Violin Forum/Message Board

[Geemac]

Thanks for the words, Amezcua

I consider the four areas of varying thickness as speakers. One speaker tuned for each string. With careful carving and perhaps tap tuning each area, an exceptional violin top might be crafted. Of course, being a hobbiest, amateur and experimenter I will be pouring and pasting assorted goos and slimes on the wood and after it is dried and sanded, some home made varnish added to seal it all in place. Then I'll hang it on my wall. )

Never stop having fun.
_________________
GeeMac

[John Cadd]

Just to keep the topic on the rails for a bit longer .Compare the almost uniform way the backs are made.Very little variation.
The bellies turned out the way they did with that shaping (intentional or unintentional) and with that sound, and if we are curious to understand why ,--that is no danger to the instrument.Look on this as re-visiting the scene of the crime. All the usual suspects are hauled in for questioning.
The thickness maps in themselves are beautiful even with the mystery. There`s just the niggling feeling that we might have missed the Elephant in the living room.
So many changes in thickness a few inches from the bridge ,in the belly itself .Not the scroll,blocks ,sdes,or even the backs ,right there smack ,bang in the belly. All I`m saying.
When I say the word "unintentional" referring to Stradivari conjures up images of Tounges being torn out and being cast into the deepest dungeon.I`m really getting into this 1600s stuff now.

[John Cadd]

Last post correction tongues is better.It`s along time since I had to spell that one.
Geemac Four speakers.One for each string ? So which is which?Top right E? Top left A? or bottom right?
The guitar designers are making great strides in all sorts of ways which highlights the variety possible inside one outline shape.
There are several makers who favour a larger proportion of the top for bass notes .The placing of the struts shows that feature very clearly.
One prominent aspect of guitar making is the accepted use of French polish for the tops mainly because it is so thin.The weight of varnish is not a desirable thing.
Is it a heresy to believe that guitars and violins are not a million miles from each other in some important respects?
Using the internet to ask a question is a fairly new way of comparing ideas .Some use a forum as a person to person system almost a step back to the old telegraph equipment.
Others use it as a social network.Little inside jokes that mean nothing to newcomers.
My mistake was to use the noisy bloke in the corner method bellowing across the office.--"Anybody seen this idea before?"
Perhaps this site is a small one .How can you tell?
I have been trying to pinpoint why Martin Schleske`s graphs and vibration pattern videos differ from the questions I was asking.
The difference is---Martins` work deals with the resulting movements of wood after various waves (at different frequencies )have just passed through the wood.
Looking for an analogy, the plate wobble would be the goal being scored .My wave ideas would represent the move that led up to the score.(The assist)(just to give it a label.)
If a plate in the graph shows no movement it may still be transmitting vibrations but if a node movement is not involved nobody will be interested.This is in no way a criticism of Mr Schleske`s work. I even got his name spelled correctly this time.
The moving video of the violin is the result of all the forces and stresses acting on particular weights ( or masses )of wood in the violin.Analysing such a combined assortment of rapidly shifting data will look impressive to a novice like me but in a way it compares more with a man counting the shotgun pellets coming out of the barrel.To me it makes as much sense to see who`s squeezing the trigger.

[Geemac]

Re" Geemac Four speakers.One for each string ? So which is which?Top right E? Top left A? or bottom right?

I should have mentioned the bass bar. Which, I've been told, should parallel the line of the "G" string. The slight angle created by this bass bar placement method divides the top into four different sized areas. The largest for the "G" string down to the smallest area for the "E". But, as we all know there are more that four notes available, and even string combination notes, all of which exponentially compounds the possibilty of failure when hand carving a top.

If you are reading this and think I know what I am talking about, you should remember I don't. I have thought about the unique sound that some of the old master's violins achieve quite a bit and read what I could find on the Internet. As I have said many times, I like to experiment and I write about it here. Like this thread, many times what has been posted has brought about a thoroughly enjoyable discussion.

I hasten to point out that not all of Toni's violins were fabulous which leads me to believe that he may have experimented with carved thicknesses and assorted chemicals a bit too. Certainly, someone in Cremona did.

I have noticed that there are two competing groups of makers in this forum. The first group are the exacting traditionalists who make their living by creating excellent violins and there are the hobbyists, such as myself, who have the leaway to do whatever they want to try with no worry about time or money spent. For me, being a sixty-four year old geezer, the pursuit of knowledge is fun and I shall continue to put what I learn from my snooping and testing here for discussion.

So, as always, keep having fun.
_________________
GeeMac

[violinarius]

And along comes some repair person an screws everything up with a big ol' patch, or two.

Don't even get me started on the 're-graduation of plates to improve the sound' gang.

[Michael Darnton]

"I have noticed that there are two competing groups of makers in this forum. The first group are the exacting traditionalists who make their living by creating excellent violins and there are the hobbyists, such as myself, who have the leaway to do whatever they want to try with no worry about time or money spent."

It would be a mistake to think that working violin makers don't experiment. I've ruined a lot more (of my own) violins than you've made! :-)

[John Cadd]

One of my jobs a few years ago was testing equipment with a probe that held a small magnet.This was simply to ensure the polarity of the magnet in the machine being built.For some reason the test magnet had been unscrewed and replaced backwards.When my shift started I questioned why a large batch were "wrong" During the sort out it became obvious that nobody had a clue how to check which was North or South.I had to remind them which way the Sun shone through the canteen window.( I did mention Kirk Douglas in his film )
This is a good example of how we can lose track of even basic principles .
For a practical example I had a cheap factory violin that was attacked by woodworm.When I checked the thicknessing the chunkiest bits were just near the ends of the soundholes going to the edge.The obvious machine marks scooping the wood out had followed a circular path and comparing this with the "normal outer violin shape left thick wodges that all makers will know are in a tricky area in terms of changing grain patterns.
In my fevered imagination I can now understand this would "drag "the strong vibrations away from the prime vibration zones in the centre of the belly.A parrallel with magnetism is easier to imagine.
( Slightly off-track but in that part of the violin belly -------a lot of German instruments were made with a sharp down-turn near there.I always thought that part of the belly began to think it was a "side" .Not good for the resonance)
When I learned Physics at school my teacher was very keen for us to be precise about what we said scientifically.Well ,yesterday I read an article saying that RADIO waves were not waves at all as waves will not travel through space.
It`s not surprising we all get confused!
The word "mystique"is usually applied to violin making and for the publicity machine that rules all our lives this is a comforting hook to hang unknowns on.Why should we expect to know what happened over three hundred years ago?
But who knows--maybe these crazy scientific ideas will become the "theory de jour".
Always in thinking about violins we have to cast a fearful eye over our shoulders in case we forget the simple question of mechanical structure saving a delicate instrument from collapsing amid all the stresses. Even great guitar makers like Torres tip-toed along that precipice occasionally.

[John Cadd]

One of my jobs a few years ago was testing equipment with a probe that held a small magnet.This was simply to ensure the polarity of the magnet in the machine being built.For some reason the test magnet had been unscrewed and replaced backwards.When my shift started I questioned why a large batch were "wrong" During the sort out it became obvious that nobody had a clue how to check which was North or South.I had to remind them which way the Sun shone through the canteen window.( I did mention Kirk Douglas in his film )
This is a good example of how we can lose track of even basic principles .
For a practical example I had a cheap factory violin that was attacked by woodworm.When I checked the thicknessing the chunkiest bits were just near the ends of the soundholes going to the edge.The obvious machine marks scooping the wood out had followed a circular path and comparing this with the "normal outer violin shape left thick wodges that all makers will know are in a tricky area in terms of changing grain patterns.
In my fevered imagination I can now understand this would "drag "the strong vibrations away from the prime vibration zones in the centre of the belly.A parrallel with magnetism is easier to imagine.
( Slightly off-track but in that part of the violin belly -------a lot of German instruments were made with a sharp down-turn near there.I always thought that part of the belly began to think it was a "side" .Not good for the resonance)
When I learned Physics at school my teacher was very keen for us to be precise about what we said scientifically.Well ,yesterday I read an article saying that RADIO waves were not waves at all as waves will not travel through space.
It`s not surprising we all get confused!
The word "mystique"is usually applied to violin making and for the publicity machine that rules all our lives this is a comforting hook to hang unknowns on.Why should we expect to know what happened over three hundred years ago?
But who knows--maybe these crazy scientific ideas will become the "theory de jour".
Always in thinking about violins we have to cast a fearful eye over our shoulders in case we forget the simple question of mechanical structure saving a delicate instrument from collapsing amid all the stresses. Even great guitar makers like Torres tip-toed along that precipice occasionally.

[John Cadd]

My curiosity about this topic comes from not only the thickness maps in the Strad magazine.If you draw out the shape of a pair of waves which move 4 times faster along the grain than across --------the lines of interference show up quite clearly.There are video simulations on u tube which show the angles formed as the waves move away from the source.These representations are in virtual liquid but are moving in circular waves.As far as I can see the sources are moving in unison but this makes little difference to the overall pattern.The impression is very similar.Any way to manipulate these waves should be fruitful in terms of violin sound.The speed of sound moving through spruce is a lot higher than I expected . The questions in my mind are --how much does a small change in thickness alter the smooth progress of a wave through the wood? Is it possible to "steer" the waves to maximise sound quality and volume ? None of this involves any new science.It`s just a question of using what is already there.
Simple tests could be made with inexpensive wood samples just testing one layer of wood in a model rather than building whole violins.

[Chet Bishop]

"I have noticed that there are two competing groups of makers in this forum. The first group are the exacting traditionalists who make their living by creating excellent violins and there are the hobbyists, such as myself, who have the leaway to do whatever they want to try with no worry about time or money spent."

It would be a mistake to think that working violin makers don't experiment. I've ruined a lot more (of my own) violins than you've made!

Here's another point, and a good reason to listen to people like Mr. Darnton:
"Try to learn from the mistakes of others--you can't hope to live long enough to make them all yourself." (Joseph Heller, Catch-22)

Thanks for sharing the results of your mistakes, Michael. I am too old to even consider making them all myself.

Chet Bishop
_________________
Chet Bishop
https://bluefiddles.com
https://fivestringfiddles.com

[ctviolin]

Quote;
"I am too old to even consider making them all myself.

Chet Bishop"

If you need some help, just say so. I'm pretty good at making mistakes, and can crank out a fair amount in a short time - I've had some practice...

ct

[ctviolin]

Back when I started making violins (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), I had many ideas about exactly what made them tick. Really good, intuitive ideas.
Through the years, I have had the opportunity to discover that most of those ideas were simply wrong. Mostly, I eliminated the ideas by trying to incorporate those ideas into my making... an opportunity to "prove" them or not, a labor intensive task, and only by such a process (as making violins) can one really show that they have an understanding of what it takes to make a superior sounding (or looking) violin. The rest is just talk and thinking. Talk and thinking is cheap, and bravado does not produce a decent violin, either.
Only results will prove the efficacy of an idea.
Then too, I have had the opportunity to speak with many, many makers who have shown me where I was incorrect and why, and where I was right.

I did have some things right!

I have also had the opportunity to discover, by virtue of an obsessive dedication to this occupation for many years, the fact that there is no mysterious cabal of makers, anywhere, holding on to secrets that allow them to produce violins that are superior in any way. There is only the skill of the individual maker in question, ALWAYS modified (for the better) by their hard won experience. Usually they skip the droning pontification, having learned that it goes nowhere. I am often surprised at how patient some of the truly great makers are with us wannabes.
The best of them are more that willing to answer any question a polite & inquisitive beginning maker has, outright. They are fully aware that almost no one really listens, and even fewer will actually follow good advice, especially if it doesn‘t coincide with their own preconceived ideas. (guffaw!, sad but true)
The worst of them will usually have things that they hint and hedge around about, which inevitably means that they don't know anything worthwhile, but are too ingenious to simply cop to it...
Then, which I prolly shouldn't mention, is all of the “secrets” I've been privy to from various makers over the years.
NEVER has a single one proven to be an improvement.

Why am I saying this? Hopefully, to save someone some wasted years fighting ghosts.

[ctviolin]

.

[Michael Darnton]

Man, two right in a row! I am IMPRESSED, Craig! :-)

[ctviolin]

tee hee!

At first I thought I heard someone mention "beer"...

But, I searched the web over, and much to my dismay, no one did.

(So, I figured, it's time to get on my soapbox.)