Jump to content
Maestronet Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by baroquecello

  1. You are aiming for a cello with "a powerful tone"; in your opinion, how does the width of the bridge feet influence the tone of a cello? Thanks!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Are cello bows (this is a cello bow, right?) with violin style frogs common from Markneukirchen?
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. My question would be: is this the same in violins, violas, cellos and basses, or is this different for the larger instruments?
  9. 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.
  10. @Jim Bress I've never played a willow-backed cello: sound very interesting! I recently saw guitars with elm backs and ribs. Had never heard of elm used as a tone wood before.
  11. The cello version is so terribly expensive that I'm loathe to try them out...
  12. 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.
  13. I've played on a couple of succesful DeMunck Strad copies. Very rich in a tenor kind of way, with a big and clear bass, but not a fat bass. Not everyones cup of tea, true, but good anyway.
  14. That likely is a jargar string of lower tension (dolce). Should have a brass ball without hole.
  15. I've composed a little set of variations for beginners on twinkle twinkle little star. My pupils enjoy playing the piece a lot, I am happy with what they learn from it, and therefore decided to make it available online. There are several versions: solo cello, solo viola, solo violin, cello trio with optional double bass and viola trio with optional cello. I hope you will enjoy the piece and will consider playing it or using it as teaching material!
  16. @Wood Butcher the acoustic outcome of a repair this big is always a shot in the dark. If the work is done properly and the sound is not to my liking, this would of course not at all be the fault of the restorer. I would absolutely expect to pay full price for replacing such a bar with an ordinary one again without hard feelings.
  17. @Don Noon and @David Burgess thank you for the warning. I indeed understand that it is a matter of feeling lucky. And, if my lutier advises against it, I would not be stubborn; only if the lutier feels like trying out something new will I press on. The existing bass bar has to go for some arching correction, there is no way of saving it. The cello is rather light and had a prominent wolf note (it had a glued in wolf killer, only partly effective and not the best solution for the overall sound), so I think it could do with a sturdy bass bar. I do not believe in the gaps and would prefer a larger glueing surface to gaps, also because of the fact that the cello has lost arching before, I think sturdyness is important. But all of it is just a feeling. And as I said, I will not make my lutier do something that goes against his instincts, but rather go with his experience. In my experience, that usually gives the best result.
  18. @christian bayon Thank you for having been so informative so far on this innovation of yours. I'm having an old cello of mine repaired, and the top has sunken on the bass side and needs a bass bar replacement. I'm considering asking the lutier to change the style of bass bar to your triangular shaped bar, without the cutouts, as the sound has always been good on this cello, but string response was sluggish. Would you be willing to share your specifications (length, weight, thickness?) for a cello bass bar in this style? Thank you!
  19. Thank you for all your replies. Yes, ofcourse, a lack of standardisation. But in many cases, one can speak of a relative tendency (relative/contrasting to modern practise). for instance, bass bars. There existed bass bars as large as those nowadays, but there existed many shorter ones too, so the "average" bass bar would have been shorter. And graduation patterns: the average violin plate will have been thicker than the average modern state of old violins, as they can only have been made thinner in the centuries following their creation. Likely an averaged out instrument is something that never existed. It would be so interesting to know what combination of specs would have made an instrument that would have been considered successful. For instance, do a short bass bar and a thick top gradutation pattern go hand in hand? And if so, what way would they have made the bridge to work well with such a top? Do a short neck and a large cello pattern go hand in hand? etc. etc. @Mark CaudleOn a side note, I'm not convinced of the low bridge placement argument based on iconography, especially not starting the second half of the 17th century. I think the cause of placing the bridge too low is one of a mistake of perspective by the artists. I've read a very convincing article about this once explaining the phenomenon and showing more than enough 19th and 20th century examples of the very same mistake even by quite good painters. (Unfortunately I do not rememember where I read it.) I also do not believe that the f-hole nicks were ever intended as merely ornamental; if they were, they would have been celebrated more (and ofcourse one can find f holes where the nicks are "celebrated". But look at c holes, a whole different story and an earlier invention. No c hole nicks). I believe bridge placement invariably leaves permanent marks in the varnish, and I've yet to see a historical ful size instrument that shows marks of a (very) low bridge placement in the varnish. Do you know examples of that? Or do you possibly know of written sources? Regarding the domenico Galli cello, that certainly is interesting. It does look a small on the whole, is it full size? I can find a lot of images, but cannot seem to find a description.
  20. Bit of background: I've studied baroque cello at two concservatories in Germany (Bremen and Frankfurt) with prominent baroque players. I have quite some experience performing. I also have a keen interest in instruments, both historical and modern, and instrument making. So I'm not entirely new to the matter at hand. Recently I've come across a paper and a number or people that stated that the neck on most baroque cellos was shorter than the modern neck by quite a bit. This is something new to me. Ofcourse, the baroque neck was different, set at a different angle, with a wedged fingerboard that was shorter and often laminated etc etc etc. But I've never heard of the baroque neck being shorter than a modern one. It would make sense, I guess, on those large patter cellos, to have a shorter neck, so that the string length ends up almost like a modern standard length. I'm just really surprised I never heard of this before. Anyone care to comment with knowledge or opinion?
  21. Some people play with surgical tubing over the fron and leather, usually for obtaining a better grip. Maybe this was done with a similar idea in mind? Better contact between index finger and stick?
  22. That one should work, shouldn't it, @PhilipKT I just looked at the site and t really bothers me they couldn't be bothered to post pics. You don't know if these are nasty factory instruments from the 60ies with very thick ugly and irrepairable nitro varnish and plywood plates, or if there are some nice old saxon instruments amongst them.
  23. Has anything been changed lately? I'm thinking a different string brand, or maybe uninstalling fine tuners? I'd try a longer tail piece , or you can try out what happens when you install extra fine tuners.
  • Create New...