Peter Infeld Strings...your thoughts?

September 19, 2010 at 11:03 PM ·

 Hi,

You happen to be asking about the very set I use (including the Platinum E).  I switched to them from Titanium Vision Orchestral and am very happy with them.

I think it is difficult to compare them to the other strings you mentioned.  I Evahs I KNOW are not consistent from fiddle to fiddle.... they always sounded tinny on mine yet better on others (well to be fair I haven't tried them on my current fiddle but I feel no need to do so).  There is just too much variation from violin to violin to compare strings objectively.  But I can say this: the Visions and PI seem to be by far the most consistent strings I've tried across different violins (even my students' violins).

With respect to tone color, *that* is the reason I like them above Visions.  They get the power of Visions but also a sweetness and depth and breadth of tone color that Visions, while powerful, didn't have quite as much of (though I still do love Visions).  I think Royce F. compared them to "Visions on steroids" and I quite agree with that!  :)  Also, artificial harmonics are easier on these strings than visions by far.  There is a break-in period with these strings as you may have read.... just be sure to clean the strings regularly so that the sound doesn't dull..... I remember hearing that complaint in another thread and I wonder if cleaning was the issue there.....

Of course lots depends on your violin and what you are looking for in the sound... but if you like a powerful sound as well as a wide range of tone color, I think you'd like these.  Oh and also, while I haven't tried this particular E myself, I do know someone who got the tin E and it sounded amazing.  Good luck!

September 19, 2010 at 11:03 PM ·

Maestro Hong!!! We missed you!

I got a free trial set that my teacher and I tried. For us they sound like Visions that have more focus with a bit more complexity. The Titanium E sounds like a Eudoxa E but not as quick in response.  i prefer the Eudoxa.  On my violin I have been leaning toward Vision D & A but when using a few other bows with a better re-hair the P.I.s really come out on top.  The P.I. "G" string is the best "G" I have heard to date on both my under a grand violin and another that is in your violin's price range! My teacher is giving these strings some serious thought.

September 19, 2010 at 11:05 PM ·

And they seem to get better with age!  They last a very long time for me and others in my area.

September 27, 2010 at 07:58 PM ·

Just put a set on, and the first thing I noticed was the softness under the fingers.  I have been using Passiones, which I love, but had this sample set, and they are also very, very nice.  Full. Big. Sweet.  My daughter, who never likes the action on my violin (too high, she says) liked these right off the bat!  Softer feel.  I am a little scared to like them, because they are $$$$$$.  They sure sound good though......

September 27, 2010 at 08:42 PM ·

Passiones, I do love them also. But they too are expensive! I LOVE the Passiones Solo "E" string is the Bomb! Man, sooooo responsive sweet and no squeal!!

February 4, 2011 at 07:53 PM ·

 I've played since several years with vision,titanium(both),often also with red infeld and I was curious to try Pinfeld.I am completetly disanpointed,I found them really heavy tension or they pretend to be low...and I did'nt find them more adjustable for softer bow pression for pianissimo.It seems to me a version of heavy Dominants!!!The difference is the...price!!

now I have to play with these,we can not allow every day to buy other strings specially in this price range;I find eudoxa less expensive!Regarding E platinum,is not something special neither;I had before Gold spirale and it was very good!!

So from my part I don't reccomend them!

February 4, 2011 at 09:35 PM ·

Like any string, it depends upon the taste and playing style of the player, as well as on the instrument - and even what part of the instrument, as I'll soon explain.

For many years I was a confirmed gut player - wound gut, that is. I liked the warmth and the richness.The last gut strings I used were the Passione. I found that tonally, they were at least as good as Oliv, and lasted longer. (BTW. Oliv A's are the worst in tetms of lasting. I've had some begin to unwind on me within a couple of days!) However, I found that Passione, too, had stabilty issues.

I started experimenting with Infeld Reds and Blues, and found them pretty good - depending on which violin in my collection I tried them on. (I never liked basic Dominants - for me, they have no particular quality. And I found Eva Pirazzi's too hard and unyielding.) More recently I started using Vision Solo and liked them on a few different fiddles. They seemed to have the best of the darker Reds and brighter Blues put together. They had strength, focus and presence - and quality, too. I found more recently that the Titanium Vision Solo have all the above plus a little more 'oomph'.

Then I won a set of Peter Infeld strings from the Strad magazine, when they published one of my letters as 'letter of the month'. For some time, I couldn't decide which of my violins to try them on. I even contacted the company to ask them to compare the Solos with the PI, as well as the shelf life of both. The reply:

February 5, 2011 at 01:04 AM ·

Funny, I just tried Vision Solo Ts on my modern canadian violin and prefer them, at least for the G and D, over the Evah Pirazzis that seemed to be loosing their tone.  So far so good but I've yet to try 'warm' strings - the Pirazzis seem to do very well on my E and A.

February 5, 2011 at 01:25 AM ·

 I'm with Popi, didn't find anything special about them and actually 'disliked' the platinum E which had to come off fairly quickly.....

I wouldn't say I don't like them, they just didn't do anything for me, just like dominants as Popi said..

February 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM ·

 I would actually like to say I am very pleased with the Peter Infeld strings, including the platinum E. I am now on my second set. On the recommendation of my teacher I began with Dominants.  At first they seemed ok but somehow the G and D were fairly dull, maybe too 'warm'.  So I graduated to my first set of Peter Infelds and I was gobsmacked by the sound projection.  Far better than I ever imagined, and they remained fairly fresh sounding for about 5 months, then lost some of their colour. I also put a new set of Evah's on my French violin and it played very loud and clear indeed, a fantastic sound.  Then a new set of PI's came along so I swapped the Evah's to the German instrument and put them on the French one.  I am extremely pleased with the PI's on the French violin. They resonate beautifully and the 'ring' that the platinum E makes is both powerful and clear, just like the first set on the German instrument.  The interesting thing is that the PI's 'improved' the sound of both violins, but the Evah's don't sound any good on the German one, too harsh.  The PI's are definitely warmer but less focused than the Evahs.

February 7, 2011 at 02:00 PM ·

John - re storing/orginizing used spare strings - if you keep using the same brand and type, you will notice that the cloth winding above the fingerboard and/or below the bridge is ususally color-coded in a consistent way. For example, with Pirastro, in the peg-box area, the G is brown, D is red, etc.

The problem is when you experiment with a number of different brands, as I have in recent years. What I now do is use 3 (sets of) envelopes that are 6"X9". One is marked G, then D, then A and E together as of course, there should be no confusing an E with any other string. I find this works well for me. I may not remember say, which used G is which type, but I'm not too concerned as, if I'm re-installing a used string it's usually an emergency, 'spare-tire' situation.

February 7, 2011 at 09:39 PM ·

It's common on these string comparison discussions to find that string  brand X works wonderfully on Mr A's violin but sounds an absolute dog on Mr B's. One well-known and obvious reason is the difference in instruments, but there are other possibilities.

The first is the bow, so often overlooked in these comparisons. No two bows are the same, and if a player doesn't have more than one bow they may not appreciate how a change of bow can change the sound of the violin and response of the strings. I found this out for myself some years ago when I got my second violin (new) and a second pernambuco bow to go with it.  I now have a third (carbon fiber) bow and all three produce noticeably different tonal qualities, and volume of tone, on both violins – 6 different tone and dynamic possibilities between the two instruments. There may an occasion when I prefer one combination over another,  and another occasion when a different bow on the same instrument will clearly be the one of choice.

The second reason is the difference in bowing techniques, and therefore tone production, between violinists. Until a certain level of bowing control and technique has been reached, tone control is very much a hit and miss affair, which makes comparing strings that more difficult. 

February 8, 2011 at 07:21 AM ·

I'm still using mine bought beginning of December 2010. I had six weeks off playing so they are still fairly new.

I do find they have a big sound, and I've just recorded with them and they sound better than I imagined. I found this too in a quartet rehearsal last week and last night.

February 9, 2011 at 02:10 AM ·

My violin came to me with a brand new set of Vision solos already on it, it was only until very recently when i received a set of Pirastro Passiones. They ARE AMAZING.

they definately put the visions to shame, and made my violin sound like a concert fiddle.

eitan

February 9, 2011 at 08:06 PM ·

Describing audio quality has always been difficult. Even in measuring performance of audio equipment, there are certainly many types of measurements/units used, but they don't measure what many people hear. Thus audio quality is a subjective measure.

However, I'd like to ask the question.....what do people mean by more focused sound?

Brighter is understandable...."Fuller" I would assume to be more frequency content in the lower end (say 100 hertz or so - that is what is boosted on most stereo "loudness" buttons)...."metallic" is also a term I think I can relate to.....but "focused" is a term that I'd appreciate if someone could describe a little better.....

thanks...

February 9, 2011 at 10:57 PM ·

I put PI's on my violin two months ago and  they're the best strings I've ever tried. I've had dominant, jargar, helicore, evah's, obligato, corelli alliance vivace, vision, vision solo, vision ti's, olives, and infeld reds. IMHO they imitate gut better than any other string. On my violin (because every violin has its own character) they are really sweet but with exceptional power and projection and loaded with ton's of color. It's very easy to play all dynamic levels. The platinum plated E tended to whistle at first but hardly at all now. The worst thing about them is the price! :(  But once you play on them the price becomes a little easier to handle.

February 10, 2011 at 02:10 PM ·

Arnie - good question! It would be so much easier if I could just give you a demonstration with this or that fiddle or bow. But barring that, and since you can relate to other tonal terms, this analogy occurs to me re focus: imagine a searchlight at some distance. It begins to spread out. Now compare that to a lazer beam. The latter is super focused. If you can extrapolate that to sound somehow, maybe you'll get the feeling. Some violins and bows give you more of a feeling of cushion;some more edge. Some have aspects of both.

Now some players come to mind. No good player is poorly-focused, nor is focus the be-all or end-all as a measure for good playing. But relatively, Heifetz was quite focused in his sound;  Nadien, too. Elman and Oistrakh had more relaxed though no less viable sounds, with more spread. Players too, may certainly have aspects of both, and perhaps may lead more with one than another, whether by the way they naturally play from their physicality, or personality, or by concious choice in this or that piece or passage.

February 10, 2011 at 06:49 PM ·

Raphael,

thanks for taking a shot at this, yes its difficult. For what you describe, I can think of 2 to 3 audio characteristics that people may consider as a "focus" definiton.

1. The attack. This is the time period from which the bow hits the string until the string is at its max volume (assuming bow pressure, etc doesn't change). This is measured in time, and would be a function primarily of strings, and bow, rosin, pressure, and placement of the bow.

2. the frequency content. Perhaps just the same way as people use terms "rich", or "full", to describe a violin's sound - which I think would normally be a function of how much lower frequency content there is.

Perhaps "focus" tends towards describing the amount of middle to even semi high frequency content (or harmonics).

Or perhaps its actually a subjective measurement of the amplitude of the fundamental (ie 440hz for A below middle C), to the harmonics that are a result of that (due to various resonances in the violin. I'm almost thinking that its the latter (the higher the fundamental frequency, the more focused we all perceive the sound.

3. A combination of the above, The frequency  content of any given note will vary depending upon the volume it is played at (or pressure used to create the sound). In other word the frequency/harmonic content (and the amplitudes of that content), will vary depending upon the volume os the note played. This is common on probably every acoustic instrument, which is why many audio synthesizers, may come close to similating acoustic instruments, but generally fall short

does any of this relate to your view of "focus"....?

February 10, 2011 at 08:29 PM ·

Acoustcal science is not my forte, though I've studied it a bit, and follow articles in the Strad and VSA journal that try to analyze and quantify violin sound. It seems to me that this all has validity, and I'm sure that this is what string manufacturers study and measure, themselves - but only up to a point. I think that what can be quantified is not the experience of sound, but some of the footprints that sound leaves behind, as it were. Listen, if you have a chance, to some recordings of the artists I mentioned. You can find them on YouTube, though sound quality is not usually so good there.

Louis Armstrong was once asked if he could give a definition of Jazz. Said he: "if you have to ask, you'll never know". This isn't a put down or a denial. It's just stressing direct experience.