed to the tone. If I pick it up the same violin the next day, it is "deja vu all over again."

[martin swan]

30 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

I'll pick up a violin to play and then think it sounds better (never worse) after playing for 30 minutes. My very adaptable neural network has likely modified my technique for that violin and bow and my ear has become accustomed to the tone. If I pick it up the same violin the next day, it is "deja vu all over again."

I also have this experience a lot - but I can't be sure of what's happening. Perhaps we simply prefer a sound that's more "open" and responsive, and perhaps that's an inevitable consequence of exciting the particles in the wood ... or it could all be psycho-acoustic.

The thing I react against is the use of the concept of "playing in" as a sales pitch ie. the violin sounds a bit shit now but you just need to play it in and it will be wonderful . I've never resorted to this argument, nor would I ever buy a violin on the assumption that it will sound better with playing. On the other hand, to all of those clients who tell me that the instrument's "opening up nicely" I simply say "I'm glad to hear it".

As for the difficulty in measuring - if there is a change, it's likely in the higher frequencies (which no-one ever bothers to measure) or in the complexity of the harmonics, which is a very difficult thing to measure. Generally people measure volume or general frequency response - it's entirely possible for a violin to sound radically different without either of these things changing at all.

[Don Noon]

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

Why must you conclude that 'play in' isn't real when we actually don't know.

More properly, "play-in is not a large real effect in that it can't be proven, and many attempts have been made to find it."  I myself attempted a fairly sensitive play-in test a dozen years ago, as documented on Maestronet here.   At this time, play-in is in the same category as ghosts and religion.  

51 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

A "direction" requires a frame of reference which does not exist in this case. 

Same thing can happen with moving a sound post. We get used to things after a while.

Sure, but "change" does not mean improvement. It may cause subjective "improvement" some violins, but not in others, and I don't think it is predictable.

Humidity is very predictable in what it does to the acoustic properties of the wood, and consistent in what it does to tone in a general sense.  It depends on the judgement of the player and the starting state of the violin whether those changes are preferred or not.

1 hour ago, GeorgeH said:

Yes, the very adaptable neural network. It happens to me many times. I'll pick up a violin to play and then think it sounds better (never worse) after playing for 30 minutes. My very adaptable neural network has likely modified my technique for that violin and bow and my ear has become accustomed to the tone. If I pick it up the same violin the next day, it is "deja vu all over again."

Yep, I used to play for dances, and by the second half things were much clearer and sounded better.  I am convinced it's the increased focus and other neural changes, especially since I used 2 violins depending on the tuning I needed, and they both seemed to change the same way... even if I didn't use one of them very much.

13 minutes ago, martin swan said:

As for the difficulty in measuring - if there is a change, it's likely in the higher frequencies (which no-one ever bothers to measure) 

Oh... so you think I'm no-one, huh?

 

[A432]

1) re. my followup posting (attempt) yesterday: thank you for the compliment.

"To silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore." -- JBR Yant

2) @Shunyata: Yehudi Menuhin used to do that too. (Not unsubatantiated gossip-- I've watched him do it). 1733 Strads appreciate rest breaks  : )  The great authorities here will probably dismiss this as merely one of his flaky eccentricities like yoga. But he had (at that point) lived with that fiddle for 30 years, and knew it a little better than the theorists with superior knowledge. (You know, the kind that refutes mere experience).

[Victor Roman]

2 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

A "direction" requires a frame of reference which does not exist in this case. 

By "in the same direction" I mean towards an improvement in the tone. The "frame of reference" is my perception.  

[Victor Roman]

2 hours ago, martin swan said:

Generally people measure volume or general frequency response - it's entirely possible for a violin to sound radically different without either of these things changing at all.

That is exactly many people's experience with high end hi-fi amplifiers. They measure identically and sound differently.