What does a good violin sound like???

March 16, 2017 at 10:54 PM · It depends on the violin. My luthier has many instruments in the 100k+ range (including an Omobono Strad) that I tried (but didn't like very much except for the D string, which had the perfect mature and vocal singing quality you hear when Bell plays on the D string of the Gibson). :)

March 17, 2017 at 12:17 AM · The question is not just sound, but playability, a good instrument makes the life of the violinist much easier, that encompasses quick response, balance in all strings and positions, a generous dynamic range, capacity of creating diferent colours, etc.

With a good instrument the player can focus on the music and in the interpretation, and not in the instrument.

March 17, 2017 at 12:18 AM · But you will be surprised how many violinists can make a cigar box sound darn good, so, a good part of the sound is from the musician.

March 17, 2017 at 01:29 AM · There are a gazillion definitions of good sound. The above definitions are a few examples. After all, every human has different standards for "good sound."

March 17, 2017 at 02:36 AM · Not every Strad is a great instrument, but more broadly, great instruments all have distinctive sounds. Some are brighter and some are darker.

This is a really great article by Michael Darnton: Understanding Tone

A shorter form: On Maestronet

March 17, 2017 at 01:16 PM · Interesting

March 17, 2017 at 02:16 PM · For context, Michael Darnton is an excellent contemporary violin-maker, but he also used to work at Bein & Fushi, which is one of the top violin shops in the world, through which the finest instruments and greatest players often pass.

Great violins have a malleability to them -- an extreme responsiveness. They also have a remarkable character of sound to the listener. I feel a subtle pressure against my ears when in the room, even at a distance, and they simply carry with very little effort. There's great depth to the tone, width to the colors, richness, beauty, clarity, and purity of harmonic resonance.

Note that the responsiveness of this kind of violin means that you need to have relatively uncompromised technique. Otherwise you might play one and struggle to make it sound good, which might in turn lead you to believe it's not that good of a violin.

March 17, 2017 at 05:03 PM · David, I think you've asked a question which can't be answered well with words. There's not even universal agreement on what various tonal descriptive terms mean, and a violin which is great to one person might be mediocre to someone else, because of their different playing styles.

Learning about tone and playability is largely an experiential thing (more than a descriptive thing), so I'd suggest playing lots of different violins (those owned by others in your youth orchestra, for instance) to get a foundation, paying close attention to their various quirks and qualities, and moving on from there. Just playing lots of different instruments will teach you a lot.

I once had someone come in for a sound adjustment, complaining that their violin was sounding "sibilant". That was kind of an unfamiliar descriptive term for me, but after hearing the violin, I understood what he was trying to convey. ;-)

March 17, 2017 at 06:08 PM · I think you can be somewhat objective. How about this: great violins have two inherent qualities--depth and clarity. The faults that are found in lesser violins tend to stem from either a lack of or a misbalance between these two basic qualities. For example, most of the factory fiddles from the late 19th century do tend to have clarity, but very little depth. French violins are stereotyped to have a similar bright sound but often lacking in depth. On the other hand, many older Germanic violins often have depth, but not clarity (like a Klotz I tried). This comes across as fuzziness or wooliness. The best violins I've tried have just the right combination of depth and clarity, and they have them on all strings and in all positions. This last criterion is very, very difficult to attain. Practically impossible, which is why violins that have this tend to be very expensive.

David, most shops are more than willing to let anyone who is serious try their best violins. So just ask. It's the same principle as crack dealers giving out free samples....

March 17, 2017 at 09:19 PM · Scott, I'd say that a violin has more like 100 inherent qualities, or more, and that many of these can be pushed around a bit by everything from string selection, playing skill variablity, to soundpost adjustment, to the way the bridge is cut, to inherent qualities of the bow, to the way a bow is rehaired, to rosin selection.

There's enough potential profit in the sale of a Strad that hundreds of hours, from some of the best people in our business, might be spent on getting it to live up to its reputation (and I'm one who has gone down that path). Less valuable and profitable instruments don't tend to get that kind of attention.

I'll agree though that if one goes into a major shop, and demonstrates careful handling skills, one might be able to try some really expensive violins. It won't necessarily depend on playing skills. After all, many of the world's most valuable instruments are owned by collectors or investors, some of whom play very poorly, or not at all.

March 18, 2017 at 09:15 PM · "It won't necessarily depend on playing skills." David, I was thinking about this the other day too: can we hear the quality of a good violin/viola even it is been played poorly? I think we can. This is an example of intentional performance of awful sound played on a fine instrument.

March 18, 2017 at 11:36 PM · Well, I think the real question is "What qualities do you want in a good violin?" The only way to find out is try a bunch, as good sound is so subjective from person to person. Some people may enjoy a brilliant and clear sound, while others may seek more warmth or depth. Yixi is right. Good instruments can be played badly.

March 19, 2017 at 01:30 AM · There is a difference between the tonal character of the violin, which you might or might not like, and the traits of a great instrument, which are more universal and objective (although depending on what you're like as a player, you might or might not care for, especially if the playing characteristics are not a good fit for your technical approach / level of skill).

March 19, 2017 at 01:45 AM · I define a great instrument as (in order of importance):

1- Clarity. If the instrument is not clear and singing, you waste energy coaxing the sound out and sometimes lack the ability to express yourself as you wish (because the extreme loud or quiet end doesn't work effectively). Pizzicato, especially left hand, also becomes less effective and rich because the string does not vibrate as readily as it should.

2- Range of tonal quality and dynamics. To some extent governed by the strings (pure gut most, steel least), the amazing instrument has a unique quality in that the dynamic ppp can be clearly played without bow arm difficulty, yet still projects a fair amount. Likewise, fff can be played without overexerting the bow arm itself, and pressure extremely close to the bridge is more easily sustainable.

3- Response. Being very difficult to achieve in an instrument without loss of some other aspect such as tonal quality, this allows, above all, ease of any trill or grace note speed. This is also vital in any virtuoso repertoire in which runs must be clearly defined in a slur, as well as any passage in intervals such as thirds or tenths. Because perfect response is so elusive a quality, I place it below the other two major factors.

However, if perfect response is found without loss of any other quality, you have found yourself an instrument that can do anything (that you hear in your head, at least, if your hands are not capable of it). :)

March 19, 2017 at 01:55 AM · Some who have had the great opportunity to be loaned one of the great master's instruments sometimes comment they had to work hard to master it and get it to shine to their true potential, so "playability" does not necessarily equal great instrument. I humbly think that ultimately sound (tone, dynamic range, complexity, clarity etc.) comes first as without that what's the point, but that is also rather subjective; then if you can get all the other attributes/traits (response, playability, stability, etc.) into one instrument, you really get the one in a million true gem.

March 19, 2017 at 02:04 AM · It's all a matter of personal taste. Yixi is right that you can still tell the quality of an instrument to a degree even if it's played poorly.

March 19, 2017 at 02:31 AM · The thing about truly great instruments is that it's worth modifying your playing in order to take advantage of the instrument. If you're lucky enough to be loaned a great Strad, for instance, you probably do whatever it takes to learn to play it.

Most players won't, or can't, adapt their technique for lesser instruments. Usually better to just find something that suits the way you play.

I agree with A.O.'s comments.

March 19, 2017 at 04:01 AM · Thanks for the support. :)

Though, if even a great instrument does not suit someone soundwise, it is better to look for a different one.

I tried a 1.7 million dollar 1740 Omobono Strad.

The D string was exactly what I want in a D string. The rest of the strings were somewhat closed sounding because of the characteristic Strad sound that projects very well but is gentle up close.

Not my cup of tea, though when I mentioned that I wished I could buy just the D string (sound included), my luthier joked that "it's a Vision D, you can have it for 200,000 dollars". :D Rotfl