| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Additionally, at one point I believe that I intentionally diverged from what might have been a 'strictly classical' interpretation.
Specifically, with regard to what (or, more specifically, where) I considered the high point of the long arch was located for the top plate.
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1286
Location: Chicago
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | | Why would you diverge from a system that is by definition perfect? |
Thinking about it - the reason for this divergence, if it is one, was based on the fact that I have never had an original, old, Cremonese violin in my hands to look at and ponder on...
So there may well be many places where I substituted actual observation (never done) for; the need to create something that I thought may have been done originally.
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1286
Location: Chicago
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn it man!
(sorry just fooling around)
So, you're going to make me think about it some, hey? You've had the originals in hand.
... with regard to top arches, have you seen, or has your observations led you to believe that the top arch did not have a peak at the bridge line.
Perhaps a flat middle would negate t peak at the bridge line, but if the top did not have a flat mid section, then the peak on a normal (symmetrical) arch would put the high point of the arch slightly above the bridge (towards the scroll), right?
?
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1286
Location: Chicago
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | | That's right. Anything you do to put the peak at the bridge is artificial. Also, not apparently there in the originals. (Peak at the bridge, I mean.) |
OK... thanks for that answer.
Since you've dealt with the originals I will take your word for this.
The flat area that apparently exists on some tops plates... are they usually intentional, or very often the result of 'flattening' by virtue of the bridge/string pressure on the plate(s)?
So, if you're going to use cycloids for cross arches, then, what do you think works for a long arch? A segment of a circle? an intentionally 'flattened' long arch?
And the back/belly difference in long arch is due, in part, to the string pressure always pulling up in the one direction it pulls in - but their original arch, when building them, are also different, right?
And the back cross arches, are they also "cycloid" in nature?
Hey I realize that I'm asking a lot.
And most of this is simply theoretical at this point, as I am not making violins presently, but have moved over to making bows, and learning the making aspects of that craft or "art" if you will.
But I am thinking of making violins again in the immediate future, and not going at it, as I have in the past - but making them with a rather 'new' or 'revised' thought process...
And adopting some of the many things that I have learned, since I first started making, instead of many of the things that have become habitual...
Things that need to go.
So, if it's ok with you, I'll be asking you specifically about some design aspects of the plates, and specifics about their arches, for a while. All I want to know is what 'your opinion' on these specific matters is is.
I hope that this is ok. If not, just tell me outright that I'm asking something that you'd rather not elaborate on.
Are we on the same channel here?
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1286
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if the flat area in the top is original, for sure. I believe that it is, because there are some violins from the same makers from the same time period which are very clearly made without that flat area, without any flattening at all, and they seem to be clustered together in time just the way any other experiment with arching tended to be. But this is a very tiny minority of violins, within tight time ranges.
I also think it's clear the the back long arch was a clean circle--that part is really obvious.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, wrong thread.
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikes
Member
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Vermont, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting discussion about arching going on here. I was looking at the Strad poster for the GDG Plowden recently and the flat spot on the top of this instrument is remarkably flatter and longer than anything I've ever seen. Maybe this is an extreme example of what Michael was talking about earlier in the thread?
Best,
Mike Spencer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | | Ah, then, clue: symmetrical in the long arch. On the top, flatter in the middle if you want, but symmetrical, based on the ends, not on the widest points of the upper and lower bouts. |
Then, if the long arch is, or probably it would be better to say; 'occasionally' is, circular in nature, then the highest point of such a belly, that is not flattened in the long arch, then the high point would be in the geometric center of the plate?
Right?
How often is this actually seen, or is the top plate USUALLY given a flat or flattened long arch. Just curious....
Thanks,
CT
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1286
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that classical period violins were ALWAYS made with the highest point in the center, top and back. There is no way to prove that now, but that's the best I can reverse-engineer it from what I've seen. Likewise, I believe the back and top were both based on circles, one way or another, again, based on the best quality of reverse engineering. When I do these things, my tonal results are better to me; when I see these characteristics in newer violins, the tonal results are better, to me.
In modern making I see a lot of stress on a sort of Germanic attitude of structural strength above all else. I don't believe the Italians of 400 years ago were thinking that way at all.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ctviolin
Super Member
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 961
Location: Roswell
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | I believe that classical period violins were ALWAYS made with the highest point in the center, top and back. There is no way to prove that now, but that's the best I can reverse-engineer it from what I've seen. Likewise, I believe the back and top were both based on circles, one way or another, again, based on the best quality of reverse engineering. When I do these things, my tonal results are better to me; when I see these characteristics in newer violins, the tonal results are better, to me.
In modern making I see a lot of stress on a sort of Germanic attitude of structural strength above all else. I don't believe the Italians of 400 years ago were thinking that way at all. |
Ok.
Thanks.
As always, one more question...
Regarding the Italian violins that we're talking about here.
With the cross arching taking a different arch shape than circular - the center long arches may well have been circular, with the circular profiles (for both the top and the back long arch) of different diameters, I would guess.
Looking at the profiles of various old violins today, I'm guessing that the top long arch (the side profile, right?) is, or was originally carved a much greater diameter than the back arch, and that their intersecting with the edge counter arching, or the dip created by carving the trough before the arch rises again at the extreme edge, is where the circular profile obviously ends and merges with the trough.
So, a circular profile for the long arch, is not, was not, the same diameter circle for both the top and the back plates.
?
The obvious difference that we can see in the profiles now, wasn't created by the expansive and contractive pressure of the strings and their effects on the body (the plates) - is this right? The difference that we see in the profiles was created by using different diameters when carving the plates right from the start.
Do you have an idea about their diameters? It looks like it would be possible to figure them out fairly easily?
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
