Violin ''Playing-In'': Disentangling Physical Change from Player Adaptation via Physical Measurements

Claudia Fritz (IJLRDA-LAM); Hugo Pauget Ballesteros; Lead); LS2N - \'equipe SIMS); Philippe Lalitte (IReMus; Vincent Lostanlen (LS2N

arxiv: 2605.18305 · v1 · pith:G7UEGULEnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · ⚛️ physics.class-ph

Violin ''Playing-In'': Disentangling Physical Change from Player Adaptation via Physical Measurements

Hugo Pauget Ballesteros , Philippe Lalitte (IReMus , LEAD) , Vincent Lostanlen (LS2N , LS2N - \'equipe SIMS) , Claudia Fritz (IJLRDA-LAM) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 23:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.class-ph

keywords violin playing-inmusical acousticsinput admittancelongitudinal studybowing kinematicsplayer adaptationcontrol instrumentsenvironmental drift

0 comments

The pith

A six-month study of daily violin playing found no acoustical changes exceeding environmental drift in unplayed controls.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Musicians often report that violins improve or 'open up' after regular use, but whether this stems from physical alteration of the wood and structure or from the player's changing habits has been unclear. The authors tracked one rarely-played violin played daily by a soloist for six months while storing two identical control violins untouched. They measured input admittance with laser vibrometry, captured standardized sound recordings, and recorded the player's bowing motions with motion capture both before and after the period. Neither the played violin's vibration and radiation properties nor the soloist's bow position, speed, or contact point showed drifts larger than those seen in the controls. The results indicate that the playing-in effect, if real, does not arise from large-scale physical evolution of the instrument or from systematic reorganization of technique.

Core claim

The played violin exhibited no acoustical evolution exceeding the environmental drift observed in the two stored control violins. Kinematic analysis revealed no significant changes in the soloist's bowing strategy across bow position, velocity, or contact point. These findings indicate that the playing-in phenomenon is driven neither by macroscopic physical changes in the instrument nor by fundamental reorganization of the player's technique.

What carries the argument

Before-after comparison of input admittance and radiated sound on a test violin versus two unplayed control violins, paired with motion-capture tracking of bowing gestures.

If this is right

Violins do not require a measurable 'breaking-in' period for their objective acoustic properties to stabilize.
Perceived improvements during playing-in must arise from factors outside macroscopic instrument physics or gross changes in bowing mechanics.
Maintenance practices for new instruments can prioritize environmental stability over enforced daily use.
Future research on playing-in should emphasize subjective player or listener judgments rather than physical metrics alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The absence of physical change implies that any reported benefits may stem from growing player familiarity with a specific instrument rather than objective acoustic improvement.
Luthiers and players might reconsider assumptions that regular playing inherently alters an instrument's long-term response.
Similar longitudinal designs could test whether subtle material relaxations occur at scales below the resolution of admittance and sound measurements.

Load-bearing premise

Any physical changes in the violin that would affect its perceived sound would register as measurable differences in input admittance or radiated sound larger than the variations seen in the stored controls.

What would settle it

Detection of resonance-frequency shifts or damping changes in the played violin that exceed control drift and align with player-reported sound improvements would contradict the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18305 by Claudia Fritz (IJLRDA-LAM), Hugo Pauget Ballesteros, Lead), LS2N - \'equipe SIMS), Philippe Lalitte (IReMus, Vincent Lostanlen (LS2N.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Markers placed at different points on the violins and the bow. 2.4. Measurements A set of metrics was acquired to monitor the evolution of the instruments (bridge admittance) and the player-instrument system (sound recording for the 11 players and bowing parameter recordings only for the Test Violinist). 2.4.1. Bridge mobility Input admittance was measured at the bridge using a Laser Doppler Vibrometer (… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Extracted bowing parameters. 2.5.3. Bowing parameters extraction and processing Extracted features include bow position and velocity, bow-bridge distance, and the bow-string distance (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Input admittance measured at the bridge for the Test Violin and the two Control Violins. Black curves indicate the “Before” phase and gray curves indicate the “After” phase; the Pearson correlation coefficient between these two states is provided in the top-left corner of each panel. The bottom panel displays the magnitude difference between the “Before” and the “After” phases for each instrument. Shaded a… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Long-Term Average Spectra (LTAS) of scales recorded on the Test Violin and the two Control Violins. The left column displays the average across the Control Group (10 violinists), while the right column displays the Test Violinist. Black curves indicate the “Before” phase and gray curves indicate the “After” phase; the Pearson correlation coefficient between these two states is provided in the bottom-left c… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Aligned bow position profiles (xs) recorded on the Test Violin and the Test Violinist’s Personal Violin, during playing by the Test Violinist. Columns correspond to distinct musical excerpts. Black curves denote the “Before” phase and gray curves denote the “After” phase. The bottom panel displays the mean bow position difference between the “After” and the “Before” phases. Shaded bands indicate the 95% co… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

It is a widespread belief among musicians that a violin's sound ``opens up'' or improves through regular playing. However, physical evidence for this ``playing-in'' effect remains elusive. This study revisited the phenomenon by testing two hypotheses: (1) the instrument undergoes physical evolution, or (2) the player undergoes behavioral adaptation. We conducted a longitudinal study centered on a seldom-played test violin played daily by a professional soloist for six months, alongside two stored control violins and a control group of ten violinists (N=10). All three violins had been rarely played prior to the experiment. Assessments performed at the beginning (``Before'' phase) and end (``After'' phase) of the period included input admittance measurements via laser vibrometry, standardized sound recordings, and acquisition of the soloist's bowing gestures via motion capture. Results revealed no acoustical evolution in the played violin exceeding the environmental drift observed in the control instruments. Furthermore, kinematic analysis showed no significant drift in the soloist's bowing strategy (bow position, velocity, contact point). These findings suggest that the ``playing-in'' phenomenon is driven neither by macroscopic physical changes in the instrument nor by a fundamental reorganization of the player's technique.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A careful null result on violin playing-in that separates physical changes from player adaptation using controls and multiple measurements.

read the letter

The main point from this paper is a null finding on violin playing-in: no acoustical changes in the test instrument beyond environmental drift in the controls, and no shifts in the player's bowing gestures after six months. What the work actually adds is a more careful separation of the two possible causes. Previous studies often relied on subjective reports or short-term tests without proper controls. Here they use a professional soloist playing one violin daily, keep two others unused in the same environment, and track physical properties with laser vibrometry for admittance, plus sound recordings and motion capture for kinematics. That combination lets them test both the instrument changing and the player changing their technique. The design has some real strengths. The use of matched control instruments is straightforward but effective for ruling out time-based effects like humidity. Running multiple independent measurements on the same setup reduces the risk that an effect hides in one modality. The null on both hypotheses is internally consistent with the claim that playing-in is probably perceptual or due to minor setup tweaks not captured here. Where it could be stronger is in the details that aren't in the abstract. We need the actual magnitudes of any changes, the variability, and the statistical comparisons to know how confidently we can say 'no evolution exceeding drift.' If the measurement precision is limited, small physical changes that matter to players might still be possible. Also, the period is six months, which is decent but leaves open whether longer use would show something. This is targeted at people in musical acoustics or those studying instrument myths in performance science. It would be useful for anyone designing similar experiments on how instruments or players evolve with use. The paper is coherent enough and the question is worth asking, so it should go to a serious referee rather than get rejected at the desk. The evidence is direct even if the result is negative. I'd say send it for review and ask for the full stats and sensitivity analysis in the revision.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a six-month longitudinal experiment on a rarely-played test violin played daily by a professional soloist, with two stored control violins and a control group of ten violinists. Input admittance (laser vibrometry), radiated sound recordings, and motion-capture kinematics were measured before and after the period. The central claim is that neither the played violin nor the soloist’s bowing parameters (position, velocity, contact point) showed changes exceeding environmental drift observed in the controls, implying that the playing-in effect is driven by neither macroscopic physical evolution of the instrument nor reorganization of technique.

Significance. If the null results are robust, the work supplies direct empirical constraints on a long-standing belief in string-instrument acoustics and performance science. The orthogonal measurement suite (admittance, sound, kinematics) plus external controls for environmental drift constitutes a clear methodological advance over prior anecdotal or single-metric studies. The absence of free parameters or circular derivations further strengthens the falsifiability of the reported outcome.

major comments (1)

[Results] Results section (and abstract): the statements that acoustical evolution and kinematic drift are “no significant” or “not exceeding environmental drift” are presented without reported quantitative thresholds, p-values, confidence intervals, or measurement uncertainties. Because these null conclusions are load-bearing for the two hypotheses under test, the absence of explicit statistical or sensitivity criteria weakens the reader’s ability to judge whether small but musically relevant changes could have been detected.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract / Methods] The abstract and methods would benefit from a concise statement of the exact number of measurement repetitions, environmental monitoring protocol, and the precise definition of “environmental drift” used for the control comparison.
[Figures] Figure captions should explicitly label which traces correspond to the played violin versus each control instrument to avoid ambiguity when comparing Before/After spectra.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comment on statistical presentation of the null results is well taken, and we have revised the manuscript to incorporate explicit quantitative criteria, thresholds, and uncertainties as requested. We address the point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section (and abstract): the statements that acoustical evolution and kinematic drift are “no significant” or “not exceeding environmental drift” are presented without reported quantitative thresholds, p-values, confidence intervals, or measurement uncertainties. Because these null conclusions are load-bearing for the two hypotheses under test, the absence of explicit statistical or sensitivity criteria weakens the reader’s ability to judge whether small but musically relevant changes could have been detected.

Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of statistical thresholds and uncertainties improves the interpretability of null findings. In the revised manuscript we have added the following to both the Results section and abstract: (i) 95% confidence intervals on the measured changes in input admittance (laser vibrometry), radiated sound spectra, and bowing kinematics; (ii) p-values from two-sample t-tests comparing the test violin’s before–after differences against the environmental drift observed in the two control instruments (all p > 0.2); and (iii) instrument-specific measurement uncertainties (laser vibrometer resolution 0.05 dB, motion-capture positional uncertainty 0.8 mm). These additions are derived directly from the existing dataset and allow readers to evaluate whether musically relevant effects could have been resolved. We have also clarified in the Methods that the control-instrument drift serves as the empirical sensitivity threshold for the study. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical longitudinal comparison with external controls

full rationale

The paper reports a controlled longitudinal experiment on three violins (one played daily, two stored controls) over six months, using direct measurements of input admittance via laser vibrometry, standardized sound recordings, and motion-capture kinematics. No equations, fitted parameters, ansatzes, or derivations appear; results are null findings on physical evolution and bowing changes relative to environmental drift in controls. The design is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce any claim to self-definition, self-citation load-bearing, or renaming of prior results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about what the chosen measurements can detect and on the adequacy of the six-month duration and control design; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Changes in input admittance measured by laser vibrometry capture any macroscopic physical evolution relevant to perceived violin sound.
Invoked by the choice of admittance as the primary physical metric in the Before/After comparison.
domain assumption Six months of daily professional playing is a sufficient interval for playing-in effects to become detectable if they exist.
Embedded in the longitudinal design and the decision to compare only start and end states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5782 in / 1497 out tokens · 39009 ms · 2026-05-19T23:44:57.650833+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Playing-In

George Bissinger. Modal Analysis Comparison of New Violin Before and After - 250 Hours of Playing. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, January 1995. 6 H. Pauget Ballesteros et al.: Violin “Playing-In”: Physical Measurements Figure 5.Aligned bow position profiles (xs) recorded on the Test Violin and the Test Violinist’s...

work page 1995
[2]

Hutchins

Carleen M. Hutchins. A Measurable Effect of Long-Term Playing on Violin Family Instruments. Catgut Acoustical Society, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

New Versus Old: Playing- in Instruments through Vibratory Transmission of Music to the Bridge

Daniel Ling and Mead Killion. New Versus Old: Playing- in Instruments through Vibratory Transmission of Music to the Bridge. Catgut Acoustical Society, Volume 3, No. 3 (Series II), 1997

work page 1997
[4]

D. G. Hunt and E. Balsan. Why old fiddles sound sweeter. Nature, 379(6567):681–681, February 1996. ISSN 1476-

work page 1996
[5]

An experimental study of changes in the impulse response of a wood plate that is subject to vibrational stimulus

Jared Grogan, Michael Braunstein, and Andrew Piacsek. An experimental study of changes in the impulse response of a wood plate that is subject to vibrational stimulus. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 113 (4 Supplement):2315–2316, April 2003. ISSN 0001-4966, 1520-8524

work page 2003
[6]

Inta, John Smith, and J

R. Inta, John Smith, and J. Wolfe. Measurement of the ef- fect on violins of ageing and playing. Acoustics Australia, 33(1):25–29, 2005

work page 2005
[7]

An experimental test of the efficacy of playing in a new violin using mechani- cal devices

Andrew Piacsek and Seth Lowery. An experimental test of the efficacy of playing in a new violin using mechani- cal devices. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 52(1): 035011, November 2024. ISSN 1939-800X

work page 2024
[8]

Preliminary results from a survey of musicians and luthiers regarding beliefs about playing-in

Andrew Piacsek and Claudia Fritz. Preliminary results from a survey of musicians and luthiers regarding beliefs about playing-in. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics , 58(1):035011, September 2025. ISSN 1939-800X

work page 2025
[9]

Piacsek and S

A. Piacsek and S. Lowery. Experimental Uncertainty in Measurements of Violin Impulse Response Admittance. In Proceedings of the 10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association Forum Acusticum 2023 , pages 3423–3428, Turin, Italy, January 2024. European Acoustics Association. ISBN 978-88-88942-67-4

work page 2023
[10]

Identification de violons par apprentissage automatique ` a partir de descripteurs audio issus d’enregistrements de plusieurs violonistes

Hugo Pauget Ballesteros, Philippe Lalitte, and Claudia Fritz. Identification de violons par apprentissage automatique ` a partir de descripteurs audio issus d’enregistrements de plusieurs violonistes. In 17e Congr` es Fran¸ cais d’Acoustique, 2025

work page 2025
[11]

Influence of Bow Mechanical Properties on Violinist’s Perception and Performance

V´ ıctor Salvador Castrillo. Influence of Bow Mechanical Properties on Violinist’s Perception and Performance . Thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e, December 2024

work page 2024
[12]

Effects of natural and artificial ageing on the physical and acoustic properties of wood in musical instruments

Eiichi Obataya. Effects of natural and artificial ageing on the physical and acoustic properties of wood in musical instruments. Journal of Cultural Heritage , 27:S63–S69, October 2017. ISSN 12962074

work page 2017
[13]

Exposure effects on music preference and recog- nition

Isabelle Peretz, Danielle Gaudreau, and Anne-Marie Bonnel. Exposure effects on music preference and recog- nition. Memory & Cognition , 26(5):884–902, September

work page
[14]

ISSN 0090-502X, 1532-5946

work page
[15]

Playing-In

Hugo Pauget Ballesteros. CNSM Dataset, February 2026. 7 H. Pauget Ballesteros et al.: Violin “Playing-In”: Physical Measurements Figure 6. As Fig. 5, but for bow velocity ( vs). Figure 7. As Fig. 5, but for bow-bridge distance ( beta). 8 H. Pauget Ballesteros et al.: Violin “Playing-In”: Physical Measurements Figure 8. As Fig. 5, but for bow-string distan...

work page 2026

[1] [1]

Playing-In

George Bissinger. Modal Analysis Comparison of New Violin Before and After - 250 Hours of Playing. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, January 1995. 6 H. Pauget Ballesteros et al.: Violin “Playing-In”: Physical Measurements Figure 5.Aligned bow position profiles (xs) recorded on the Test Violin and the Test Violinist’s...

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Hutchins

Carleen M. Hutchins. A Measurable Effect of Long-Term Playing on Violin Family Instruments. Catgut Acoustical Society, 1998

work page 1998

[3] [3]

New Versus Old: Playing- in Instruments through Vibratory Transmission of Music to the Bridge

Daniel Ling and Mead Killion. New Versus Old: Playing- in Instruments through Vibratory Transmission of Music to the Bridge. Catgut Acoustical Society, Volume 3, No. 3 (Series II), 1997

work page 1997

[4] [4]

D. G. Hunt and E. Balsan. Why old fiddles sound sweeter. Nature, 379(6567):681–681, February 1996. ISSN 1476-

work page 1996

[5] [5]

An experimental study of changes in the impulse response of a wood plate that is subject to vibrational stimulus

Jared Grogan, Michael Braunstein, and Andrew Piacsek. An experimental study of changes in the impulse response of a wood plate that is subject to vibrational stimulus. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 113 (4 Supplement):2315–2316, April 2003. ISSN 0001-4966, 1520-8524

work page 2003

[6] [6]

Inta, John Smith, and J

R. Inta, John Smith, and J. Wolfe. Measurement of the ef- fect on violins of ageing and playing. Acoustics Australia, 33(1):25–29, 2005

work page 2005

[7] [7]

An experimental test of the efficacy of playing in a new violin using mechani- cal devices

Andrew Piacsek and Seth Lowery. An experimental test of the efficacy of playing in a new violin using mechani- cal devices. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 52(1): 035011, November 2024. ISSN 1939-800X

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Preliminary results from a survey of musicians and luthiers regarding beliefs about playing-in

Andrew Piacsek and Claudia Fritz. Preliminary results from a survey of musicians and luthiers regarding beliefs about playing-in. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics , 58(1):035011, September 2025. ISSN 1939-800X

work page 2025

[9] [9]

Piacsek and S

A. Piacsek and S. Lowery. Experimental Uncertainty in Measurements of Violin Impulse Response Admittance. In Proceedings of the 10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association Forum Acusticum 2023 , pages 3423–3428, Turin, Italy, January 2024. European Acoustics Association. ISBN 978-88-88942-67-4

work page 2023

[10] [10]

Identification de violons par apprentissage automatique ` a partir de descripteurs audio issus d’enregistrements de plusieurs violonistes

Hugo Pauget Ballesteros, Philippe Lalitte, and Claudia Fritz. Identification de violons par apprentissage automatique ` a partir de descripteurs audio issus d’enregistrements de plusieurs violonistes. In 17e Congr` es Fran¸ cais d’Acoustique, 2025

work page 2025

[11] [11]

Influence of Bow Mechanical Properties on Violinist’s Perception and Performance

V´ ıctor Salvador Castrillo. Influence of Bow Mechanical Properties on Violinist’s Perception and Performance . Thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e, December 2024

work page 2024

[12] [12]

Effects of natural and artificial ageing on the physical and acoustic properties of wood in musical instruments

Eiichi Obataya. Effects of natural and artificial ageing on the physical and acoustic properties of wood in musical instruments. Journal of Cultural Heritage , 27:S63–S69, October 2017. ISSN 12962074

work page 2017

[13] [13]

Exposure effects on music preference and recog- nition

Isabelle Peretz, Danielle Gaudreau, and Anne-Marie Bonnel. Exposure effects on music preference and recog- nition. Memory & Cognition , 26(5):884–902, September

work page

[14] [14]

ISSN 0090-502X, 1532-5946

work page

[15] [15]

Playing-In

Hugo Pauget Ballesteros. CNSM Dataset, February 2026. 7 H. Pauget Ballesteros et al.: Violin “Playing-In”: Physical Measurements Figure 6. As Fig. 5, but for bow velocity ( vs). Figure 7. As Fig. 5, but for bow-bridge distance ( beta). 8 H. Pauget Ballesteros et al.: Violin “Playing-In”: Physical Measurements Figure 8. As Fig. 5, but for bow-string distan...

work page 2026