Violin Forum/Message Board

JWH · Member Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 72

I own a very well made and nice sounding violin bought back in the 1980's. After completing a few of my own instuments and noticing the differences between them and the purchased violin, I decided that I would probe the interior of this one violin and see if there were some characteristics different than my own, to try and draw some conclusions on sound. This instrument is back together and playing just as before, fortunately.

Part of the problem, that everyone is aware of, is that, if not enough variables are controlled, reaching accurate conclusions is much too difficult, if not impossible, but that didn't keep me from experimenting.

What drew me to this was that each of mine have nice even tone across the D,A, and E strings, but the G string is too bassy and dark. The C natural on the G, first position, is loud and not focused. It doesn't warble like a wolf note but has a muddy character. Making adjustments to the soundpost or bridge does nothing to improve it. So, I had to ask myself, what most logical event is occurring here? And, it would appear that the violin is plainly just too resonant with frequency couplings repeated in the same areas of each instrument.
My archings are very full and without much scoop to the edges. Thus, the long arch and cross archings are extended. It is not traditional Strad although, it approximates some italian violins that are made today.

The violin I took apart has a more traditional Strad arching system but here's what I noticed quite different to my own:
Our rib heights are the same 32mm tapering to 30mm. Rib thicknesses are the same, 1.1mm. Rib lining heights are quite different. Mine are 7mm, his are 8.5mm. His are 1.5mm thicker at the top than mine. He has a rather robust lining that narrows the wall of the ribs by 3mm over mine. His corner blocks are 35mm lower and 32mm upper. Mine are closer to 25mm, again, adding to the free surface area of the ribs.

His back graduation pattern is different than mine, most notably in the lower bout. He extends a thicker ridge down the centerline of the back into the lower bout. Mine tend to graduate down evenly across the bout as you head south. The thickest area of his back is at 5.2mm (mine 4.0)and precisely at the bridge line if it were the top. His edge thickenesses are all even at 2.9 to 3.0mm.
It's interesting when you look at Jeffery Loen's depiction through careful measurements of the backs of Stradivari's Cremonese, Tuscan, and especially the Messiah, that a thicker center well into the lower bout is also evident.

Our bassbars are almost identical, his is 280mm long, mine 270mm. widths are 5mm, highest point 11mm. Bars are not angled (meaning not perpendular to top) and have the same distribution of mass and contour.

His top graduations tend to be the same as mine.

So, what did I learn from this exercise? Well, does anyone here think that, aside from a different arching pattern, that I am not dampening critical areas enough through correct thicknessing or widths, heights of overlaying material like linings?

jessupe goldastini · Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject:

no...personally i think that it has nothing to do with it......

why here is a nice sounding fiddle......its not traditional wood, shape, or thickness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvyZjGb5hvo

....and it sounds very good

this just proves my point......for a good sounding fiddle you need not follow tradition...

unless thats what you desire...

wood structure related to cellular make up has more to do with it than what your hand in it my be...imo

jessupe goldastini · Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject:

also...on that post...in the other video colums on utube....there is a woman playing the same peice of music on several different violins...this is EXCELLENT for comparing tonal qaulitys of various instruments...the recordings arn't great but you can hear the differences....to hear REALLY NICE SOUNDING italian instruments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63eJYPDLPjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXRlnO3K3hk

to be honest utube can be very educational as far as studying tone goes

jessupe goldastini · Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/science/28acou.html?incamp=article_popular

about doug

JWH · Member Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 72

That's interesting, but I prefer to stay in the traditional realm as much as possible and work out problems associated with that.
So, do you think if I made a balsa top and put sound holes in the ribs, I might be able to tackle my bass string problem?

jessupe goldastini · Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject:

yes...no....mabye...

my guess is improvment may come from making a different bas bar, trying a different bridge or different sound post......

mostly related to the variables in the wood itself

Michael Darnton · Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:50 am Post subject:

I would look mostly to arching for the differences you've noted. The type you've said you used is inclined towards being responsive and bright, but floppy on the low end, and that sounds like what you're noting in the tone, too.

JWH · Member Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 72

Thanks, Michael

It's interesting you say that because I have another violin that has the more classic Strad arching as well, and at some point, was overly thinned both top and back; and even though the bass stands out very dark, it doesn't have that dumpy sound.

Jack H. · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:46 am Post subject:

What are the thicknesses of the top???

JWH · Member Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 72

The upper bout averages between 1.9-2.2 thru the center, 2.4-2.6 toward edges, 3.5 around edge.

Center bout averages between 3.0-3.5 thru center out to 3.8 at edges

Lower bout averages 1.9-2.4 thru center, 2.5-2.7 toward edges and 3.5 around edge

It seems thin to me thru centers of both upper and lower bouts. Am I wrong?

JWH · Member Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 72

The top values I gave were for an old regraduated (by someone else) violin I've had for years. My real concern is not as much about the top as I am about the back. There are areas in both upper and lower bouts that approximate the thicknesses of the top, 2.0-2.1-2.2-2.3

Now, my finely made violin which I purchased and took apart to compare with what I am making, has uniform values in both plates that are consistent with what I hear others talk about, namely holding to 2.8mm thru the greater parts of upper and lower bouts increasing toward the C bout to about 3.3-3.4, and 3.0 around the edges throughout. The back also has a very consistent pattern but with a projection of greater thickness near the longitudinal center of the lower bout down until it reaches the lower 1/3 of the bout.
This violin holds very much to a Strad design in arching, so between graduations and, perhaps, the more important element of arching, I have some copy work to do.