baroquecello

Nice cello! Is it small also, like the cello that inspired the thread? Addition: I find this thread highly interesting from the point of view of historical performance practice. Just in the last two days, on facebook, I'm having a discussion on the topic of Quantz recommendation with a (I believe) string maker and a well known cellist in that field, regarding Quantz' recommendation of the thickness of strings. Quantz writes that a cellist needs two cellos: a bigger one with thicker strings for orchestra, and a smaller one with thinner strings for solo playing. Our discussion is that it seems weird for a smaller cello at the same pitch as the larger cello to have thinner strings than the larger one. One would expect the inverse. In my opinion, if assumed correct, Quantz recommendation can be used for extrapolating what was thought of as an acceptable sound in baroque playing, and base on that a recommendation of a more exact string gauge than currently possible. Currently, you just experiment and then use what you like. Which is what you should do always, but if the starting point is different, more concrete, then one may discover new things. The diametre of the strings has a great impact on how the instrument sounds and reacts. Therefore it is interesting to know what the preference was in earlier times, so that one may make an educated guess as to how the music may have sounded an was played originally. From Quantz observation, it is clear that people in baroque were very aware of this and used it depending on the function of the instrument. The larger celli were not considered to be used for soli, and the smaller celli were considered inferior for orchestral work. Surely, these things were in constant flux, but if I look at the three different Viennese Celli that Jacob has presented here, if their sizes do give a certain almost standard for larger and smaller celli for Vienna in the first 40 years of the 18th century, then a little experimentation with string thickness on two of these celli would help go a long way in getting closer to something of an answer. One could find a maximum thickness for the larger celli and a minimum for the saller that gives a satisfactory result (and this is, ofcourse subjective, although I can think of one parametre (constant tone production of the same timbre, without squeeking and crackling) relatively absolute) It could at least make our guesses to what historical stringing might have looked like better "well-educated guesses" than before. So it would be interesting to see if one can find more celli from Vienna from that period, and if they corroborate the theory of two different, almost standard sizes. That alone, detached from the whole string gauge theme, would be interesting enough to know. In the end, it would just be a matter of statistcs; record measurements of every single viennese or possibly viennese Cello in original-ish condition one can find. And if it doesn't corroborate the two sizes, then that also is useful information. I'm starting to wonder if this (Sizes of Viennese Cellos Ca 1700-1750) might make for a good theme for a doctoral thesis. If only a day had 28 hours!

As a reaction to practically all post above: could the raised saddle be an indication for the violin to have had a metal "tail gut" instead of a (thick) gut tail gut? Probaby a hard to answer question.

What I'm wondering when seeing this raised saddle is when exactly such saddle came in fashion. I always thought they came in fashion because of the newer, more elegant way of constructing the tail gut connection, which has the tail piece wood protrude under the tail gut. I learned baroque instruments had saddles that were flush with the edge. Indeed my 1770 Mittenwald cello has such a small saddle. Any info on this? Could this saddle be a later addition to an earlier fiddle?

Dave, I admire both your varnishing and your woodwork. However, here, I feel there is a discrepancy between the crispness of the latter and the result of the antiquing of the former. I find it doesn't convince without some wear to the edgework, f holes etc etc. Of course, this is a matter of taste, but regarding newly made ones, I prefer crisp new instruments or antiquing that goes a little further than yours. For me as a buyer, this looks not so convincing. This is highly subjective of course, and in no way intended negatively!

What have you tried? Almost all parts in a cello influence the sound and response, but often it is not very predictable in what way it will do so. Mostly there are rules of the thumb what something mostly will do, but in reality these are almost as often denied as confirmed, so keep this in mind when reading the following. First: all loose parts need to fit well. The bridge feet, the sound post, the end pin bung. These are prerequisites for meaningful experimentation with the setup. Check the cello for "weird stuff" like a thin fingerboard (results in a weak neck and is often very detrimental to the sound), or an ill fitting nut or things like that, which should just be ok before experimentation. If you are experiencing "dead" resonance on certain notes, or lacklustre sound, what I'd advise you to try is a ConCarbo tail piece. They very often open up the sound, reduce wolfs tones and make string response easier. This is the thing that comes closest to a miracle solution in cello setup. While lutiers often see this as the first option, I regard it as the second option because on cellos (not violins) the impact is less extreme than the ConCarbo tail piece. The bridge model choice and sound post positioning. I'm assuming you know about french and belgian bridges, what they can do for your sound, and that there are many options in between. I'll leave other to comment on that. The third thing I'd experiment with is the end pin. There are cellos that are absolutely not sensitive to this, but on some cellos it can make a big difference. Carbon fibre end pins, while comfortable because of light weight, on many cellos result in a flat, uninteresting sound. Different materials and models all do different things, and one can only know what exactly by experimenting. For experimentation, one needs a bung that supports 10 MM end pins. If you like a soloistic sound and have the cash lying around, I would urge you to try the Mitsuke triple brilliante, which is a personal favorite. Only then I'd start trying different strings and string gauges. Good luck!

I would say the inverse. An instrument that gives you more feedback will immediately tell you how to improve the intonation, and is therefore easier. That this correlates with instruments that "do" something with vibrato supports this, in my opinion, because one of the things vibrato does is excite more resonances in the plate.

I am also a professional player and there really are instruments that are much easier to play in tune than most, not because of their setup, but because of how they sound. They are rare. I have the feeling that it has something to do with the "spectrum" of overtones they produce. The characteristic of reacting well on vibrato (there are instruments on which it sounds like a wobble and others on which it makes the sound rich) and being easier to play in tune I think are one and the same.

I can confirm there exists such a thing. I don't know what causes it. Such instruments sound nicer and are easy to tune as well.

@David Burgess would you venture to guess why a wooden post in the end worked better than the CF post? And was the improvement significant? A violinist colleage of mine, who is super sensitive to his violins' (perceived) reactions on weather changes, has one installed and changes tension regularly according to the weather. He is very satisfied with the results.

On cello, my feeling regarding the wittners is that when only turning small amounts, the string reacts delayed, and so often the string then changed pitch a little after you thought you had reached your goal. This seems to happen with well made string grooves that are properly lubricated with graphite also. I therefore try to do bigger, more sudden turns, which helps. However, I am no fan of them.

Other than weight, there is nothing from the pegs that influences the sound. And the weight is going to be so insignificant a factor that you can choose whichever peg you like the looks of. Most important thing is that the peg should fit perfectly. If it does, it will wear very slowly and will need no replacement for a lifetime at least. So the wood needs to be dry, in order for it not to change shape. Woods with a finer grain and higher hardness are more wear resistant and will turn a little more smoothly. Mechanical pegs do not negatively influence the sound.

I've made a couple of observations lately and am curious if you can confirm or negate them, and if the former, if there is significance in them. I'm talking of celli rather than violins. In new instruments, what I always see, but in varying degrees, is that the top f hole wings somewhat recede into the instrument due to the pressure of the strings on the top. In old instruments, I've seen some instances where this didn't happen at all. Instead, in old instruments often the top does show some buckling of the long arch in the centre, but this doesn't seem to force the f hole wings down, but rather the whole top. Another thing I have observed is that it seems that on newer instruments, the sound posts are often set with more tension than on old instruments. They seems to need that more, sound wise, and on the other han, maybe this also helps against the sagging of the upper wings. When releasing tension of the strings, in old instruments this mostly leads to a falling of the sound post if the instrument is moved a lttle, while in newer instruments, it usually takes a lot more to make the post fall. So I'm wondering: does the wood become stiffer and less flexible when it becomes older? I've heard that wood, in a way starts to petrify from the moment it is cut, as long as it doesn't rot. Does this mean that in older wood, the deformation that is cause by the string tension has a less local (between the f holes) and more spread out (over the whole top) effect? Does this explain why older instruments can sound well with a somewhat looser sound post than newer instruments? I generally feel that instruments that sound well will looser sound posts sound, and especially play (feeling under the bow, articulation) superior in general. This would explain some of the myth around old instruments. (it not being a myth) But my experience is limited.

Because of your name, I was assuming you live in Germany, where Kleinanzeigen is a Website for second hand trading. There was a cello advertised there not too long ago that this reminded me of. If I recall correctly, it was advertised as 18th centuy english, probably Banks, but was suspiciously cheap. I don't know about english making or this cello. The pictures aren't good enough to say anything useful. Is the purfling on the back painted on? It is going to cost a lot of time/money to get this back into playing condition....

Have I seen this Cello on Kleinanzeigen rather recently?

Well, of course, this still has a way to go, but it has comparatively short legs, so more wood in the upper half, and rather massive amount of wood on the kidney wings. So it has some characteristics that point in the direction. Some early British (Forster) bridges look rather similar, apart from the amount of wood on the kidney wings. There is a lot of overlap, I guess. They do form a clear departure from earlier models, and models like the Banks cello bridge.

Thank you gentlemen, this is interesting information! @fiddlecollector do you happen to know which catalogue that is? In my book, those three all register as french, because of the shape of the legs and the amount of wood in the upper half of the bridge. The heart is not that important, I think. @jacobsaunders I found this supposedly Joseph Stadlmann made Steg in their online catalogue. I wonder how they attributed it to Stadlmann, but I'd probably have to ask them personally. I'd guess the attribution was made by Jaura.

I've been wondering about the history of the french cello bridge model. The belgian model seems to stem from english bridges that were made at the end of the 18th century (google "Forster bridge" if curious), however, I cannot seem to find any info on where and when the french bridge model was developed. I seem to draw a blank before the 20th century, and have been wondering if its popularity in the 20th century has to do with the development of the steel string. Really any information would be great!

What is the length of the vibrating string? If it is around 69.5 Cm, from a cellists point of view, it is a small bodied 4/4 cello.

It doesn't look that weird. A little close to the bridge, but nothing ridiculous. Just leave it, you can experiment a bit with your lutier around when you are there next time, but I see no reason to change it now if you are happy.

The tail gut made of Kevlar (which is much more flexible and much less elastic), and the Wittner Ultra (which is much lighter) are likely playing the big roles in the positive difference you are experiencing compared to your previous setup. You could try messing with the TP positioning, but the differences usually will be smaller than those you've experienced by changing TP and the cord. Magnacore Arioso strings are a very nice set that work great on many cellos, particularly the lower two strings. If you ever have the cash lying around, you could try a ConCarbo tail piece, which I believe wll work better still than the Wittner. I like Wittners for their clean work and impeccable mechanism, but acoustically unfortunately it rarely is the best choice (although it isn't bad either).

I see that the real Wilibald Raab spelled his name with just one l, not two, like the fake one. I'm no expert at all, so take this with a grain of salt please. I think both real instruments in this thread are quite attractive instruments with nice wood choice and varnish that has stayed surprisingly new looking, showing the wood characteristics very well. The f-holes I find distinctive, with deep (exaggerated?) fluting of the lower wings. They are what I like least of these instruments, but, based on only two violins, I'm thinking they may be rather defining for this maker.

After lengths are hyped, in my opinion. They do change the sound a bit, but mostly under the ear and not in any way audible for the audience. Bringing the tail piece closer to the bridge however, can be a way of controlling the wolf tone. Unfortunately it will likely also dampen other, more desirable resonances. Most cellists decide to learn to live with a wolf and have the cello sound more open otherwise, just use a wolf killer when needed (the krentz modulator seems most popular at the moment). That said, if you are changing the tail piece, that alone may also be the cause for the reduction of the wolf tone. I've seen very good things happen when ConCarbo tailpieces were installed, both what sound and wolfiness is concerned. Personally I prefer a short tail cord on most celli. I feel it usually helps string response, particularly of the c string. But every cello is different, indeed every tail piece is different, so it is just a rule of the thumb for me. Akustikus tail pieces seem to work well with a somewhat longer tail cord, so go figure.

Plate deformation can be seasonal. If relative air humidity changes, so does the water content of the wood. In arched plates, this leads to a degree of deformation. I wouldn't worry about pressing the plate into shape a little. Remember some even spring the bass bar! No negative side effects are to be expected, unless the deformation is excessive.

The pictures are not anywhere near good enough, but to me it looks like a rather new cello, antiqued and abused. The scroll in particular looks rather chinese to me.

Doing that alone, having this skill set will be very hard to say the least. You should get help from someone with experience. There are several options for amateur makers, like summer courses, and in Germany I've seen courses at Volkshochschulen. What is your location?