| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AntonPolezhayev
Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 53
Location: Long Island NY USA
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:06 am Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
 |
|
| Lemuel wrote: |
  Anton! Welcome back!
Thanks for the interesting link on the strings Heifetz used. Links are allowed. We just prohibit spamming of commercial links.
Your comments on Eva Pirazzi's are surprising to me. These violins you heard them from...I assume that they were relatively high quality violins, and properly setup. Was there anything unique about the violins?
In regards to Passionne strings, how have you found them generally as an option to gut strings? I have not tried this set yet. Pirastro states that it has the tuning stability of synthetic strings but has all the richness of gut strings (??). I am not talking about the exceptional anamoly, but the general case. |
I have heard Eva on my Gaetano Chiocchi, and on an extraordinary Gobetti which beat all the 4 mil $ Del Gesus and Strads in concert hall side by side tests. In both cases Eva produced sound that was clearly softer in volume than Dominants, and with clearly less overtones, and less full.
Some fine luthiers I talked to about this occurrence speculated that high tension strings such as Eva apply too much pressure for some violins, and thus choke the vibrations and sound.
Passionne are loved by some very fine players and luthiers. But much like any other strings they simply sound bad on some violins, and really good on others. Passionne to me seems like Pirastro tried to create a 50% Eva/50% olive string. And I can certainly testify that pitch stability is extremely good.
The biggest complain from my numerous colleagues, listeners and students about Passionne is that they are tame, like someone is holding the string back and not allowing it to sing out fully (hint, the metal cover and increased tension over that of Olives is a likely culprit)
Pirastro was quick to respond to this critique, and came out with Passionne Solo, which is probably an attempt to make Passionne sound brighter.
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDeYZXUDDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pdinphx
Junior Member
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anton,
Thank you for chiming in ... your observations and real world experience are invaluable. I am very tempted to give unwound gut strings a chance, even though my level of playing will undoubtedly fail to do them true justice.
Jack,
You are not the only one to sing the praises of Pirastro's Violino line. My understanding is that these were designed to lend warmth and depth to cheaper, newer instruments. Now that I think about it, as I am playing a newer, cheaper instrument, these strings might be just the ticket ...
Lemuel,
I have played with the stark Eudoxas/stark Oliv E for about a week now -- mostly in the great room of my house (wood floors, cathedral ceiling) and once in a large hall. To my ears, the Mahr is now a bit warmer and fuller, but a bit less responsive. With the stark Obligatos, the sound was deeper.
This, of course, may change as the gut strings break in ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Rushing
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
| AntonPolezhayev wrote: | | Lemuel wrote: |
Anton! Welcome back!
Thanks for the interesting link on the strings Heifetz used. Links are allowed. We just prohibit spamming of commercial links.
Your comments on Eva Pirazzi's are surprising to me. These violins you heard them from...I assume that they were relatively high quality violins, and properly setup. Was there anything unique about the violins?
In regards to Passionne strings, how have you found them generally as an option to gut strings? I have not tried this set yet. Pirastro states that it has the tuning stability of synthetic strings but has all the richness of gut strings (??). I am not talking about the exceptional anamoly, but the general case. |
I have heard Eva on my Gaetano Chiocchi, and on an extraordinary Gobetti which beat all the 4 mil $ Del Gesus and Strads in concert hall side by side tests. In both cases Eva produced sound that was clearly softer in volume than Dominants, and with clearly less overtones, and less full.
Some fine luthiers I talked to about this occurrence speculated that high tension strings such as Eva apply too much pressure for some violins, and thus choke the vibrations and sound.
Passionne are loved by some very fine players and luthiers. But much like any other strings they simply sound bad on some violins, and really good on others. Passionne to me seems like Pirastro tried to create a 50% Eva/50% olive string. And I can certainly testify that pitch stability is extremely good.
The biggest complain from my numerous colleagues, listeners and students about Passionne is that they are tame, like someone is holding the string back and not allowing it to sing out fully (hint, the metal cover and increased tension over that of Olives is a likely culprit)
Pirastro was quick to respond to this critique, and came out with Passionne Solo, which is probably an attempt to make Passionne sound brighter. |
Anton, The strings have a lot to do with it, but the violinist accounts mostly
for what comes out of the violin. Your rendition of "The Devil's Laughter" is
one of the best I have ever heard. Very good playing.!!!! You could make any brand of string sound good, I'm sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
Anton,
Out of curiosity, which has overall average higher string tensions - the Heifetz setup or the Eva Pirazzi's?
Do you consider your Gaetano Chiocchi, thick decked? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Rushing
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Along with Lemuel, I have a question for Anton too.
Anton, on a scale of one to ten, how tight do you
usually have your bow hair when performing? Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AntonPolezhayev
Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 53
Location: Long Island NY USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JacK Rushing wrote: | Along with Lemuel, I have a question for Anton too.
Anton, on a scale of one to ten, how tight do you
usually have your bow hair when performing? Thanks |
7 or 8
As very common with most violinists who often perform solo in bad acoustics and with loud orchestra accompaniment I find that I have to go pretty tight with the bow hair 
I know that theoretically one should aim towards looser hair, it's better/healthier for the bow stick itself of course, it provides smoother string changes and in some cases fuller sound, like in chords for example. But unfortunately as often the case real life and theory don't match... If you look at hair of many soloists, especially guys lie Kreisler himself, you will see they make hair so tight that stick is actually straight... and in some cases starts to bend the OTHER way... like a real bow... as in bow and arrow... Kreilser ruined a bow every 1-2 years this way...
The reason it happens is because as you apply more bow pressure in a solo situation (or concertmaster solo in orchestra or even chamber music solo part) in an attempt to get more sound you will simply feel that the hair is too loose, and the stick is basically all the way down on your own hair and strings... So you have no choice but to tighten it more. More hair tension = you can press more until the stick hits your hair and strings.
Going too loose in spiccato also starts meshing the notes together too much... loses crispiness.
I would thus say on a scale of 1-10 Kreisler tightened his bow at 11... and so do/did most soloists... it's not pretty, but it's reality. Everytime I saw Vengerov's or Repin's or pretty much any other soloist's bow up close I cringed, I felt bad for the bow...
I like to go just tight enough, but never to a point where my stick is straight, a nice still fairly deep curve MUST remain, I don't have the $$$ to buy a new Nurenberger every 2 years like Kreisler did 
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDeYZXUDDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AntonPolezhayev
Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 53
Location: Long Island NY USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
| Lemuel wrote: | Anton,
Out of curiosity, which has overall average higher string tensions - the Heifetz setup or the Eva Pirazzi's?
Do you consider your Gaetano Chiocchi, thick decked? |
Medium Evah is significantly tighter than Lyon gut medium/medium+
And I assume Evah medium G (probably about 5 kg) must surely be a lot tighter than Tricolore medium/heavy gut G that Heifetz used.
If I'm not mistaken they measure string tension in kg or kp (kilogram force) and Lyon would be 4.75 for the A string and Evah something like 5.75 or more etc.
Strangely enough you would not notice Gamut/Lyon medium gut to be looser than Evah by very much, because apparently string flexibility that you feel with your fingers is NOT the same thing as string tension.
What you feel with regards to string stiffness/looseness under your fingers is actually dependent on the twist and other manufacturing issues of a given string.
My Chiocchi is unfortunately rather thin with the upper deck. It's either a fake (most old italian violins are) or he simply made it that way. It still produces rather huge sound, but only with the Lyon gut medium/medium+, loose Olive medium G and heavy Goldbrokat E, I ALWAYS had issues with projection when using Dominants, Evahs and other modern strings.
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDeYZXUDDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
| AntonPolezhayev wrote: | .....
My Chiocchi is unfortunately rather thin with the upper deck. It's either a fake (most old italian violins are) or he simply made it that way. It still produces rather huge sound, but only with the Lyon gut medium/medium+, loose Olive medium G and heavy Goldbrokat E, I ALWAYS had issues with projection when using Dominants, Evahs and other modern strings. |
Ah, the thin deck clears it up. Would that have been the case with the Gobetti as well? You mentioned that both sounded less full and less overtones.
You also mentioned....
| AntonPolezhayev wrote: |
I have heard some violins sound loud and bright with "tame" Passionne or even Eudoxa strings. I have heard violins that choke and produce no sound with the "loud" Eva strings... As one of the leading string experts and president of American violin makers and dealers association Bill Monical frankly confessed to me: "We all just don't know very much about strings" |
Of course Bill would understand that thinner decks violins would tend to choke on higher tension, stiff or heavy strings. What is Bill referring to exactly that is not known? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AntonPolezhayev
Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 53
Location: Long Island NY USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
| Lemuel wrote: |
Would that have been the case with the Gobetti as well?
What is Bill referring to exactly that is not known? |
Hello Lemuel,
You mean would a Gobetti violin sound better with real gut strings? It would. Yes. Without a doubt.
I think Bill is referring to pretty much everything. Basically some strings match some violins better, and they don't always know why. Lots of speculation and trial and error is sadly all that we have got when picking strings.
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDeYZXUDDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:06 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
What I meant is that - like your violin, does the Gobetti "choke" also on the Eva Pirazzis because it has a thin deck as well?
I inquired of Bill Monical, because I was curious to find out those other "factors" besides string tensions and thicknesses of violin decks as factors for the way a violin sounds. If it is only minor differences, then I wonder if much of it has to do with the violinist and not the strings.
Michael Darton, a professional Luthier based in Chicago, noted in this forum that a good violinist should be able to draw out the sounds he desires (bright, dark,...etc) from an instrument that is properly made and setup. We were discussing about possible effects of bridge setups on the sound. Here is what he said.
| Michael Darnton wrote: |
This type of discussion always bothers me, and I was trying to figure out why. I think it's like this: when the discussion turns to making a violins sound "bright" or "dark", I can't relate. This is like asking the customer if he prefers his car bashed in on the left side, or on the right.
My objective to setting up a violin is to make it balanced and even, clear and fast. It's up to the player to shape the sound, not me. If the sound is complete and unbiased, he can do that by pulling out of the sound what ever characteristics he needs. Consequently I use the bridge and other aspects of the setup mostly to open up areas of sound that are deficient. These are usually not overall things, but localized problems, such as (often) an unclear A string, or a G that drops off sharply compared with the others. About the only thing of the type being discussed that I use the bridge for is to lighten the bridge, especially the top half, just short of the point where the violin's sound becomes noisy, but I don't think of this a brightness--it's just completing the sound by adding more of something that's available.
The bridge has an effect in these things, but so do many other things, and it works in conjunction with them, so I usually work out a whole plan of which the bridge is a small part.
At the del Gesu convention in NYC in the 90s the cellist of the Guarneri Quarted responed in a Q&A to the question of what he liked to hear in a "quartet" cello. He responded that when someone described an instrument like that, or called it a "chamber" instrument, he'd run the other way; he wanted the best instrument he could have, and it was up to HIM, not the cello to make it fit in with the group. To him a description that pigeonholed a cello indicated that it was defective: it should have the potential to be everything. An instrument that can be described as bright or dark. . . that's an instrument that's defective, not a goal, I think.
|
Later on he also quoted:
| Michael Darnton wrote: |
An instrument should be able to become whatever is demanded of it, including delivering a darker or brighter sound, and that's one of the marks of a good instrument. While it's true that every one isn't going to be great, that's a goal to shoot for. To the extent that one can manage to achieve that, players won't have much to say about an instrument needing changes, even minor adjustments.
That's mainly referring to classical players--people who are doing off-track stuff, or aren't experienced and think the sound comes more from the instrument than them, won't necessarily see it that way. But one of the things I used to do when I was actively selling things was slip a real Strad into the mix. The reason was so the customer could see what could be done, and then look for that. Most would immediately chose that one, before they knew what it was: even kids getting their first 4/4 violin got it, as did fiddlers, and Irish musicians, so it's not just a classical issue. Then the only problem was to find the violin that would do that, or as much of it as possible, for several million dollars less.
I'm sure I've mentioned here that the single most common comment I heard from really great players trying out instruments wasn't that they liked a violin's sound as such; it was "I could work with that," meaning that it was a violin they could shape the way they needed. A violin doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to be flexible, and a really strong player can force an inflexible violin to do things other players can't (and lead makers to think they're another Stradivari . But if you have a tool that can do anything. . . well, it does everything.
Melvin Goldsmith is in the process of saying the same thing elsewhere: http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=323069&view=findpost&p=491729 |
Here is the full thread if you are interested:
http://www.violins.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1264&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Assuming that a violin is properly made (including standard deck) and setup and played by a professional violinist, I really wonder if the average listener in the audience would notice the difference in sound (fullness, richness,..etc).
By the way, do you know what type of strings Hungarian Gypsies use? ... Although it probably doesn't matter much to a Gypsy violinist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AntonPolezhayev
Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 53
Location: Long Island NY USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: Quest for Strings |
|
|
| Lemuel wrote: | What I meant is that - like your violin, does the Gobetti "choke" also on the Eva Pirazzis because it has a thin deck as well?
I inquired of Bill Monical, because I was curious to find out those other "factors" besides string tensions and thicknesses of violin decks as factors for the way a violin sounds. If it is only minor differences, then I wonder if much of it has to do with the violinist and not the strings.
Michael Darton, a professional Luthier based in Chicago, noted in this forum that a good violinist should be able to draw out the sounds he desires (bright, dark,...etc) from an instrument that is properly made and setup. We were discussing about possible effects of bridge setups on the sound. Here is what he said.
| Michael Darnton wrote: |
This type of discussion always bothers me, and I was trying to figure out why. I think it's like this: when the discussion turns to making a violins sound "bright" or "dark", I can't relate. This is like asking the customer if he prefers his car bashed in on the left side, or on the right.
My objective to setting up a violin is to make it balanced and even, clear and fast. It's up to the player to shape the sound, not me. If the sound is complete and unbiased, he can do that by pulling out of the sound what ever characteristics he needs. Consequently I use the bridge and other aspects of the setup mostly to open up areas of sound that are deficient. These are usually not overall things, but localized problems, such as (often) an unclear A string, or a G that drops off sharply compared with the others. About the only thing of the type being discussed that I use the bridge for is to lighten the bridge, especially the top half, just short of the point where the violin's sound becomes noisy, but I don't think of this a brightness--it's just completing the sound by adding more of something that's available.
The bridge has an effect in these things, but so do many other things, and it works in conjunction with them, so I usually work out a whole plan of which the bridge is a small part.
At the del Gesu convention in NYC in the 90s the cellist of the Guarneri Quarted responed in a Q&A to the question of what he liked to hear in a "quartet" cello. He responded that when someone described an instrument like that, or called it a "chamber" instrument, he'd run the other way; he wanted the best instrument he could have, and it was up to HIM, not the cello to make it fit in with the group. To him a description that pigeonholed a cello indicated that it was defective: it should have the potential to be everything. An instrument that can be described as bright or dark. . . that's an instrument that's defective, not a goal, I think.
|
Later on he also quoted:
| Michael Darnton wrote: |
An instrument should be able to become whatever is demanded of it, including delivering a darker or brighter sound, and that's one of the marks of a good instrument. While it's true that every one isn't going to be great, that's a goal to shoot for. To the extent that one can manage to achieve that, players won't have much to say about an instrument needing changes, even minor adjustments.
That's mainly referring to classical players--people who are doing off-track stuff, or aren't experienced and think the sound comes more from the instrument than them, won't necessarily see it that way. But one of the things I used to do when I was actively selling things was slip a real Strad into the mix. The reason was so the customer could see what could be done, and then look for that. Most would immediately chose that one, before they knew what it was: even kids getting their first 4/4 violin got it, as did fiddlers, and Irish musicians, so it's not just a classical issue. Then the only problem was to find the violin that would do that, or as much of it as possible, for several million dollars less.
I'm sure I've mentioned here that the single most common comment I heard from really great players trying out instruments wasn't that they liked a violin's sound as such; it was "I could work with that," meaning that it was a violin they could shape the way they needed. A violin doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to be flexible, and a really strong player can force an inflexible violin to do things other players can't (and lead makers to think they're another Stradivari . But if you have a tool that can do anything. . . well, it does everything.
Melvin Goldsmith is in the process of saying the same thing elsewhere: http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=323069&view=findpost&p=491729 |
Here is the full thread if you are interested:
http://www.violins.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1264&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Assuming that a violin is properly made (including standard deck) and setup and played by a professional violinist, I really wonder if the average listener in the audience would notice the difference in sound (fullness, richness,..etc).
By the way, do you know what type of strings Hungarian Gypsies use? ... Although it probably doesn't matter much to a Gypsy violinist. |
While I have not seen that Gobetti for many years now, I'm sure it's very thick decked. I believe other factors such as bridge thickness or soundpost thickness or other things caused it to sound poor with Eva strings. They were simply softer and not ringing.
Brings us back to what Bill Monical was talking about... I have seen violins that are thick, have perfect bridge and soundpost in perfect place, and yet choke under Eva strings and sound muted and bad... We just don't always know why...
There is no doubt that a listener does notice the difference in sound between strings, violins, set-ups etc. Average listener doesn't always know details, but can only tell what he/she likes more.
Much like with technical mistakes, a non-musician listener doesn't always know where a violinist messed up, but can hear that something is wrong. Same thing here, some strings have more overtones, project more, have fuller sound etc. and some of these changes may very well be picked up only sub-consciously by the listener.
Class/level of the performer is paramount. But when there are 2 performers of the same or similar level the instrument and bow can then of course make a big difference in who sounds better.
I'm not familiar with Gypsy traditions. I can only assume they used gut for ages like everyone else did, and are now probably mostly using nylon and metal same as everyone else. Important little known detail: the good Gypsy violinists are actually conservatory trained.
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDeYZXUDDQ |
|
| 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
