Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

baroquecello

Members
  • Posts

    934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by baroquecello

  1. Do you mean the bass bar and sound post are inverse compared to normal, but you nonetheless strung it the normal way, meaning a string over the bass bar? I would find it highly surprising if your cello sounds anywhere near good and especially feels anywhere near normal when playing it.
  2. I did it on cello, to experience what it is like to be a total beginner. It sounds like a cello, just a bad one. The lower strings superficial, and the a string flabby, without projection and brilliance. It doesn't feel good in the bow.
  3. That is a very unique tail piece. Never seen anything like it.
  4. That has been my experience as well. But I have to say that I have yet to meet a cellist that tried a ConCarbo and didn't notice a positive difference. I don't know any cellist who rejected such a tail piece. My father in law, who is a cellist and instrument collector, and is otherwise very skeptical regarding the tweaking of setup, tried one and then decided to put them on his six cellos he uses regularly. I really recommend trying the tail piece. Btw I tried a fench model with carbon fibre fine tuners, not the titanium fine tuners, with which I have no experience.
  5. The main difference is playability. The strings respond quicker and better over the whole dynamic range. I also believe the dynamic range has widened somewhat. The sound is more resonant and open, somewhat brighter, but not shrill. Before using this tail piece, there always was a string that was less or more prominent than the others; g honked and d was subdued. That mysteriously is a thing of the past; The tail piece evens out the sound on both cellos I had it on. The wolf tone has not become less prominent, but is more focused on one pitch, and less of a range of tones. I have tried different strings, and all of them have their own characteristics, but the positive changes I've noticed are the same, independent of the string brand.
  6. I can confirm very positive experiences with the ConCarbo tail pieces. Improvement in string response time, dynamics, wolf tone and evenness over all strings. This is the single best improvement through setup I have achieved. (Previously tried Wittner composite and Akustikus tail pieces, and a number of older ebony or wooden tailpieces, including some that were hollowed out). Tonal tail pieces are simply too expensive for me to try.
  7. Yes, compared to their good quality full size counterparts, smaller instruments will not sound as loud and fine. However, if someone (say a child) wants to play an instrument because it likes the tonal range, you can try convincing it with a viola tuned instrument, but you will not succeed if the child wants a cello tone. Moreover, you wrote "I think it's a mistake to have really small fractional size instruments played with normal tuning. Their short strings are heavy and hard to bow well. " (underscore is my work) and that is simply not up to date anymore, at least not starting 1/8th cellos.
  8. Yes, strings have improved a lot for fractional instruments. Older strings usually simply were fatter and shorter versions of budget 4/4 strings, of which the 4/4 versions were also really not that good. That attitude has really changed, as you can see from the fact that serious brands like Larsen, Jargar, D'addario and Thomastik now make smaller versions of their better string lines too. On cellos, I've no experience with anything smaller than 1/8th, for which I like Helicore and Larsen. Helicore works better on lesser quality cellos or cellos with a string response problem, on good ones, Larsen sounds a little more refined. Earlier and budget fractional strings like pirastro piranito or red label or D'addario preludes are not ok below 1/2 cello size, in my opinion, and give you that bad playing experience which you heard of. My son started off with double bass when he was six. He had a 1/10 plywood double bass which sounded terribly. It came with no name strings, so I ordered D'addario Helicore strings for it. With those strings, it actually sounded like a double bass, and the strings responded. The e string (lowest) was a little too thick for the small hands, but the other ones worked well and helped my son make a good start on the instrument.
  9. With that notion, you are living about 10 years or more in the past. I really suggest you try out a well set up 1/8th cello with helicore strings. Easy to play. Ofcourse, nowhere near as loud as a bigger cello, but a good sound and an unproblematic string response.
  10. As a cello teacher, I have a lot of experience starting 1/8th size instruments. Helicore strings and Larsen strings sound quite good for this size. For all instruments, so also such small instruments, it is very important that they are well made (no tank like stucture!) and that the setup is very good. Badly fitting sound posts or bridge feet will have a very negative effect on the performance of the small cello. Much of the bad reputation of small instruments comes from the fact that people don't bother doing these things right cause the instrumenta are "just for kids" anyway. You could consider doing a violoncello da spalla kind if thing. a nice performance example. Gut strings for such an instrument are made by Aquila strings. Have fun and good luck!
  11. Very interesting cello! Often, cellos with suh huge sound holes are what remains of an originally larger instrument. Here I don't see traces of a possibly different former outline; do you see any in person? How does it play? And, are you the Rob that posted on ICS a few months ago?
  12. I do feel that weight is an important factor psychologically. Even if I know it is not really true, I always find playing heavier instruments harder than playing lighter instruments. In the past, I've tried to free myself of this feeling, and I have a relatively heavy Instrument as my main cello. I've decided now, that I will likely never succeed in getting past this subconscious bias, and that it is better for me as a player to just give in rather than to try be objective about it. I'm going to sell my cello when I get the chance.
  13. It will most definitely make a huge difference if you get your cello adjusted properly, if you have not done such a thing for years. Find a lutier that also services professional players instruments; then you'll know the lutier will have a certain standard. Explain what you preferred in the playability of cellos you tried out (string clearance!) It depends on the playing level, but sometimes, for amateurs, best level instruments are not the best choice. Very good instruments often also require a good command of the instrument to make them sound good. Some amateurs are served well with something a pro would not like. However, if you would like to get an instrument that helps you improve, and have the time to practise, you should ask help of a pro (someone who understands what it takes to get where you want to go) in the selection of the instrument, and not do it all alone by yourself. If you are indeed in east asia, then I think it is true that old European instruments are likely expensive and not the best choice for you. But for 12.000~15.000 you should be able to get a fabulously playing new east asian cello. Compared to similar new cellos from the west, such instruments sometimes have unbeatable price/quality ratio, if you know where to look.
  14. You really need to take better pictures. I agree with what was said: They both look like a better type of student quality instruments from germany, which I'd expect to have to pay 4000~8000 Euros for, if they were in good condition. The second cello however has an enormous bass bar crack, which is not that big a deal if it is well repaired, but this was done by someone who clearly didn't know how to do that well, or at least had no clue how to do a varnish touchup. The first cello looks in better condition, unless it is a repaired sound post crack I see on the back. Such a crack would dramatically reduce the value of the instrument, irrespective of the quality of work. I really don't understand where you manage to find so many cellos sold at way too high a price. It is truely quite an accomplishment.
  15. I was wondering about the through neck construction here. I'm by no means experienced, but have seen one or another through neck. None of those had such an enormous "block", with such a large glueing surface to the back, and none were rounded in this fashion. Maybe I've seen too many cheap versions of this type. Is the construction in this violin typical, or are we maybe looking at a somehow modified/repaired through neck construction?
  16. How much does the collector want for these cellos? The pictures are blurry, so there is nothing definitive about what I'm writing here. To me, all they look relatively new. The fingerboards look strikingly similar at the bridge end and unused and of the same type of almost-but-just-not-black ebony (or ebony-like wood), the nuts look similar, the finishing of the protruding end of the pegs (which all look brand new and of a cheaper type) looks similar and not very stylish, none of them seem to have any wear... I wouldn't be surprised if they all came from Romania and were made within the last 25 years or so. I would not attach any value to the labels. If the price is appropriate, I don't see why one wouldn't buy these (provided there is no damage through badly set sound posts or so), but if you want something that is professional (without better pictures and without having played them, so with some reserve) I would say you should be looking elsewhere.
  17. Yes, Dominant. Possibly the a string was replaced with a Jargar as the blue looks a bit too bright, but that may also just be the quality of the picture. The ball will answer that question: if it is rather big and has a hole, it is also a dominant, if it is smaller without a hole, it is a jargar string.
  18. Well, if it is like that, I'd also think there shouldn't be much effect on the sound. However, if I look at the contact points of the neck of the Engleder, I see that the chalk is gone only at the fingerboard/top end of the heel, indicating that the neck sort of sits on that side, without contact over the whole neck heel surface. I would expect that to have some sort of effect on vibrations, but maybe I'm wrong. The whole idea behind it, I think, is that the neck remains adjustable without any other modification but a turn of the screw. In that case whole neck heel contact cannot be present.
  19. The Schweizer cello is a very beautiful instrument! I just can't stop wondering if that neck mechanism doesn't (negatively) influence the sound and playability. does it?
  20. I'm just thinking out loud. Someone mentioned expecting to be using laminated fingerboards. Baroque fingerboards are a wedge shaped core of spruce or similar, that already has the curved surface, onto which a flat piece of ebony veneer is clamped. That is of course a labour intensive way of making a fingerboard. But shouldn't it be possible to simply glue a flat piece of ebony onto a flat piece of hardwood (maple or so), and then use that as a fingerboard in the same way une uses a modern ebony fingerboard, until in time, the ebony is planed off and the fingerboard needs replacement? One could use a much thinner strip of ebony thus reducing the amount of ebony wasted. The whole fingerboard should be similar in weight to a full ebony board. And I think it should actually have advantages regarding the strength/stiffness compared to a full ebony board, shouldn't it? So my question is actually: why is noone doing that? edit note: I'm thinking of cellos and basses especially. There are big chunks of ebony discarded when the fingerboard needs replacement, because the fingerboard needs replacement only in order to prevent the neck deforming. I feel that is such a waste.
  21. Such holes are there for helping with the wire wrapping. The end of the wire is led into the hole and secured with a smal wooden dowel, after which one can proceed wrapping the bow. I've never seen it on both ends, only on the tip end side, but I'm pretty sure that here both were drilled by the maker for this purpose. Edit note: I see now how far away the plugged tip end hole is from the frog, and I guess that sort of excludes my explanation, because it is too far away. The one under the thumb leather could be what I described.
  22. Strange, it appears in my post from here. I'll try posting the picture with a different method....
  23. So, the cello is being restored. I'm not posting any pics of the process or the name of the lutier doing the work without prior consent, however, I think I can post a picture of the neck construction. The nec had an overstand of about 5 MM or so, and of those 5MM, 2,5MM were due to a shim under the fingerboard. As the button had broken off and left quite a mess, it will be doubled and the neck will receive a neck block, and a "shoe" to fit as much of the original neck into the new top block, and result in an acceptable neck overstand. I asked the lutier to also document the old construction well. I find this picture very interesting. I couln't believe how thin the strip between the "neck block" and the neck is! In combination with the glueing to the ribs (the glueing surface to the ribs is so large, it seems to me that it has some resemblance to the practise of glueing a neck onto the ribs, and extra securing it with a nail, like the cremonese did), it seems to hve been enough nonetheless, as the construction didn't break, just the button did. A question for the experts: is such an incredibly thin strip, connecting the neck with the block normal? I had always imagined it at least three times as wide. How exactly did they produce this construction; what was the order of doing things? Was the neck glued onto the back first, and the ribs inserted after that, or inverse? Or was the rib cage and neck completed first and then transferred onto the unfinished back as a whole?
×
×
  • Create New...