• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by baroquecello

  1. Often, early music festoivals have a fair attached to it, where makers present their stuff and you can try lots of things out. That would be ideal. I do not believe in going half the way, like using a baroque bow on a modern violin. Never satisfieing. The idea behind using baroque instruments is that you let the Instrument tell you, how it wants to be played, becaise that way, you might get closer to what the composers of olde were used to hearing. Because of this, CF baroque bows are not baroque bows. They don't teach you anything.

  2. They will not harm your violin. However, most steel strings (e strings excepted) are not so good for classical playing. They give a sound and bow response that most classical players do not much like. Fiddlers often play steel strings though. If you fiddle, then steel may be just the thing for you.

  3. I'm only a cellist, not a lutier...

    I understand that you'd like a full size cello string length (69,5 CM) right? If you wish to add a long neck to a small body (the neck will need to be a lot longer than on a 4/4th cello!), you need to think of the fact that a longer neck is going to have a greater pulling force at the neck base. One of the problematic things about cello necks is that they'll have the tendency to deform due to the pull of the strings. There are people (also high profile cello makes) that insert carbon fibre rods or other carbon fibre supports into the neck, in order to prevent this from happening in a 4/4 cello. For sure, with an even longer neck, you would need that, or you would need to make a much thicker neck.

    Another option would be to simply use a 4/4 neck on an 1/8 body, but place a high bridge rather far down onto the body. You may just get enough bow clearance then. Not sure how that will sound.

    As a basis for a trench cello you could use a prakticello. If you'd add something similar to a sound board to it, it should sorta work.



  4. Jacob has a had an excellent thread on that, maybe he'll share the link, if you ask nicely. It covers your question in all respects.


    If you would like to use the violin, you should get that enormous saddle crack repaired before it turns into a sound post crack.

  5. Meaning you will not manage to find an individual makers name for this instrument. It is also not a valueable instrument, couple of hunderd dollars, provided the clumsy repair of the sadle crack on the top is solid. Likely it could serve an amateur well, and if it gets a good setup it may be totally servicable. To know this, one would have to hold it in ones hand.

  6. I'm just a cellist, not a maker, but, I've played on quite a few older instruments that have such slight offsets. If everything otherwise is well made and in good condiction, and there is enough bow clearance, the offset in itself is no reason to worry. Optically it can be handled the was you describe (you do not say if it is towards the treble of bass side), and can also be hidden by shaving off some of the fingerboard on the side which protrudes more. If you combine the methods (bridge slightly off centre, slightly tilted, fingerboard slightly shaved off), then all of them need to be done only moderately to make it practically disappear. As long as the bridge foot sits over the bass bar properly, and the sound post is adjusted accordingly, I'd not expect any negative playing characteristics. Anyway, if it is  2 MM, I'd just leave it.

  7. As I see it:

    - probably structurally ok

    - could be tonally ok, but could also be somewhat light/short etc. in which case a differnt bass bar MIGHT help the bass register.

    - How much more would it cost to reopen the cello and add a new bass bar, compared to adding a new bass bar right now (and then possibly finding out it doesn't sound as good as hoped for)? Either one option is a gamble: how much are you willing to gamble? 

    - If you close it up and it turns out you don't like it to such an extent that the bass bar can't be blamed for all of it, you can just sell it. You can also sell it with a different bass bar in there (it could still sound just as mediocre), but (assuming no deformation of the top plate) I strongly suspect you will not be able to sell it for more than you could with the existing bass bar. Ergo a new bass bar will not increase the resale value of the cello.


    I'd go with trying as is first.

  8. If the top over the bass bar has not caved in, then, at least structurally, the bass bar does its job. I'd also prefer a bar a bit more along the lines of Evans pic, but in this case, If there is little top arch deformation, I'd take the chance and leave it as is, see what it does.

    edit @David A.T. was basically saying the same thing at the same time...

  9. I'm following this thread. I always love looking at how an instrument slowly grows. You should consider opening a bench thread on the "contemporary makers" forum, although if you are looking for answers or opinions, you get more here. 

    I like the scroll, but for some reason, the bevel on the edge of the scroll (I hope my terminology is correct) seems rather prominent and especially in the smaller turn and eye makes the work look a bit clunky. But it may also just be the picture, the light or the fact that it isn't varnished yet that cause this slight (!) impression.

  10. Do not give your friend this violin. This is probably not a good sounding violin, and it is in need of repaires and a new setup, possibly old repairs are not only visually, but also structurally badly done and need redoing. Your friend will find him/herself obliged to play a terrible instrument because it was gifted to him/her. 

    Aside from that, gifting string instruments is a bad idea anyway, because tastes differ.

  11. To me, the bass side absolutely looks like beech. Trouble is, the treble side absolutely does not. What does the neck look like from various angles? I like the open throat of this scroll. Is it a Markneukirchen scroll of higher than usual quality?

  12. I will not take part in the discussion of competence regarding cello technique on this forum. However, I'm a cello teacher and not a lutier, but very interested in instrument making. So I guess I'm as qualified to answer your question as you are to teach the cello ;)

    Your problem is the joint between the neck block and the neck. One can see that some wood was ripped off the block, whereas other parts of the surfaces do not seem to have been in contact at all. This means the fit was never ok to begin with. There were a couple of discussions of the topic in the past; wether the glue joint between block and neck or the glue joint between button and neck was more important in celli. I believe the general consensus was, that, if the fit is proper, the neck block-neck root joint takes the brunt, and only in badly made instruments, the button joint takes the brunt of holding the whole contraption together. In this instrument, it looks as if the button was holding most of the construction in one piece, which is probably why the neck broke out.  Anyway, this means for you, that you have to find out wether this instrument was glued with animal glue or something synthetic. If its animal glue, you can soak the remaining fragment of the top block off the neck, and painstakingly reglue them onto the block, after which you should improve the fit of the block and neck joint before doing what Brad suggested. If it is a synthetic glue that was used, then never mind, glue the whole thing up with copyous amounts of epoxy glue and otherwise still adhere to Brads suggestion. Don't forget to dry fit first.

    If you ever paid several thousands for this instrument, I'm sorry to say that you were ripped off. This quality instruments (plywood instruments with nitro varnish) can be had for 250 $ online.

  13. Difficult to accurately say without playing the bows, but the way they look I'd say especially nr 1 and three will feel unstable, too flexible, as the curve is too high and too close to the frog, and too much divided over the whole stick. If you find your bow is "nervous" or difficult to handle, I'd advise you to keep a longer part (seen from the frog) straight and thick, and start the thinning of the stick and the curve at a later point (closer to the head), and generally not exaggerate the curve. The way the first and third bow look what the curvature is concerned, I'd expect them to be intended for underhand (gamba style) playing. I'm a pro baroque cellist, not a bow maker.

  14. 2 hours ago, Urban Luthier said:

    Tons, I mean tons of recording out there - Search Steven Isserlis. He his records with Hyperion records - you can check the liner notes which often note which instrument he is playing. I think he gave the cello back in 2011. 

    He has one cd with with the second cello concerto and the second cello sonata, and le muse et le poete (with Joshua Bell), all of it Saint-Saens, that really stands out for me amongst his recordings, and it is on the DeMunck.

  15. 14 hours ago, Kyle Lee said:

    What a good experience! I hope I get a good result too but It already starts to resemble me not DeMunck :angry: any way to alleviate this "not a fat bass" problem?

    I don't know, but I wouldn't expect there is much you can do, setup-wise, once the cello is made. 

    Edit note: I decided to delete this part, because I feel my lack of factual knowledge should prohibit me from writing what I wrote.

    I considered buying one of the two DeMunck model cellos I played on. I just didn't have the money at the time. Don't despair because of this model choice, it can make for a fine sounding cello. I know the person who bought it. A pro cellist with a passion for instruments, who owns 5 or 6 professional level cellos. He said to me that it is his most reliable cello, it never has a bad sounding day and is always easy to play. If he feels he didn't practise enough, or when there are particularly moisty or dry days, he usually uses hid DeMunck. I don't know if that has to do with the model or the particular piece of wood.