posted 07-06-2004 03:15 PM               

The Texas state legislature gave him a $275,000 start-up grant for a new business that Nagyvary hopes will make Texas the violin-producing capital of the United States. Yee-haw.

Blind listening tests are, as most folks agree, a joke.

He’s been at it so long, it’s hard to want to go into much detail on which of his ideas to deconstruct. I have a framed article in my shop where he explains that Strad’s secret was a varnish ground made of blood, chicken shit and plaster dust. That went over real well for awhile. As I mentioned, the submerged wood idea was next, and while it doesn’t surprise me that he’s hung onto it, no one else is buying it. His citations of factual conditions of historical instruments are his Achilles’ heel: he’s never actually examined the instruments, he’s making up facts. Many others, like Ben Ruth, S. F. Sacconi, René Morel, the repair team at Bein and Fushi (which includes an occasional contributor here, Michael Darnton) have seen far more of the instruments Nagyvary claims to be decoding than Nagyvary ever has. They see what he states as fact, and they know he’s a crock. If you look at it as entertainment, you’ll be safer in the long run.

posted 07-07-2004 07:17 AM            

It's interesting to me that a scientist puts on a blind test and the results shout at the "Zen". I heard of another test with acoustic guitars where seasoned builders couldn't tell the back/side species in a blind test.

If you notice, from the moment the blind-test article was posted, the replies have become very emotionally centered. Re-read them --(chicken-shit, piss, etc). The professor may be off his rocker, and the violin community may hate him, but blind tests are powerful, removing the visual bias and in this test, the reputational bias (by the way, the professor's reputation may be why his violins aren't bought by the orchestra). Drug companies use blind tests just the same to eliminate the incredibly strong placebo effect. The results of a blind test speak for themselves.

No flame intended, just an observation from a doubter.

posted 07-07-2004 09:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
...The professor may be off his rocker, and the violin community may hate him, but blind tests are powerful, removing the visual bias and in this test, the reputational bias (by the way, the professor's reputation may be why his violins aren't bought by the orchestra). Drug companies use blind tests just the same to eliminate the incredibly strong placebo effect. The results of a blind test speak for themselves...

---

posted 07-07-2004 03:19 PM               

The "blind" instrument contests are in no way comparable to double-blind drug tests. They’re actually a mawkish spectator sport, and don’t mean much of anything. He put on such a show once with a violinist no one has ever heard of, no one of note in the audience, and reported on the results himself. Good science? Please.

A very fine luthier named Richard Schneider sponsored a blind exhibition at a GAL convention many years ago to demonstrate the superiority of the Kasha design he championed. The audience, which was largely made up of luthiers and players, overwhelmingly favored a plywood Takamine classical over his. It’s not a good method of evaluating anything.