| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
M.Lange
Member
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 81
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: Neck Dimensions and fingerboard radius |
 |
|
The neck on my first violin is still too thick and I want to make it thinner.
It is about 21 mm thick towards the scroll and 23 mm towards the heel.
The neck without the fingerboard is 14mm and 15,5mm thick.
Is it better to thin down the fingerboard or the neck?
Also the radius at the end of the fingerboard is a bit less than 42mm.
It was a prepared fingerboard and I didn't check the radius before. 
By the way what is the correct fingerboard radius at the nut?
Thank you,
Matthias |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeffrey Holmes
Member
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
Location: Ann Arbor
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd suggest getting the board to the right thickness at the edges and correct the curvature first, then trim the neck to the proper thickness.
I set the board thickness at the corners between 5.2 and 5.5 mm (same measurement at all 4 corners). I use a continuous radius (42 mm) for the curvature.
Once the board thickness is set, you can trim the neck. 21/23 is a bit heavy for my tastes.... but see where you are once the board in in spec.
_________________
Jeffrey
http://holmesviolins.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mat Roop
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
Posts: 911
Location: Wyoming Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton posted on this previously, but I can't seem to locate it....( maybe someone can find it) seems to me his comment was that there are two ways to carve a fingerboard... one like the boards usually come preshaped... they are conical in shape... ie the radius at the nut end is smaller than at the bridge end. As I recall this is more of a European tradition. The other way is to maintain a continuous 42mm curve over the entire length... but then there is a little more work in getting the lengthwise concavity to work to get the appropriate clearance for each of the strings.... Cheers, Mat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mat Roop
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
Posts: 911
Location: Wyoming Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeffrey Holmes wrote: |
I set the board thickness at the corners between 5.2 and 5.5 mm (same measurement at all 4 corners). I use a continuous radius (42 mm) for the curvature. |
Jeffrey... I am curious ... The Courtnall book talks of the FB thickness as being 4.5 mm... that is a significant difference from your dimension.. I thought that FB thickness has a significant effect on tone.
Love to hear your thoughts... Thanks, Mat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeffrey Holmes
Member
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
Location: Ann Arbor
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mat Roop wrote: |
Jeffrey... I am curious ... The Courtnall book talks of the FB thickness as being 4.5 mm... that is a significant difference from your dimension.. I thought that FB thickness has a significant effect on tone.
Love to hear your thoughts... Thanks, Mat |
Just about everything one does to a violin has the potential to effect tone or response... and fingerboard mass certainly does have a noticeable impact.
I'm not familiar wih (never have opened) the Courtnall book. Is that measurement after chamfering the edge of the board or before?
If it's before, in my opinion, 4.5 mm at the corners is a bit too thin. It also renders a rather flexible board (a bit too much so) that has a limited life (can't be dressed many times). Tonally/response wise, a slightly thicker board often provides a more stable, solid feel. The mass of the board also can have effects on wolf tones on certain instruments.
Thickness is a general rule, however. I'm sure one can find an exception or two (violin sounds better with a thinner board)... but that may have to do with other factors within the instrument or setup.
Cheers,
_________________
Jeffrey
http://holmesviolins.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M.Lange
Member
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 81
Location: Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mat Roop
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
Posts: 911
Location: Wyoming Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jeffery, The dimension shows 4.5 mm as the width of the side of the fingerboard, which is not perpendicular to the radius. The thickness along the radius is shown as 4.0mm but does not show a chamfer.
Would it be a safe assumption that a thicher heavier violin needs a thicker heavier fingerboard? or is that not a rational relationship?
You also mention redressing fingerboards. If a FB has warped to a convex shape, have you tried or had sucess in bending a FB back to shape?.. or is that a hopeless venture?
Cheers, Mat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeffrey Holmes
Member
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
Location: Ann Arbor
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mat Roop wrote: | Jeffery, The dimension shows 4.5 mm as the width of the side of the fingerboard, which is not perpendicular to the radius. The thickness along the radius is shown as 4.0mm but does not show a chamfer.
Would it be a safe assumption that a thicher heavier violin needs a thicker heavier fingerboard? or is that not a rational relationship?
You also mention redressing fingerboards. If a FB has warped to a convex shape, have you tried or had sucess in bending a FB back to shape?.. or is that a hopeless venture?
Cheers, Mat |
Hi Mat;
Sounds like it might actually be a good thing that I've never opened the Courtnall book. 
Anyway, I start considering replacement when the corners get close to 4 mm. Hate to start them out that way.
As far as fiddle/board relationships go, I'd say it may be a factor in what I choose to do, but more important would be the wood (density) used for the board. I do "tune" the free end in a general way, but I'm looking for a range, not an exact, frequency. The board will be planed and dressed in the future, and will still be expected to perform correctly. Most of the mass adjustment goes on into the underside of the board (the hollowed part). The actual character of the instrument (it's response, not the mass of the build) is another thing I consider.
I guess I'd suggest that each person interested in the effects of the board draw his/her own conclusions as far as method/effect... and I think that there are several factors to consider (free end tuning, mass, stiffness, etc.). For example, Martin's ideas are interesting, but the "proof" is in reproducing the results in a way that is satisfying to oneself. I have my own ideas... and am open minded when I hear others... but tend to draw on my own experience for guidance.
As far a warped boards, I tend to simply replace them once they move past a certain point. I'm not sure I'd trust one to remain straight once it was "re-cambered"... and you'd have to remove it to do the job correctly anyway.
_________________
Jeffrey
http://holmesviolins.com
Last edited by Jeffrey Holmes on Sat May 17, 2008 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisandcello
Junior Member
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 18
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've straightened the end of a fingerboard in situ successfully with a heat gun. The end had bowed so it was touching the strings.
I did'nt protect the instrument as well as I might....just tin foil ...should really have had material under the foil too as small area of varnish bubbled.
I accept the method is unprofessional/bodge like...but it worked on that occasion....(the instrument was/is of nominal value and my own to experiment on) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
violinarius
Member
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would suggest that if you are removing the fingerboard, then you can use it for nuts, so all is not lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
